Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 July 20

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 19 July	21 July >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:17, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Teresa Kruze

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

Non-notable local news personality. Madg2011 (talk) 23:37, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Madg2011 (talk) 23:37, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Madg2011 (talk) 23:37, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Madg2011 (talk) 23:37, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 08:05, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Journalists are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist; the notability test for a journalist is evidence of distinctions, such as winning a top-level national journalism award and/or clearing WP:GNG on substantive reliable source coverage about her. But nothing like what's necessary is shown here, and this is written far more like an advertorialized résumé than an encyclopedia article — which is a type of article that even journalists who do clear our notability standards for journalists still don't get to keep. To be fair, she's got a decade-plus at TSN under her belt, so she isn't a purely local television personality — but even national television personalities still don't get exempted from having to have reliable source coverage. Bearcat (talk) 15:20, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on account of lack of sources supporting notability per WP:AUTHOR or WP:JOURNALIST, which posit the same criteria, really. -The Gnome (talk) 10:10, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:16, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arpan Khanna

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

Non-notable, unelected politician. Does not meet GNG or NPOLITICS. Madg2011 (talk) 23:35, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Madg2011 (talk) 23:35, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Madg2011 (talk) 23:35, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Arpan Khanna has a significant media coverage from major news media in Canada. Google News Search, which falls under the GNG guidelines. And Canadian federal elections are less than 100 days away and he is the candidate from high approval rating party. I think it should not be deleted until the election and can be considered for deletion after the elections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.234.88.105 (talk) 19:18, July 20, 2019 (UTC)

As per WP:POLOUTCOMES, "Candidates who are running or unsuccessfully ran for a national legislature or other national office are not viewed as having inherent notability." You need to win an election, not just run in one, to be considered notable; otherwise, you need to be externally notable for some other reason. Coverage saying "person X is running" is WP:ROUTINE and doesn't really pass the bar. Also, if he's not notable now, he's not notable now; there's no reason to wait for the election. Of course, if he wins, he should have an article. He just doesn't qualify for one as it stands now. Madg2011 (talk) 03:51, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being as yet unelected candidates in future elections — the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding office, not just running for it. And just having a couple of hits of "party chooses candidate" in the local media is not a free pass over GNG that exempts a candidate from having to win the seat first, either, because every candidate in every riding can always show a couple of hits of "party chooses candidate" in the local media. Rather, the only way he would already be eligible to have an article today is if he were demonstrable as having already been notable enough for an article for other reasons before he was selected as a candidate for anything — absent that he remains non-notable unless and until he wins. So no prejudice against recreation on or after election day if he wins the seat, but nothing here is a reason why he would already qualify to keep an article today. And no, our rule is not "keep candidates pending the election results and then delete the ones who lost", either — it's "wait until election day before starting articles only about the new MPs who won". Bearcat (talk) 15:29, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subkect fails WP:NPOLITICIAN. Let's gallantly invoke WP:TOOSOON. -The Gnome (talk) 10:11, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notalbe political candidate. Local media coverage exists for all candidates, but they are not all notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:33, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:15, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Species dysphoria

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

WP:NOT jrabbit05 (talk) 23:09, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. jrabbit05 (talk) 23:09, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The reasoning for this isn't quite clear (what part of WP:NOT is in favor of this article's deletion?) but I will comment that the article's over-reliance on the Field Guide to Otherkin source should be rectified if the article is kept. --Equivamp - talk 02:53, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:03, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion - I agree with Jrabbit05, this article is poorly resourced and that situation is unlikely to change in the near future. This article reads poorly, layout is haphazard and has multiple other issues to adequately describe in a couple paragraphs, IMHO it violates nearly every Wikipedia policy. - || RuleTheWiki || (talk) 12:08, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 23:32, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Equivamp, and have concerns about the hasty deletion of this article, given that it is a phenomenon experienced by apparently a significant number of people (to whom I have no relationship). Unfortunately I don't have time right now to comb through a number of essays and arguments in favor of keeping it so I will point out that it isn't that old of an article, and that if sources are lacking in actuality (as opposed to in the article) it could simply be that there needs to be more time for the phenomenon to generate research. In other words, per view two in WP:DEADLINE, "don't rush to delete articles," I would give this one more time and consider alternatives to deletion. Many people search Wikipedia looking for clues about what they're going through, and I was happier to see this included than I would to watch it be censored. It's a start. Let it have more time to grow. In the meantime it might help someone understand themselves better, and that seems a worthy cause indeed, regardless of whether it is meeting all the expectations of those proposing its deletion at the present time. In other words, I argue for compassion, whether that is official policy or not. --Squeeorama (talk) 05:08, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Squeeorama. Wikipedia explicitly denies "compassion" to unworthy texts. This is an encyclopaedia, operating by specific, foundational policies & guidelines, and not by feelings, no matter how worthy these might be. Editors are supposed to use their passion towards the work required by the project. Taka care. -The Gnome (talk) 10:19, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for being poorly sourced and being a phrase based apparently entirely on the writings of one or very few academics. I suppose some content could be crunched together and placed on furry or bestiality pages, as the source material is focused on those topics at large. OhioShmyo (talk) 01:26, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Largely based on unreliable, fringe sources. The classification of this as an actual condition is just pseudoscience and not recognized as a real, possibly genetic condition as gender dysphoria is. The otherkin article is sufficient to explain the phenomenon._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:54, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this text that was mainly created by a kamikaze account and remains mostly uncorrupted by scientific and supportive evidence. -The Gnome (talk) 10:19, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:14, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Umur Peten

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

Apparently non notable college sportsman. Only a single passing ref, and no other reliable sources found. Does not pass WP:BASKETBALL. Mccapra (talk) 22:14, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:14, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:14, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:14, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doesn’t meet WP:GNG as far as I can see. Rikster2 (talk) 13:06, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, The article does not show signs of notability. Alex-h (talk) 07:22, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails WP:HOOPS. -The Gnome (talk) 10:20, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 07:31, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ISPIRT

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

On its face, this is an A7, but another editor removed the tag. Bbb23 (talk) 22:32, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Might have been stub eligible if someone who spoke english wanted to fix it. Coffeeluvr613 (talk) 23:00, 5 July 2019 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:50, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- That aside about speaking English is uncalled for. Uncle G (talk) 01:45, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:53, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:53, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:53, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:53, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As the editor who removed the speedy I was aware versions of the article existed which had higher levels of content and references and WP:SPEEDY should not be used in anything but the most obvious of cases and with the history this was not obvious. I had backed out a previous attempt to improve this article as I was concerned I might not have been neutral and maybe something else in my head too ... I recall I'd come across this article due to a possible link/relationship from another article. I pulled back my previous effort and added a little to it. The references in the current incarnation pass WP:GNG and notability requirements and it can hardly be said to be a pure advertisement. Yes it can be re-written a lot better, yes the infobox can be expanded ... we have Wikipedeans who love to do that. I'm not sure a WP:BEFORE or other options rather than nominate for deletion were properly explored before this nomination. Coffeeluvr613 comment is interesting. There may have been an implication that someone (possibly me?) could rewrite to demonstrate notabilty and may have been due to existance of the earlier version (that is meant to be considered at AfD). Anyway to put a long story short I raised Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cheerio042/Archive suggesting Coffeeluvr613 for investigation as a sock puppet. If I am not mistake investigation was handled by article nominator which was perhaps unfortunate and a very much WP:AGF this was the case due to non-neutral involvement however I recognise Bbb23 gets through a lot of work and may not have clocked linkage until too late in the process. I'd suggestion people look at the article in its current state and not in its state at the point of AfD nomination. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:04, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I admit a WP:TROUTing for somehow failing to recognise Coffeeluvr613 had been blocked as evidenced on their user page (let alone probably the block log) and for some reason I had thought Bbb23 had not so and I apologise unreservedly. The Keep remains and the key point the current article is very different for the one nominated for deletion. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:37, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article has grown since it was nominated from this to this, with several decent references. The references are from archived material, which it harder to find using Google searches - there may be more. SilkTork (talk) 10:14, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The refs are organisation blurb and I can't find anything to support notability on the web. I opened most of the refs and I'm not supportive of the new refs. I'd have preferred this going via CSD. It is a relatively new "talking shop" which can disappear as quick as it appeared. Szzuk (talk) 16:20, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 'I'd have preferred it going by a CSD' .... My eyes are rolling at that statement because the article had opportunity of expansion. Opening (not reading) some of references seems somewhat insufficient. Once notable always notable so if is disappears it isn't an issue. India stack is acknowledging iSPIRT on its about page [1] and secondary sources acknowledge the link. I am fascinated the Aadhaar currently does not link to India Stack; and that India Stack does not currently link to ISPIRT, as there are sources to enable this. Yes there may be bits of likely puffery by India Stack and iSPIRT about there importance but that is not a reason to not have an article. I have by the way looked at a India Stack/iSpirt merge and while there is commonality there is also significant differences and unrelated scope which is a very good reason to keep them separate.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:26, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sympathy with the nom but per WP:HEY and Djm-leighpark, this has been improved. A basic google search gives more WP:GNG from good RS; for example, WP:SIGCOV in The Economic Times, and good coverage in Forbes India, and Quartz India, and The Hindu. It appears in many other tech-sites and indic-sites (I can't tell whether they are all RS and what grade), but, notwithstanding the agreed need for further work, it seems to at least meet a technical pass of GNG, and it is being reported on by solid RS. Britishfinance (talk) 11:16, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 20:59, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 21:11, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Besides the sources Britishfinance has mentioned (all valid, reliable and WP:SIGCOV), there is also The Ken [2], Business Standard [3], Scroll.in [4], Computerworld (a commentary even on whether it would succeed or not) [5]. Meets WP:NCORP easily. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:02, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here are two sources in the article (among others) that provide significant coverage of ISPIRIT:
1. Bahl, Manish. Forrester Analysts (ed.). "iSPIRT: Why India's new software think tank will struggle". ComputerworldUK. Archived from the original on 11 May 2019. Retrieved 11 May 2019.
2. Peermohamed, Alnoor (3 June 2017). "iSPIRT sees dissent rising after Sharad Sharma's lax treatment". Business Standard. Archived from the original on 10 February 2019. Retrieved 7 July 2019.
Djm-leighpark has significantly improved the article, as noted by SilkTork. Britishfinance and Jovanmilic97 have pointed out other sources.
The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
Cunard (talk) 04:46, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:13, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Pinizzotto

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

Subject does not meet WP:NHOCKEY. Only 90 games played in DEL which would have been enough to pass #2 if he was a goaltender, but as a forward 200 is required and he's thus 110 games short. No preeminent honours of note to pass #3 and #4 as well. Tay87 (talk) 20:47, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 20:47, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 20:47, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 20:47, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 20:47, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 20:48, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since subject fails WP:NHOCKEY per nominator's well stated reasoning. -The Gnome (talk) 10:23, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As the nominator states, he is short of the requirements for WP:NHOCKEY. AmericanAir88^(talk) 13:41, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:13, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha Cerio

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

This is the gymnast who made news for dislocating both of her knees simultaneously. She was not notable before her tragic injury and I think this is a clear case of WP:BLP1E, especially given she is trying to distance herself from having gone viral (NY Post, but still): [6] SportingFlyer T·C 20:48, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 21:02, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 21:02, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:19, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:19, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - while well-written and sourced, SportingFlyer is correct that she is only known for her injury, which would fall under WP:BLP1E, and she doesn't meet WP:NCOLLATH.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:49, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - BLP1E seems to apply. GirthSummit _(blether) 22:51, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, just a very unfortunate WP:BLP1E at the moment. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 23:14, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above, Unfortunately coverage is only for her injury WP:BLP1E. Nikoo.Amini (talk) 14:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - She is only known for her injury. Not pass WP:NCOLLATH. - MA Javadi (talk) 20:18, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination since subject fails WP:GNG. One pass at notoriety does not suffice. -The Gnome (talk) 10:24, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is this player just about meets GNG. The delete arguments do not sufficiently explain why the sources provided don't meet GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:09, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Callum McCowatt

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY and doesn't met WP:GNG. Case of to soon, as while signed a professional contract, they haven't played a professional game. Can go to sandbox in hope he gets a game later this year. NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 19:34, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. FitIndia ^Talk 19:40, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. FitIndia ^Talk 19:40, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I think there is enough sourcing out there to meet WP:GNG like [7], [8], and lots of coverage in Stuff.co.nz [9] [10] [11] [12]. Also, this isn't the reason for my vote, but I think he might meet NFOOTY based on 7 international cup games [13]. – Levivich 21:31, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All the news articles are basically the same thing because he had a good year playing in NZ national league which doesn't met WP:NFOOTY itself and about him signing for the professional team. It's not really a history of WP:GNG but all pretty recent about those events. Also as mentioned, those cap games are youth internationals, which don't met WP:NFOOTY either. NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 22:53, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm misreading it but Soccerway says he started for Auckland City FC in the 2017 FIFA Club World Cup [14], in a 6 Dec 2017 play-off game against Al Jazira FC [15], and had six games in the 2018 OFC Champions League [16], such as this start in the quarter-finals and this start in the semi-finals. These are youth games? They don't count for WP:NFOOTY#1? – Levivich 03:43, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry thought you were talking about his Youth World Cup games. Yes those games would count if played between two professional clubs but Auckland City isn't a professional club so those appearances don't count as a professional appearance. NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 04:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Isn’t that NFOOTY 2 that requires fully-pro leagues/teams, not NFOOTY 1? I thought OFC and FIFA Club World Cup count as "competitive senior international match at confederation level". – Levivich 13:20, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't think so, that's talking about international teams, club teams can't have their 1 FIFA matches. Club World Cup for most teams would be fine because the teams are professional, just auckland Coty isn't. OFC Championship isn't because all the teams that play it are amateur teams. NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 18:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete youth international games do not count towards football notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:04, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 22:27, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:10, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - and SALT, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:12, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sorry, missed the sources found by Levivich (particularly the NZ Herald piece) - meets GNG. Giant Snowman 08:13, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:51, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes GNG, and probably will pass the (less important) NFOOTY yardstick as well soon enough (NFOOTY seems to exclude top prospects, as well as the more notable players in the semi-pros (particularly in countries where the top league is semi-pro) - despite often meeting GNG - while including every last player in barely professional leagues (which do not meet GNG)) - in this case this individual has quite a bit of coverage (being seen as a rising star, credited for significant contributions in his team winning the championship - NZ Herald) and is now signed by a FPL-team (season starts in October). Icewhiz (talk) 07:16, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 20:42, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep very clearly meets GNG with references provided above. I didn't bother voting as it was approaching WP:SNOW already with the weight of the arguments. I'm not sure why ~~User:Icewhiz~~ User:Just Chilling didn't close this based on the overwhelming weight of the arguments from what I can see. ~~Icewhiz~~ Just Chilling, is there something in the delete argument that I"m failing to see - User:Johnpacklambert didn't address the GNG claims at all, and User:Simione001 doesn't explain why any of these references that most accept as GNG aren't good enough. Nfitz (talk) 02:58, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This was at 3 Delete vs 3 Keep when I !voted.... So a snow close would'vw been quite iffy. I don't see grounds for deletion as GNG trumps any SNG.Icewhiz (talk) 04:00, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Closure is based on weight of arguments, not "votes" - though that was at 4-2 at the relist. But hang on - sorry! I erroneously tagged Icewhiz! It was User:Just Chilling who relisted it, and who I'd meant to tag! Fixed! Nfitz (talk) 16:05, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep the sourcing's not fantastic, but there's enough and he's now playing for a professional team. SportingFlyer T·C 14:57, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete It could include more sources, but it may fail WP:NFOOTBALL and it passes WP:GNG. Sheldybett (talk) 12:46, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, per above I believe the article has some references and should not be deleted. Alex-h (talk) 16:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. "Tragic but not notable" (comment from PamD) is not a valid deletion rationale (per WP:NOTNOTABLE). A clear consensus here that the subject meets multiple guidelines like WP:GNG and WP:NEVENT. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:27, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Suzan Der Kirkour

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

Basically per WP:NOTNEWS. I hate to say it but murders, even horrific ones, are at this stage of the Syrian civil war tragically routine. The article also has a pretty clear WP:NPOV problem (calling the murder a "typical Islamist Hate Crime" and part of a "genocide"). The section "Similar cases of hate crimes suppressed by authorities and media" lists a bunch of conspiracy theories that have nothing to do with the murder of Suzan Der Kirkour and should be removed (I left it there for the purpose of this AfD). Pichpich (talk) 20:09, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 21:06, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 21:06, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTNEWS aside, this is a WP:COATRACK article with unsalvageable NPOV issues. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 21:09, 20 July 2019 (UTC) Striking !vote, as the POV/COATRACK issues have been addressed. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 18:03, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:34, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Tragic but not notable. PamD 08:36, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While many deaths in the Syrian civil war are not notable, this particular one clearly passes WP:NCRIME and WP:NEVENT. Ongoing international in-depth coverage - 21 July, 20 July, 18 July, 18 July - WP:RAPID applies here given international coverage of event. Seems the whole Christian aid angle, as well as the gruesome nature of the death, has generated quite a bit of attention. The article had a few NPOV and SYNTH issues - however Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup and these can be easily rectified (In a quick pass - I think I rectified most of them - combined diff). Icewhiz (talk) 08:37, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Coverage and WP:GNG. Great sourcing.BabbaQ (talk) 08:48, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it has generated sufficient attention.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:19, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:19, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What happened to her is a sad story but this has attracted enough attention for WP:NEVENT and WP:GNG. Nikoo.Amini (talk) 14:20, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:40, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kamma Nayakas

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

Other than being content-free, this article is a POV fork of Kamma (caste). Kautilya3 (talk) 18:26, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Kautilya3 (talk) 18:26, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Kautilya3 (talk) 18:26, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kautilya3 (talk) 18:26, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Recently created WP:REDUNDANTFORK of Kamma (caste) - everything in the current 3 sentence article is in the caste article (and then some). Icewhiz (talk) 08:01, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree that this is an unnecessary fork, no wikireason to have an article separate from Kamma (caste) that is definitely not WP:TOOBIG to require splitting. (if Nayak was peculiar to the Kamma then, an argument could be put forward for a standalone article, but again, a section would be all that is required, but it isn't, so no.)Coolabahapple (talk) 05:00, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 18:23, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond the Sky and Earth

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

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

Poorly sourced article about a book whose only substantive notability claim is winning a minor award from a smalltown literary festival that is not a notability clincher in and of itself, and an equally poorly sourced article about its author, which itself makes no notability claim besides the existence of this book. As always, every award that exists on earth is not always an automatic notability freebie -- notability because awards attaches to major national awards that get regular press coverage, on the level of the Governor-General's Awards or the Pulitzer or Booker Prizes, and not just to every small-fry award that exists. But of the 13 footnotes in the book article, six are metareferencing the book to itself, which do not constitute support for its notability; three are needless reduplication of a single review in a travel guide; two are needless reduplication of a single review on a non-notable and unreliable blog; and one is a piece of "local woman does stuff" in her own hometown newspaper -- and the only source in her BLP is a glancing namecheck of her existence at the end of a blurb about somebody else in a listicle. None of this is enough sourcing to get either the book or the author over WP:GNG, but the "Banff Mountain Book Festival" is not an "inherently" notable award that would exempt them from having to have much better sourcing than this just because the word "award" is involved. Bearcat (talk) 17:49, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BEFORE failure. 1st book was published in 1999 and widely reviewed. Have added some of the reviews to the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:31, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:49, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:49, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:49, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~possibly MERGE Earth and Sky to authorJamie Zeppa.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:03, 14 July 2019 (UTC)~~[reply]
Keep Jamie Zeppa because her "other" book was reviewed and Earth and Sky has had some ongoing attention. More soruces for her bio and for both books exist, enough, certainly, to keep a page on this writer.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:37, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both articles, keep author and keep the book, Beyond the Sky and Earth, too. It made quite a splash: feature articles, reviews. Here is the review in the New York times: [17]. Other reviews ran in the Chicago Tribune, Globe and Mail. That said, the article it sub-standard, amateurishly written, badly sourced. Nevertheless, both book and writer are notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:36, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the book. This is my first interaction with AfD, so I don't eif I'm doing this wrong. I edit Bhutanese articles, and I found this AfD from there. It's pretty clear that the book is notable. It has a review in Publisher's Weekly and as pointed out above, in the NYT. It satisfies the first criteria of WP:NBOOK. I'm not familiar with notability criteria for people to say anything about the author. TryKid (talk) 19:47, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The notability criteria for people are documented at Wikipedia:Notability (people). Geolodus (talk) 08:03, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 18:17, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both articles. Both her books easily meet WP:NBOOK with multiple detailed independent reviews in credible publications. This makes the case for "sustained critical attention" under WP:AUTHOR so we should keep the author article as well. Those articles sure could use some work, though. Haukur (talk) 11:15, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Both articles are woefully bad.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:51, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:NBOOK, adequate review by Adam Goodheart in The New York Times, and the other ones in CT, and Globe mentioned by E.M.Gregory are enough, add to these Kirkus - "An uneven account with many perceptive, lyrical passages.", PW - "Zeppa's story is nearly an inversion of the ancient Buddhist tale of Siddhartha ... a lively tale of her earnest efforts to reconcile what she has learned with what she has known.", Booklist - "Zeppa's description of the terrain is breathtaking; her description of adaptation, growth, and transformation is both comforting and inspirational.", and Library Journal - "Her story reads like a good novel; even her youthful naivete has charm. .. Highly recommended." (yes, trade reviews are ok for notability, and no, they do not "review everything" (remark regularly/incorrectly seen at afd)), and this book is wikinotable (and as is stated in afds ad naseum ("often by you, coola") a badly written article does not make a subject non-notable). Coolabahapple (talk) 07:34, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, cheeky of nominator in their opening statement to insert the seemingly innocuous word "national" to "major awards", some may think this is a WP:NBOOK requirement, its not, no. 2 states "The book has won a major literary award.", no mention of "national". Coolabahapple (talk) 07:48, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:40, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zefania Kiganda

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

Subject's two claims of notability are 1) an unsourced claim of 'closeness' to Bugandan royalty, and 2) an unsourced claim that he donated a portion of the land used for a secondary school. These are insufficient for notability per WP:BIO even if they were sourced. Paisarepa (talk) 17:58, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:31, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:31, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:31, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 18:11, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Despite the article's length, it's not clear what this person is notable for. I'm not even sure the person is real. The only link is broken, and googling the name returns mirrors of this page. Wug·a·po·des 20:14, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Those others mentioned in the article may be notable but no notability is shown for the real subject Alex-h (talk) 16:17, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Epic Pictures Group#Selected filmography. Sandstein 07:33, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brothers of War

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

Lots of See also's and one mention in Epic Pictures Group. I can't think of an appropriate redirect. Leschnei (talk) 17:37, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:08, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the film would merit a redirect, but more readers are likely to be helped by this dab page with its "See also"s, so just let it be. If the film had its own article, some of these could be included in a hatnote, but a {{redirect}} hatnote wouldn't be appropriate on the article about the film company, so this solution seems best. WP:IAR if need be. PamD 09:57, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article disambiguates only one entry, and it is an entry that does not exist. This page (can't call it an article because disambiguation pages are not articles) should be deleted so that if the movie is notable, an article could be written about the movie using this title. If that were the case, some of the entries in the "See also" section could be added as hatnotes with a {{Distinguish}} template. Banana Republic (talk) 13:26, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to one blue link in main section. None of the see alsos are sufficiently ambiguous. Boleyn (talk) 19:43, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 18:11, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Epic Pictures Group#Selected filmography per above. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 21:13, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:12, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

InteracTV

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

As far as I can tell, the only use is 'Telemedia InteracTV'. Leschnei (talk) 17:58, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 18:43, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 18:43, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Both entries on this disambiguation page are invalid, so the page does not assist navigation. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:32, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Shhhnotsoloud. This is a DAB page with two entries, both of which should be removed, leaving no need for a DBA page. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 20:44, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:34, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Newa Autonomous State

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

Notability is not temporary. One event can have an event article if it's widely covered, but to have an entity article is completely misleading. The debate over autonomy and provinces in Nepal is already over. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 15:43, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 15:43, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ‘Notability is not temporary’ does not mean that temporary, or even non-existent things cannot be notable. If there was a proposed Newa Autonomous State that attracted a significant amount of discussion and coverage then it may be notable. Mccapra (talk) 17:20, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:21, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:21, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article doesn't qualify to be in Wikipedia. Ozar77 16:09, 18 July 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozar77 (talk • contribs)

Keep I don't see a rationale for deletion. Coverage such as [18] and [19] seems sufficient. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:50, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My rationale for nom was that the article is about the declared Newa state that was covered by news on the day of the declaration but nobody cared when it was tomorrow. There may be a case for a conceptual proposed state with a more sustained coverage under the same title, although it would require almost a complete overhaul of content. That is, in practice, it would still have to be a deletion, with only the title retained. As an article from a sock-farm dedicated to disruptive POV pushing, I deemed it prudent to ask the opinion of the community. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 21:38, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 17:18, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per Nom. - MA Javadi (talk) 17:10, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on what I can find in English sources which suggest that the call for this state was a brief flash in the pan in 2009. I see nothing suggesting an ongoing political movement or even sustained discussion about a proposed state. If I’ve missed this somewhere, or if there are sources in Nepali, please ping me and I’ll consider changing my !vote. Mccapra (talk) 03:50, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At least one major party proposed dividing Nepal into provinces based on ethnicity. There were about 2 dozens such ethnic divisions suggested at one time. One of those was an autonomous state for the Newar people, but a declared ethnic state by a definitive name, flag, territory, etc. would be one symbolic action by a protest one day in 2009, that was forgotten soon after. It was soon realised ethnic states would be impossible and the conversation on that ceased altogether. My memory tells me that some other ethnicities had built a strong movement that continued for years, before and after, but that wasn't the case in case of Newar people. And the sources seem to support that (I've looked). And, so, now I'm not even sure something like "Demand for an autonomous state for Newar people" deserves a stand-alone article. This one is a definite no for me, in any case. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 07:53, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:04, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Saros Cowasjee

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

WP:BLP of a writer, not properly sourced as clearing WP:AUTHOR. The only notability claim being made here is that he and his books exist, with no evidence of awards or distinctions that would clinch him as "inherently" notable -- but the sourcing isn't getting him over GNG, as one of the "references" is just a clarifying geographical note rather than an actual source; one is a (deadlinked) primary source profile on the website of his own (former?) employer, not notability-supporting media coverage; and the third is just a glancing namecheck of his existence as a giver of soundbite on one page of a book. This is not enough sourcing to get him over the sourceability-based inclusion bar, but nothing stated in the article body is significant enough to get him over the achievement-based inclusion bar either. Bearcat (talk) 15:43, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:43, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:43, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:43, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Improper citations used and not enough citations exist. If this person was a notable writer, there should be more info about him online. Does not meet WP:AUTHOR Peter303x (talk) 21:22, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources that I have cited in the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:36, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have spent much of this morning finding sources for this, and have to stop now and get back to real life. One source that I haven't had time to use yet is this encyclopedia entry. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:59, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have now cited that source. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:38, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:38, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It should have been expected from the nominated form of the article that he would pass WP:AUTHOR: it claimed him as the author of over 20 books, from a time when this almost always meant traditionally-published books rather than self-published ones. Publication alone is not sufficient for notability; we also need attention to those publications in the form of reliable reviews. However, the nominator should have made an effort to look for those reviews (per WP:BEFORE) rather than basing the nomination statement purely on what was present in the article. Phil Bridger has made that effort instead, and the article now clearly reflects the subject's notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:08, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. XOR'easter (talk) 21:21, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ditto. Bondegezou (talk) 08:51, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per David Epstein. User:Bearcat habit of nominating articles that lack sourcing, without running WP:BEFORE searches on highly plausible subjects, like this writer, is verging on WP:DISRUPT.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:00, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to quote WP:ATTP here: As well, be very careful about flinging around accusations of a nominator's or commenter's perceived failure to follow WP:BEFORE. Not everybody has access to the same research tools, so the fact that you were able to access a database that provided more coverage than somebody else found in other databases is not, in and of itself, proof that the other editor was negligent in their duties. If you can salvage the article, then just salvage it and don't attack other editors for not finding what you found.
Literally 90 per cent of all the work I do on Wikipedia at all is locating archival sources to repair and upgrade the referencing of inadequately sourced older articles, but just like everybody else I can only research in resources that I have access to: I can't dig into databases I don't have and/or can't get accounts with, or print-only books I don't have copies of, and on and so forth: I can only BEFORE in resources that I can access. So if you were able to find better sources than I was able to find, then bravo to you — but don't you fucking dare attack my basic competence as an editor. I do not have a "habit" of nominating articles without running BEFORE searches; I have a longstanding and conscientious practice of running BEFORE searches in the resources that are available to me, and then deciding the next step on the balance of what I was or wasn't able to find once I've run out of resources that are available to me. In actual point of fact, in the recent AFDs where you and I have both commented (e.g. Michael Barnes) you've agreed with my evaluation of the sources far more often than not. Bearcat (talk) 16:14, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly all of the sources that I added are freely available to anyone with Internet access, and I found all of them by simply following the search links spoon-fed by the nomination process. Only two or three required me to log in to my university library account to access the full text. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:37, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yet far more than three of them are to sources that can't be read at all without purchasing access from JSTOR. Which is not to deprecate their validity as sources, of course, but certainly vitiates the argument that my inability to afford the cost of finding or reading them somehow constitutes evidence of my negligence. That was my point all along: if you can get into JSTOR to find journal articles that support the notability of a writer much better than anything that turned up in ProQuest's Canadian Newsstand database did, then by all means, get into JSTOR and fill your boots, but you don't get to criticize me for not having equivalent access to JSTOR. Bearcat (talk) 17:44, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Only two of the sources link to JSTOR, and in one of those cases you can see that it is a review of one of Cowasjee's books from the publicly displayed title. Please stop digging rather than embarrass yourself further by making obvious incorrect claims, and learn that the first places to look for sources are in books and academic papers, rather than in primary sources such as the news articles indexed by ProQuest. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:16, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I apologize if I misspoke by lumping all six under JSTOR alone, but six of them, not two, link to either JSTOR or JSTOR-equivalent databases that require the reader to pay at least $25 to actually read the full source. But as always, there is a big difference between sources that actually support notability and sources that just glancingly namecheck the subject's existence in the process of being fundamentally about something or someone else — so the mere fact that a source comes up as a hit on a person's name in a search is not automatically evidence of notability in and of itself, if I can't verify how much it does or doesn't actually say about him. If you can, great, but it doesn't make me negligent if I don't have the same level of access to a paid-access resource.

Secondly, journalistic reportage most certainly is a useful place to search for notability-assisting coverage of people — news coverage is not bad or invalid primary sourcing, but is a perfectly legitimate and entirely valid type of secondary sourcing that Wikipedia considers to be among the best sources we can use for many topics. Newspapers have book review sections; newspapers report the shortlists and winners of major literary awards as news; newspapers do feature profiles of writers and analysis of literary trends and on and so forth. Journalism may not always be the whole story in the case of a person whose notability derives primarily from specialist academic writing, but it is a perfectly useful and valid and notability-supporting place to search for a person who writes general market literature such as novels or short stories that could be expected to have potentially been reviewed by literary critics in the likes of The Globe and Mail or The New York Times.

Thirdly, I don't make incorrect claims.

Again, you found other sources. That's great, and it changes things. But your ability to find other sources does not make me an incompetent or negligent or irresponsible editor who deserves to be criticized or reprimanded: ad hominem attacks to the person are not appropriate behaviour on Wikipedia. Bearcat (talk) 21:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, one does not need subscription-level access to JSTOR to search it and to determine which of the search results are substantial independently-published book reviews of the subject's work. All it takes is a certain lack of laziness. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:58, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Never using a source until I've actually been able to read the whole thing is literally the opposite of laziness — it is in fact the very definition of conscientious and responsible editing. Resting on a source just because of its headline, while not actually reading the whole thing first, is what lazy editors do. Just stop the damn personal attacks already, and keep this discussion on the article where it belongs. Bearcat (talk) 22:33, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as WP:AUTHOR; his top book is held by 800 libraries; this is indicative of a widely read author. Plenty of reviews are available, i.e.: A Raj Quartet. Cuthbertson, Guy. English Literature in Transition, 1880-1920, Jan 01, 2006; Vol. 49, No. 1, p. 76-79. Reviews the book "A Raj Collection," edited by Saros Cowasjee. And more. K.e.coffman (talk) 14:41, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ‑Scottywong | speak _ 17:50, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Allison Raskin

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

No reliable sources with depth-of-coverage; most sources are primary, or are trivial mentions. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:01, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:34, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:34, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:34, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:34, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:34, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:35, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Being on New York Times Best Seller would make her notable per WP:AUTHOR Peter303x (talk) 21:17, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I agree with Peter303x. Barca (talk) 13:15, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep (the weakest possible keep, in fact) and significantly improve - As the author of a top ten New York Times bestseller reviewed by Kirkus, School Library Journal, Publisher's Weekly, Her Campus etc., she seems to meet the bare minimum standards of inherent notability under WP:AUTHOR (i.e. "won critical attention"). That said, this is only discernible through non-article sources. Appropriate sources affirming this (e.g. [20], [21]), should be added. Also, I don't believe keeping this article precludes removal of all the unsourced or inappropriately sourced material, of which there is a lot. Realistically, this article shouldn't be more than a stub based on current source availability. Chetsford (talk) 06:51, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a child of privilege who gets feature coverage Seattle Times, this week: Make your 20s a decade of friendship, say ‘Just Between Us’ hosts Gaby Dunn, Allison Raskin .E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:42, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:51, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Holocaust Unique?

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

The article fails to meet WP:BKCRIT. The book is briefly mentioned in a NEW YORK TIMES article since the author is the one being interviewed, but he never quotes the book. He's just being credited for writing the/a book once the interview is concluded. JudeccaXIII (talk) 14:39, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:37, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*delete non-notable collection of essays put together by a non-notable author. Page creator has been blocked.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:54, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, 1st i had a look at WorldCat and see that this book is held in around 1400 libraries with multiple editions (don't know why so many libraries have it if not notable - maybe just popular?:)), then googling the name and "book reviews" there appears to be multiple reviews ie. German Politics and Society - here, History: Review of New Books - here, Shofar: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Jewish Studies - here, The European Legacy - here, Museum Fellowship Book Reviews - here, Choice: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries - here, Studies in Contemporary Jewry - here, so to me this is a keep as meeting WP:NBOOK. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:04, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Meets WP:BKCRIT, as per a source review. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:26, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Plenty of reliable sources to meet WP:BKCRIT and WP:RS. 1400 libraries is a ton. AmericanAir88^(talk) 13:38, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. No rationale for deletion presented, and clear consensus to keep. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:51, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decriminalization of marijuana

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

I propose that this article is deleted and redirected to Legality of cannabis. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:06, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:26, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nomination does not provide a reason to delete and so there's no case to answer. Also, the nomination suggests an alternative to deletion – redirection – for which deletion is neither necessary nor appropriate. Andrew D. (talk) 17:52, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It would seem to me an article about decriminalization of marijuana serves as separate purpose than legality of cannabis, and in any event, the nominator hasn't given sufficient explanation as to why he thinks the deletion/redirection should happen anyway... — Hunter Ka hn 18:08, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, AfD is not the place to discuss redirects and merges. (Also, for the nominator's future reference, deletion and redirection are two different things.) I was considering closing this discussion as speedy keep per the above discussion, but decided to err on the side of caution as this is only a couple of hours old. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:44, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: They're related but nevertheless distinct topics. Cosmic Sans (talk) 00:09, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and convert to a WP:BCA. No full title matches so not a DAB page, but just the sort of broad-concept article a reader might be looking for. Narky Blert (talk) 10:27, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy procedural keep Nominator presented no rationale for deletion, nor even wants it deleted. Nate • (chatter) 17:01, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Per Hunter Kahn and others. petrarchan47 คุ ก 19:00, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. While the !vote totals are even, none of the keep voters adequately refute the argument that this disambiguation page is comprised of partial matches, in conflict with WP:PARTIAL. ‑Scottywong | yak _ 17:47, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hard and soft

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

This disambiguation page contains only partial title matches and does not disambiguate the term "hard and soft". Delete to avoid impeding Search. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:53, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:39, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:39, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The current version seems reasonable. Otherwise, we might redirect to hardness (which is where softness redirects to too). Deletion is neither necessary nor appropriate. Andrew D. (talk) 17:56, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move to "Hard and soft (disambiguation)", a slightly more appropriate title IMO. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:46, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@John M Wolfson: a disambiguation page is at the base name if there is no primary topic. The page "Hard and soft (disambiguation)" could not exist without an article at "Hard and soft". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:35, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we could retarget "Hard and soft" to "Hardness" and make a "Hard and soft (disambiguation)" page, but that might seem like more work than warranted. In the absence of that I say keep per all. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:52, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Valid dab page. Could add Hardness as SA. PamD 08:25, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A textbook example of partial title matches. Even the seemingly legit entry Hard and soft (martial arts) should be moved to Hard and soft technique. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:12, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Now done. Nothing here is simply known as "hard" and "soft". –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:05, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ‑Scottywong | soliloquize _ 17:44, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Softener

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

All 3 entries on this disambiguation page are partial title matches. Delete this page to avoid impeding Search. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:51, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ridiculous compilation of unrelated partial title matches, which has gone through many iterations. Two of the current three items are redirects. Softlavender (talk) 11:14, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:39, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A satisfactory disambiguation page. Partial title matches are sensible in this case because the term "softener" may be used by itself and so is a reasonable search term. Andrew D. (talk) 18:00, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All valid and useful dab page entries. PamD 08:22, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Let me link again to the guideline on partial title matches. This is expressly something to avoid. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:01, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Both fabric softeners and water softeners are occasionally referred to as just "softeners", so they aren't partial title matches but different meanings of an ambiguous term. – Uanfala (talk) 22:24, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Uanfala. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:53, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this works as a disambig page. Lightburst (talk) 01:14, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was going to say delete seeing WP:PTM. But Unfala and Andrew's words seem reasonable.
- Comment - This page was created by the Neelix, who created over 50000 questionable redirects. Masum Reza^📞 12:12, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

plus the editor created 100s of articles, and has quite a colorful userpage...and? what has this got to do with this afd? Coolabahapple (talk) 23:21, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was supposed to be funny. That's all. I have seen plenty of bizarre redirects created by him. Masum Reza^📞 13:52, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, looks like a sensible disam page, re WP:PTM, does this mean that Leather softener shouldn't be included? Coolabahapple (talk) 23:25, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Added more links, cleaned it up, and added descriptions. A valid DAB page. AmericanAir88^(talk) 13:44, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:10, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lalisom - The Lal Effect

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

Created on behalf of User:137.97.100.172

Reason provided: WP:1E, notable only for one event. Because it is co-founded by a famous actor does not gives it inherent notability. There's no news after the undesirable response for their first show; band likely disbanded. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 10:28, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 10:28, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 10:28, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.--Nahal^(T) 10:38, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

H'mmm well we could probably do with more certainty on the latter point, I agree. But irt the article in general, it's almost wholly—if not actually an attack page—then surely verging on one. It consists of almost completely negative reporting, and, while not a BLP, still enjoys the protections of a BLP. ——SerialNumber54129 10:39, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:45, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and me. ——SerialNumber54129 12:02, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ‑Scottywong | comment _ 17:42, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Day of Love

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

Does not meet WP:GNG for the lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Nothing to be found. Was deproded with a nonexistent rationale admitting it fails WP:GNG. The game released in English in 2004 so that reasoning does not hold.Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:47, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:47, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Masum Reza^📞 12:12, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Masum Reza^📞 12:13, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Masum Reza^📞 09:34, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete The article fails WP:RS. There is no reliable sources that this game exists besides the external links. Fails WP:NPRODUCT as a result. I voted weak as it is a Japan based article and the PROD was contested due to its retro year release. AmericanAir88^(talk) 13:38, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:07, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nadia Ravita

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

Non-notable tennis player who fails WP:NTENNIS and WP:GNG. Prevously deleted by PROD in 2016. Iffy★Chat -- 08:59, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 09:01, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 09:01, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 09:01, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – still is a non-notable tennis player. No major titles or appearances in major tennis tournaments. Doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG either. Adamtt9 (talk) 01:43, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – per Adamtt9. Best - Blake44 (talk) 08:54, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per above,does not meet WP:GNG Alex-h (talk) 09:53, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ‑Scottywong | express _ 17:41, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pero Ljubic

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

Fails WP:GNG, can't find any secondary sources on him, including in Croatian sources. SportingFlyer T·C 08:01, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 09:00, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 09:00, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:41, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I originally tagged the article for questionable notability but I agree that it fails WP:GNG and should probably have AfD'ed the article myself. Pichpich (talk) 18:31, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG because of the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. My searches show other Pero Ljubic people, or unreliable blogs (DartsPlanet and DartsNews). Doesn't seem that he did something significant in his darts career, except going to 2019 European Darts Grand Prix and being eliminated right away in the 1st round. WP:TOOSOON. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:34, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:07, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley Arthur Maxwell

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. No reliable 3rd party coverage since creation in 2016. Autobio. Maxwell has requested deletion and/or move to his new name. Delete and salt. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:20, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:20, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:35, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:35, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The earlier version of the article was a direct copy of the subject's old autobiography, and now the subject wants to change this to a copy of the subject's new autobiography. This is not reliable sourcing, and is exactly why we do not rely upon autobiographies. I cannot find anything that we can rely upon, as what little there is turns out to be advertising. Advertising and autobiography are not independent sources. We should not have either Brad Fillatre or Bradley Arthur Maxwell articles at all. Uncle G (talk) 03:03, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article does not demonstrate notability. The subject's views are irrelevant. If the subject becomes notable using his new name, a new article may then be created. Maproom (talk) 07:02, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A search under both names turn up multiple online download stuff, online "premieres" and social media but no significant coverage. Sparks is not a significant label, and the article's attempt to make it one by pointing out that it is a subsidiary of Universal Music Group still doesn't make it a significant label. Bottom line: No RS. ShelbyMarion (talk) 12:55, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:07, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

sampad kali

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

Failing WP:GNG. There is one source about him (1-Hindustan Times), though the rest of the article is sourced rather by mentions in passing (Kumawat said... Kumawat explained...). This does not constiture "significant coverage". _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 06:49, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 06:49, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 06:49, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 06:49, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 06:49, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's about just one person and that too fails WP:BIO and WP:Notability criteria in WP:RS. Hence, article should be delted. --Harshil169 (talk) 16:45, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 20:00, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ANYBIO and is clearly on a non-notable hacker. AmericanAir88^(talk) 13:33, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:06, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Franky Zapata

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

Queried previous AfD Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:53, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:36, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:36, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note-The page is a curated translation from the French and German WP. The subject has several accomplishments in addition to the flyboard. I propose that both the biography page and the individual invention pages be kept. A merge of the invention pages with the bio page is possible Codwiki (talk) 09:43, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

News link here Codwiki (talk) 10:00, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are several independent sources in the article, others at Flyboard Air, and yet more are available (e.g.[22]). The previous AFD may have reached a 'delete' conclusion, but I'd say he's definitely received enough significant coverage now to satisfy WP:BIO. Appearing in the 2019 national Bastille Day parade is a pretty strong indicator of notability by itself. Robofish (talk) 16:06, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of RS coverage of Bastille Day flight and upcoming Channel crossing attempt. Mcewan (talk) 11:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clearly notable given his recent (failed) attempt at crossing the channel and the high likelihood of further coverage at his next attempt. Definite failure of WP:BEFORE. Don't recommend merging the Flyboard page with the bio page because they are clearly distinct subjects given e.g., the French MoD's interest in the flyboard and funding of research into it. FOARP (talk) 08:22, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there's enough RS to cover the topic. Widefox; talk 10:11, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article can use a few more references, but nominating for deletion is not a replacement for adding a {{more references needed}}. Also conforms to WP:BIO as this person is quite notable. --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 21:11, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This guy is mainstream at the moment, if anything the article should be improved. • REDGOLPE (TALK) 20:57, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why was this article even nominated? No reason given, unless there was one that was later withdrawn. The flyboard mainstream coverage includes evening news network television! Blainster (talk) 05:07, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:06, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Peachy Keens

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

A non-notable restaurant with only one remaining location which fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Has only trivial coverage and some local coverage, such as it closing locations for example SamCordes^Talk 04:17, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. SamCordes^Talk 04:17, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SamCordes^Talk 04:17, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. SamCordes^Talk 04:17, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Another restaurant which fails WP:NCORP. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:42, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication of notability. Mccapra (talk) 04:00, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:55, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bashar Murad

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

WP:NOTNEWS FULBERT (talk) 04:17, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. FULBERT (talk) 04:17, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. FULBERT (talk) 04:17, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:29, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:29, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:31, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: well, no, not news, and the current state of the article is almost non-existent... but all four references currently in the article are good ones and even if they are interviews and therefore primary sources, there seems to be enough third-party detail about Mr. Murad for at least a stub... there's also an interview with him on CBC Radio [23] and an article on Vice [24], although these are not so solid sources. Richard3120 (talk) 04:49, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Any Arabic sources? Would be good to have the Arabic writing of his name. Haukur (talk) 18:21, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I put his name into Google Translate and searched with that, and it mostly brought up the same sources as in English. But I'm not an expert on what constitutes a reliable source in the Arabic world. Richard3120 (talk) 18:35, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as he does have significant coverage in reliable sources such as the BBC, Vice and others that can be used to expand the article, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 22:52, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per significant coverage. Per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 14:56, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The existing refs seem adequate for a relatively new singer. I searched under بشر مراد which brought up the Urdu version of the BBC article but no other reliable sources (I also had the impression that Google search isn’t always as effective in Arabic as in English). Mccapra (talk) 04:08, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He was covered significantly in Ynet [25], Vice (magazine) [26], The Globe and Mail [27] and The Reykjavík Grapevine [28]. There is a paragraph coverage on fr:Konbini (site web) [29] and this one which seems possibly reliable [30] ((before the interview parts), a bit on BBC (while there are a lot of WP:PRIMARY parts, and it's not a significant coverage in those terms though). Enough to pass WP:GNG in my opinion. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:58, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:06, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bioss

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

I looked back at my earlier days in Wikipedia and found this article I accepted back when I was an AfC reviewer years ago, and realized, after an attempt to look for significant coverage years later, that the subject fails WP:GNG by a wide margin; nearly all but one of the secondary sources in the article don't cover the subject beyond a trivial mention, and I couldn't find much more significant coverage in a search attempt either. letcreate123 (talk) 03:48, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:27, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:27, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Quite a bit of the article looks promotional as well. Highway 89 (talk) 03:57, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another run-of-the-mill non notable management consultancy company with no significant coverage found - fails WP:NCORP. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:39, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree. scope_creep^Talk 10:25, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only passing references not showing notability. Fails WP:GNG Taewangkorea (talk) 02:15, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 06:55, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pablo Hernán Gómez (midfielder)

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

Pablo Hernán Gómez (midfielder) (not to be confused with Pablo Hernán Gómez the striker b. 1977), apparently didn't play in a fully-pro league, and searches for WP:GNG sources are coming up empty, just [31] [32] [33] – Levivich 03:42, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Levivich 03:42, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. – Levivich 03:42, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. – Levivich 03:42, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. – Levivich 03:42, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Levivich 03:44, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NFOOTY as he has not played in a fully professional league. Seasider91 (talk) 12:24, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't pass NFOOTY, not seeing sources that would make this pass GNG. Note subject shares the same name with a notable footballer that died in a 2001 accident (whose son, with the same name +jr, is notable as well) - they are not the same. Icewhiz (talk) 07:01, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article about semi-pro footballer for which the only online coverage appears to be match reports indicating he was part of the squad or made a substitute's appearance. There isn't any in-depth coverage. As noted above, this footballer should not be confused with the Gómez of the same name born in Las Heras in 1977 - who is notable. Jogurney (talk) 15:34, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:27, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:03, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Kenneka Jenkins

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

BLPOne Event, NotNews. There unfortunately does not sem an applicable speedy category. DGG ( talk ) 03:22, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:22, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:22, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. An unfortunate death but not notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Fails WP:NotNews and WP:CRIME. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:48, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Even a cursory google-news search shows this is a notable event. This had wide international coverage at the time of the event in 2017. Lots and lots of coverage in 2018 in the context of a 50 million dollar lawsuit - [34], [35], [36] (and listed as a verdict to watch in 2019 - here). The mystery/death here was horrible enough to generate WP:SIGCOV and the on-going legal case has generated even more coverage - clearly passing GNG. Icewhiz (talk) 08:30, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 08:46, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Straddles the border between WP:NOTNEWS and an incident that is not WP:MILL. Case received international attention over one year after the event. Interesting questions remain about how a person went missing in such a modern hotel, how and why she entered the freezer and what her friends knew or didn't know about the incident. StonyBrook (talk) 10:03, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SIGCOV in Chicago Tribune, Newsweek etc. WP:NTEMP the subject was notable and remains notable. Lightburst (talk) 17:06, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:18, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per WP:HEY, added 2 more sources from the Chicago Tribune and The Washington Post. StonyBrook (talk) 05:16, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Not a full quorum, but sources have been added since the nomination and there was no further participation after the sources were added, even after two relists, so I am closing this as keep. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:07, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MK Indy

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

I don't see any sources, and I can't find any reliable source on Google that talks about this significantly. Fails GNG. The builder's article is also being AfDed. William2001^(talk) 21:06, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your Google Fu is weak. ;-) I added a few ones. // Liftarn (talk) 10:29, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There seem to be plenty of references on the article now. If the unreferenced magazine quote is correct a production of 200 cars a year from a small company is enough to make the car notable. Malcolma (talk) 09:59, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AmericanAir88^(talk) 04:20, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:14, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Mhhossein ^talk 13:40, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of non-binary writers

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

We already have List of people with non-binary gender identities, making this redundant. However, more importantly, this article is completely unreferenced and contains potentially controversial statements about BLPs. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 04:24, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 04:24, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 04:24, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 04:24, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 04:24, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've added sources for a few of the people, though I have to say that I could not (in my admittedly brief search) find citations for some of the other people. (I looked for citations that described the people as both non-binary and writers/authors within the same citation. I did not yet have time to look for citations for most of the people, only a few of them.) As to whether the list is redundant in a way that wouldn't normally or shouldn't allow for a separate article, I don't know; I see we have e.g. List of people from Michigan as well as List of Michigan writers as distinct lists (but "WP:OSE"). -sche (talk) 05:07, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging the article's creator, @Antiqueight:: can you help add references, please? Personally, I would be inclined to keep the list if most of the individuals can be referenced (and any that can't be are removed). -sche (talk) 21:45, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go through and update with references where I can and remove what I can't but I believe the list needs to remain and that the existence of List of people with non-binary gender identities is irrelevant. I'm at work right now but I'll get to it later when I can. Thank you @-sche: for the notification. ☕ Antiqueight ^chatter 09:06, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Having a list of people with non-binary gender identities is not a reason not to also have a list of non-binary writers. We have lists of women writers from different centuries and different places - being able to find writers of female gender or non-binary gender, etc, is of interest to readers. I have added a couple of references, but I am wondering why some names are in the list, when the articles about the people don't indicate that they have/had non-binary identities - eg Beth Brant, whose article has the category "non-binary writers", but who, according to the article, "became active in the feminist community and announced her sexual orientation as a lesbian", and the article uses she/her pronouns throughout; and Marjorie Celona, whose article makes no mention, in the text or categories, of being non-binary, and uses she/her pronouns. Should I delete any I notice who seem inappropriately included? @-sche:, @Antiqueight:, what do you think? RebeccaGreen (talk) 17:36, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, if nothing in the article confirms it and you do a quick google for their name + "non-binary" and don't see anything relevant that could be added to the article ('cause IMO making at least a little good-faith attempt to find sources is a good best practice), I'd say remove them (per BLP and all). I'll try and look for citations for more myself when I have time. -sche (talk) 18:36, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Sure, I'm always happy to find and add sources! RebeccaGreen (talk) 19:07, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:13, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We have lists for writers who are women or men. This completes the lists for writers who are not women or men. The topic is not too general which a list of non-binary people might be. Though the relatively small percentage of notable people out as non binary keeps the list small today, eventually it will be a list that is too general. The topic is not too specific, it isn't only non binary writers from North America. People on the list are notable. There has been some additions to the list that are incorrect or insufficiently cited. This will be rectified over the next couple of weeks and the list tracked to double check all additions have citations. ☕ Antiqueight ^chatter 22:33, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note Since nobody else has supported deletion and references have been added, I'm fine with this discussion ending early as either Keep or nomination withdrawn. I still don't feel that it's really necessary considering we have a list of non-binary people and a category for non-binary writers, but it seems to be a losing battle. I do think that we need to discuss the inclusion of some entries on the list, not just if they identity as non-binary, but also if they're even notable as writers. But that can be had on the talk page. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 23:53, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Michig (talk) 06:02, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welf pudding

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

No in-depth third party coverage of the topic. One of the books I found was just passing mention. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:06, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:06, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:06, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Please withdraw this nomimation. This is a well-known pudding in Germany and just a few seconds search on Google for Welfenspeise produces 21,000 google hits and 8 pages on Google books. I'll add a book reference or two. Bermicourt (talk) 05:03, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've added five book references in English and German including full recipes. Bermicourt (talk) 05:25, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bermicourt, I had a search but some of the hits seem to be copies of Wikipedia. Are you sure the book references aren't passing mentions? --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 06:06, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tyw7:. Yes some are, but I've avoided those. Here is a quick summary of the sources used:

_ (2001). "Hallo Niedersachsen" kocht: die besten Rezepte von Zuschauern und Profis - full recipe in a Lower Saxony cookbook under Nachspeisen (puddings) and no reference to Wikipedia.
_ (2008). Rheinisch-westfälische Zeitschrift für Volkskunde. - mentioned in Westphalian folk culture periodical.
Hassani, Nadia (2004) Spoonfuls of Germany: Culinary Delights of the German Regions in 170 Recipes - full recipe and no reference to Wikipedia.
Heuzenroeder, Angela (2002). Barossa Food - full recipe and no reference to Wikipedia.
Marburg, Silke and Sophia Kuenheim (eds.) (2016) Projektionsflächen von Adel. Discusses Welfspeise in a section about dishes reflecting the colours of noble families. Three further references, one of which is to Wikipedia, but only because, in passing, it mentions that there is also an article on German Wikipedia.

I can keep on adding references, but I think sufficient notability is established with full recipes in English and German cookbooks and I haven't bothered adding online ones, but feel free to do so if you think that's useful. Bermicourt (talk) 07:50, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- article does appear to be well sourced after update. matt91486 (talk) 05:55, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per matt91486 above.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 18:26, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Articles on both the German and Spanish language Wikipedias. Andrew D. (talk) 18:57, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Davidson, and? That doesn't prove notability, especially since the Spanish entry only have 1 reference. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:05, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't prove anything, but it gives a strong clue on notability, in particular since the rules in the German WP are quite similar to those in the English WP. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 06:00, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per all above and the improvements made to the article since this AfD was opened. Ejgreen77 (talk) 06:18, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

This Articles for deletion discussion has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

Ana Dumaraog (23 July 2019). "Justice League: Wikipedia Debates Deleting Page About the Snyder Cut". Screen Rant. Retrieved 24 July 2019. Wikipedia members debate whether or not the existence of a separate page for the Justice League Snyder Cut is justified. It's no secret that Zack Snyder's final DC film has a convoluted history.
Jamie Lovett (24 July 2019). "Wikipedia Is Considering Deleting Justice League Snyder Cut Page From Their Site". Comicbook.com. Retrieved 24 July 2019. A Wikipedia page dedicated to the Snyder Cut saga and all versions of the Justice League movie has been flagged for possible deletion. A debate about the page's existence is raging between some of the Wikipedia moderators and writers.

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. ‑Scottywong | spill the beans _ 17:40, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Versions of Justice League

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

The page goes into such excessive detail on every tiny aspect of Zack Snyder's Justice League and its process in reaching theaters that it seems unlikely to interest or meaningfully inform anyone except dedicated fans of the director's work who are heavily invested in seeing the "Snyder Cut" released. In fact, it also seems unlikely this subject rises to the standards of notability for such a minutely detailed article, and largely exists so it can be shared in celebration that Wikipedia thinks the Snyder Cut notable enough to deserve such a lengthy article. Smacks of fan bias at every turn. User:Gargus-SCP

Keep — Editor bias is a pretty bold claim. What bias do I have and what evidence do you have that I have one? I thought it was an interesting topic and decided to make an article about it. I felt I neutrally added information whether it was positive or negative. Both the "The "Snyder Cut" (2016–2017)" and "#ReleaseTheSnyderCut movement" sections include criticism paragraphs. If I was biased toward the subject, wouldn't I omit that information? And if you feel it contains any biases, wouldn't it be easier to just adjust the language you feel is biased than delete the whole article? I also feel the subject easily meets the WP:GNG. The article in its current state has 134 sources with TONS more out there, so the coverage is significant. The sources provided were also present on Justice League (film) which passed a GA nom so I assume they're considered reliable. None of the sources are first-party, so they're all independent of Warner, DC and Snyder. I see no validity to your nomination. Fezmar9 (talk) 00:12, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Firstly, the tendency of the article to devolve into bullet points enumerating every last change to the theatrical cut of the film strikes me as information only a fan of the film would be interested in. Getting into the nitty gritty of minor deleted roles, alternate costume choices, and director cameos is the sort of trivuium one would find on imdb, not in a Wikipedia article out to inform in a general manner. Your article may be very well researched, I can admit that much, but the articles for far more notable alternate film cuts you link at the bottom achieve largely the same effect for films with extant, available alternate cuts with nowhere near so much minute detailing. It's difficult to imagine an unbiased editor thinking all this at all necessary.

The excessive write-up on Snyder's numerous plans from before the film actually went to production also make me think of bias. It's one thing to have a brief note on what Snyder planned to do, but there are paragraphs about plans that never made it to a screenplay phase that go into equal amounts of detail as the process of removing Snyder from the project and instating Joss Whedon. I rhetorically ask again, is it to Wikipedia's standards of notability to give a detailed summary of Zack Snyder's entire planned Justice League trilogy, which will never see the light of day and is at best a minor footnote in the story? Details like that are best left to fan wikis, where the readership is more directly invested in such information.

Notating the Black Suit edition is just downright suspect. The Phantom Edit, which you link at the bottom, has received substantial media coverage, and is actually out and available for viewing. You yourself admit the Black Suit edition has a "possible release date," so I see no reason to include it here other than promoting its existence to a wider audience.

It's just very difficult to believe this article was written in good faith, and not as some attempt to promote the #ReleaseTheSnyderCut movement. It reads like a fan sermon to the masses about the great injustice they hope to undo rather than an impartial encyclopedia entry, especially when it includes so much information pages for more notable alternate cuts see fit to leave out. Even if you did not intend it this way, it functionally reads as such, and should not be on Wikipedia. User:Gargus-SCP

Actually, speaking of bias are you the same Gargus-SCP who commented "Is there any point to being excited for [Batman v Superman] anymore when it seems to be the sole exception to the 'you like what you like and I'll like what I like' mindset I see expressed around here so often? I can't seem to be remotely optimistic about [Batman v Superman] without someone telling me I'm ruining the movie industry and tonguing Snyder's balls by wanting to like something I'm paying money to see" on the i09 article "Watch 11 Minutes Of Batman v Superman, Constructed From All Of The Film's Promos"? Or perhaps the same Gargus-SCP on reddit who likes to poke fun at the snyder cut movement? If so, I'd like to call the motives of your nomination into question. Fezmar9 (talk) 00:39, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, are you also the same GargusSCP who got banned from TV Tropes for "removing things without discussion" and "being pretty rude"?[37][38] Fezmar9 (talk) 01:14, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am the same. I should still like some explanation as to how any of the details you have provided here are at all worthwhile for a Wikipedia article of this nature, and not a deflection to my past behavior on other websites. User:Gargus-SCP —Preceding undated comment added 02:11, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have not provided a valid reason for deletion beyond "I don't like it". I have demonstrated it clearly meets WP:GNG guidelines. I will wait for another editor to enter the conversion before commenting further. Fezmar9 (talk) 02:32, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per Reasons for Deletion number 14, under "Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia," we have "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing," for writing an exhaustively detailed article about a social media movement in a manner that includes a glut of information only of interest to members of said movement looking to promote its goals in general, "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" for said listing of changes and trivia about Snyder's original vision in specific, and "Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors" for the Black Suit Edition segment. As stated, I am more than fine with a truncated version of this article appearing as a subsection in the Justice League article, but this full version does not seem to fulfill any general encyclopedic purpose, and only functions as a means of saying, "Look, there's a Snyder Cut article on Wikipedia." User:Gargus-SCP 19:42, 20 July 2019 (MST)

On the charge that this page should be deleted because information about unreleased films is unsuitable for an encyclopedia, I have to disagree. Wikipedia has tons of information about cancelled or unreleased films, especially superhero films, such as Superman V, Superman Reborn, Superman Lives, Superman: Flyby, Batman Unchained, Batman: DarKnight, Batman: Year One, Batman Beyond, Spider-Man 4, Venom, cancelled Marc Webb sequels and spinoffs, Green Arrow: Escape from Super Max, Justice League: Mortal and tons more. If any of those individual films had four different versions, I'm sure a separate page for that information would be warranted. On the charge that this page should be deleted because it constitutes propaganda or a soapbox, I have to strongly disagree. Just like the above cancelled films, this page is a collection of facts and attributed opinions about four versions of a film. It does not contain any opinions of my own nor does it promote any ideology or product. It merely states multiple versions of this film exist. As WP:NOTPROPAGANDA states, "An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view." The article is objective and neutral as previously stated, unless you can point out any specific bias beyond your belief that the whole article is biased. On the charge that this page should be deleted because it promotes the upcoming Black Suit Edition, I have to strongly disagree. Wikipedia often includes upcoming release dates and information about upcoming films without being seen as a promotion. Updated as of today are the recently announced Phase 4 MCU films with official release dates and other upcoming MCU films in production, and Wikipedia has pages such as 2021 in film that highlight release dates of upcoming films two years from now. Saying a movie is in production is not a promotion of that movie. On the charge that this page should be deleted because it contains a lengthy list of information, I agree it may be lengthy, but I disagree that's grounds for deletion. Fezmar9 (talk) 09:10, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are misconstruing several of my points here. As you will note, none of those unreleased films you list are articles on their own, nor do any save Superman Lives go into such great detail about every aspect of the production process, with Superman Lives serving as the exception because it has a fairly comprehensive documentary to draw from. You argue there are four different cuts of Justice League as a reason necessitating its own page, yet your own article states two of these supposed cuts are ideas for a proposed series of films that never made it past the planning stage and a script that was heavily reworked before filming began, so they cannot serve as a justification for writing an entire article like Blade Runner's seven fully extant cuts. The point about soapboxing does get a little messy, I'll admit, but to elaborate - even if we disentangle the ongoing efforts of another user to fill the article with pro-Snyder anti-critic rhetoric of the like more toxic members of the movement like to employ, the decision to list each and every last change made to the final product is odd. If we return to Blade Runner as an example, the Versions of Blade Runner article is nowhere near so fine in description, reserving the bullet pointing for only major changes that would not flow well in a paragraph. The present version of your article contains thirty-one bullet points about the changes made to Justice League, many of which are inconsequential to the typical scope of a Wikipedia article. It gives the piece the feeling of a fan attempting to inform the public of every last grievance inflicted on the director by the studio, which does not become an encyclopedic work. Finally, with the Black Suit edition, my objection is not on the grounds that it is an unreleased work, but rather that it is an unreleased fan project. Of all the information on this page, "Someone somewhere is trying to make a new, unauthorized cut of Justice League" is the least essential of all, and I cannot help but read it as another attempt to boost the Snyder Cut movement's profile rather than inform in an unbiased manner

And if I may note once more, while your article is very impressively researched (if heavy on sites like ScreenRant and CBR as sources) and put together (save the present vandalism), I still maintain the truncated attempt at the same present on the film's own page is more appropriate for the notability of the subject. Gargus-SCP 8:07, 21 July, 2019 (PST)

To some degree, what determines an article's length and existence is the amount of information that has been published. As a non-film example, The Beatles' history has been separated out into a dozen or so subpages, including The Beatles in Hamburg which details the two years the band spent in Hamburg, and The Beatles timeline which details every minute detail including when their parents died and competitions they lost years before being known as The Beatles. These pages exist and are the length they are because this information was extensively documented. I don't think a direct comparison to Versions of Blade Runner is warranted quite in that way because the differences between its cuts are relatively minor, and there aren't tens of thousands of online articles going into detail about what those changes are. It is the length and detail it is because that's what's out there and would likely be significantly more detailed if more published sources went into more detail. Perhaps a more direct comparison would be Star Wars sequel trilogy. The first section about the early ideas for a sequel trilogy was originally the only content of the article for a decade and outlined dozens of proposed ideas for a film trilogy that, at the time, was not in production and no one had any reason to believe it would be any time soon. It was nominated for deletion five times but was kept because notability of the subject (which didn't even exist in any tangible form) could be established through a wealth of reliable sources. For Justice League, it is very difficult to find any article published in 2018 or 2019 that does not discuss or at the very least mention the different versions of the film and I believe this is what makes the movie culturally and socially relevant post-release. Similarly, the film The Rocky Horror Picture Show was released in 1975. A year later, the film gained a cult following, which became its defining cultural and social aspect. As a result, Wikipedia acknowledges this with two sections § Cult phenomenon and § Cultural influence and the separate page The Rocky Horror Picture Show cult following The film's page also has section § Sequel which outlines three unproduced attempts at a sequel. Speaking of cultural and internet phenomenon (which I think the #ReleaseTheSnyderCut movement could easily be considered) Wikipedia extensively covers these topics. The dress was an internet sensation for a few days a few years back and has a very detailed GA-status article. I also hope the recent efforts from the actual Snyder Cut movement (again, of which I am not a part of and have zero interest in being affiliated with) to edit this page have shown that there is a wealth of additional information out there, and despite what you might think, I have actually made efforts to keep this article brief. But if the main concern is that the article is too long, why not have a discussion about what to trim (perhaps an arbitrary limit of say 10 bullet points of differences between versions) instead of throwing the baby out with the bathwater? TL;DR: all of the elements of this page exist throughout Wikipedia (alternate film versions, unproduced sequels, unproduced films, fan edits, cultural phenomenon, etc) with no problems. I believe what makes Justice League culturally relevant after its 2017 release is the differences between the different versions and the associated movement. All of the information can be reliably sourced to an abundance of reliable online sources (GN search for "Snyder Cut" alone brings up 50,000+ hits) and that abundance also establishes this article's notability. If length is the concern then let's cut it down, not throw it out. Fezmar9 (talk) 17:13, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You make fair arguments, particularly in regards to the presence of an article on the Star Wars sequel trilogy for years prior to any official movement. I would personally disagree with the decisions made in that case, but precedent is precedent and you do have a point. I will, however, still object on two major grounds. Firstly, as I have already pointed out, none of your justifying other pages from similar topics on Wikipedia come anywhere close to the exhaustive level of detail regarding minute issues that could easily be summarized. They get by with far less, and are far more palatable to a reader with a perspective totally outside the engagement of online film fandom, and are, if I may, better sourced. This issue of sourcing forms my second objection: you DO have quite an extensive list down at the bottom, but I cannot help but notice how many of your sources are from comic book movie news/rumor sites that exist to generate eye-catching headlines and take advantage of audience's interests to generate traffic. We can get lost in the weeds arguing to what extent the reliability guidelines and notability applies when practically every online source is marred by the need to do such in modern times, but I wouldn't think it controversial to claim sites such as Screenrant, ComicBook.com, and MovieWeb report on the Snyder Cut to such a degree because it is beneficial to their revenue stream thanks to fan interest, particularly when they make entire articles out of nothing details like "a minor character was cut" or "a line of dialogue was deleted." You do have better sources here (Washington Post, Hollywood Reporter, New York Times, etc), but a casual glance over the article in comparison to the Justice League article looks as if those sources are shared between the two, and those that are not are here in support of poor sources for tiny, insubstantial details. I wouldn't worry much about throwing the baby out with the bath water, as a version of this article cut down to an appropriate length for the subject matter once the poor sourcing and fandom bias is removed would look near identitical to the Snyder Cut section on Justice League's own article. Gargus-SCP 10:59, 22 July 2019 (PST)

I think your first point is an argument in favor of trimming and your second argument is in favor of editing or swapping out niche publications with more mainstream publications, neither seem to be in favor of deletion. I will admit that in my ~13 years of editing Wikipedia, 95% of that has been related to albums and bands—I don't know much about what is considered a reliable source in the film sphere. I noticed that on most new superhero film articles including Justice League, there was a mix of niche blogs such as Screen Rant, Cosmic Book, Comic Book, Comic Book Resources, /Film and even social media posts, as well as larger, more established publications such as Hollywood Reporter, Wall Street Journal, Forbes, etc. So, I followed suit when creating this article. I will admit it does lean heavily on Screen Rant, because those were the first articles I first read. At Wikipedia:Reliable sources, it says "source" can mean a few things that can impact reliability, including what the source of information was for an article. I was conscious of the fact that a lot of Screen Rant's articles relied on rumors and gossip, and an effort was made to avoid adding things such as the rumor that in Justice League 3 Superman and Lois Lane were going to have a baby named Bruce in honor of his death, which was sourced to a Vero post with a fan posting that theory and Snyder replying with a hand clap emoji. I attempted to exclusively source my contributions to any Screen Rant article that was supported by a quote from a member of the cast or crew. Fezmar9 (talk) 21:23, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All fair all round. The reliability of places like Screen Rant is heavily dependent on what they're talking about and where they're getting their points from, and it is admirable that you restricted yourself to ones based on verifiable information. On an entirely anecdotal, personal-experience level, however, all I can say is that these sites tend to report on such minor details as if they were big ticket news items largely because fans of the work generate good ad revenue by clicking through to complain about the studio's actions or bias from the sites in the comments. I am, admittedly, too new to seriously using Wikipedia to definitively say whether a site doubling down on covering a niche interest invalidates its reliability as a source, but my time in academia tells me far more discretion is necessary in choosing which sources matter, and what an encyclopedic article on such a subject should cover. I stand firm on the matter of deletion not because I want this content off Wikipedia entirely, but because to my eye the best practice, best written version of this article I can imagine involves an expansion of the existing subheading on Justice League's page, not an entire article whose tone reads as accusatory towards the studio and ingrained in grassroots activism, even before fans of the work arrived to heavily bias it in their favor. To stress just one more time, this seems a good piece for independent coverage of the Snyder Cut story, but dissecting every step involved in creating a version of a film that may not see the light of day for several decades does not seem to fit with the spirit or mission of Wikipedia. Gargus-SCP 15:09, 22 July 2019 (PST)

Keep Don't delete this. Everything here is accurate as I have witnessed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.203.120.167 (talk) 16:02, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The level of detail is over-the-top excessive. The one paragraph in the film article is sufficient. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:32, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please note: Members of the #ReleaseTheSnyderCut movement have taken it upon themselves to make several edits to the page in light of the AFD nom, introducing strongly biased language and original research. Votes to keep or delete the article ideally should be based on this version (diffs) prior to the AFD, not the live version. Fezmar9 (talk) 17:24, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe that the page should be kept. The sole paragraph in the film article does not come even close to telling the full story. At the same time, perhaps the page goes too much into detail in regards to the story. The relevant info should not be inflated nor should it be deleted. However certain scenes cannot be verified, such as the Green Lanterns. Any hypothetical topics should be removed and the ideas for sequel should be as well since the focus of this article should be on the Justice League film and its alternative versions. If there is info from the Snyder-Cut or other cuts that pertains to a sequel, then is reason to keep it in. Julian1Seguin8 (talk) 17:49, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above. I'm not a fan of Snyder by any means, but the history behind Justice League's production problems is fascinating and this article does an objective job of chronicling it.--Valkyrie Red (talk) 04:46, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The page shouldn't exist in the first place, regardless of editor bias. You don't see, for example, Blade Runner getting its own page for alternate versions, all that information is condensed into the main article. Justice League shouldn't be an exception to that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:CC9D:3F00:2C21:E566:B849:D46E (talk) 20:26, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Agreed, because the differences seen in the multiple versions of the First two Star Wars trilogies don’t have AN ENTIRE ARTICLE dedicated to them AT ALL, right?...RIGHT?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Changes_in_Star_Wars_re-releases — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.167.116.8 (talk) 01:36, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Fezmar9 (talk) 13:32, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Fezmar9 (talk) 13:32, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Fezmar9 (talk) 13:32, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Fezmar9 (talk) 13:32, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a notable topic with a level of detail that warrants splitting off content from the main film article to its own standalone article. While it may be a little too detailed, I don't believe that further summarizing would shrink this to the point of no longer warranting a standalone article. I would also remove the film infobox as unnecessary and misleading; the main film article should be the only one to have it. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:20, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Nominator's principal reason for nomination appears to be "only people who are interested in reading this article would read this article," which, ultimately, can be said about any article on Wikipedia. Also, the amount of detail that goes into an article does not have to increase proportionally to the perceived notability of the article's topic.The article is well sourced, factual, and (at least until recently) completely neutral in tone. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 08:08, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While indeed this is a well researched article, the same can be said about a billion different topics that could be entered into Wikipedia, but don't make it there. Read a newspaper or watch the news and you will have a lot of sources for local news, for example. Should they go into Wikipedia as well?

Besides, Wikipedia should be to inform people of things that happened, not things that might've happened. It is indeed interesting to know that Snyder had a different vision, and the vision and tone of the movie changed with the Directorial change. But to know of any plan that Snyder might've had that didn't even make it to the screenplay? That happens with Every movie (e.g. the Rogue One movie, that even went through a similar Directorial change) and a detailed article was not needed then, and it shouldn't be created now. Just a basic mention on the original article should be enough. If, on the other hand, a Snyder cut is actually released at some point, then a specific article could be considered, I guess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.4.226.113 (talk) 10:11, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - nonsensical issue to be debating about. It is a popular topic to the mainstream audience. _{The Lord of Moon's Spawn ✉} 10:37, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - MEANINGLESS online bickering on certain things have their own sections on the Wikipedia articles of said things, and sometimes, even their own ARTICLES, all JUST because the Mainstream Media covered it and, of course, you have to cover quite literally EVERYTHING it does, no matter how utterly POINTLESS. how in the World is this any different? I may not agree on the fact that you’re even covering said bickering at all, but hey, that’s how this website works, right? Someone might as well put in a MEANINGLESS section, or make a MEANINGLESS article, about Gargus, Fezmar and their whole, MEANINGLESS conversation. Speaking of which, Stop accusing each other for “bias”, with NO. ACTUAL. EVIDENCE. And even if one of you two (or both) are/is biased, What’s even new here? Every single and I mean EVERY SINGLE Wikipedia editor has made Biased edits to things, ‘Cause you can’t keep your mouth shut and ‘Cause you’re always mad at each other for having these things called Opinions. It’s people like you that make me lose faith in both Humanity and Myself. ‘Cause I can’t even believe I am of the Same species as you two. Geez... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.167.116.8 (talk) 16:03, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Continued coverage in mainstream media, and even coverage of this deletion discussion! DeluxeVegan (talk) 06:43, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It's an issue that is still developing, with more facts about the various versions of the film being released from time to time in the media. At the same time, the nominator's principal reason for nomination appears to be weak, and can be applied to literally every article on Wikipedia. While some sources do appear to be sketchy, the vast majority of the article is still rather factual, and provides a decent summary of the events and changes that occurred during the production periods of Justice League. TJSRX (talk) 16:00 ,25 July 2019 UTC
Keep: The original request for deletion suggested there was a bias in the creation of the page, but it should also be noted that the account requesting the deletion was created the same day as the nomination, suggesting a bias in the desire to delete. The argument about there being too much detail may have value, but that just means the page needs to be better edited, not deleted entirely. Also, part of the reason for so much detail is because there's a lot of details known about this topic. That doesn't necessarily mean they all belong on the page, but the sheer volume of information on this topic does seem particularly suited to Wikipedia, which is an argument in favor of the page's existence. There was also a suggestion that the page only appeals to a minority audience. First, I'm not sure that's a valid reason for deletion if it were true, but also the amount of coverage this topic has gotten seems to go against that point. Even this deletion argument has gotten a lot of attention as can be seen at the top of this page. As far as whether or not it's notable, it's gotten significant coverage in a variety of publications from film blogs to Hollywood Trades to national publications like the Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal. As already mentioned, even this very debate has drawn media attention. (It should be noted that I have written extensively about this subject and some of my coverage is cited in on the page in question. That could understandably be viewed as a conflict of interest, but I think it also indicates how familiar I am with the topic and its significance.) Smcolbert (talk)
Delete: The topic fits more as subsection of the main Justice League article; on it is own, it mostly serves as promotional material for the Snyder cut movement than educational material on aspects surrounding the movie, and a poor quality one at that. The level of detail is excessive for the quality of information that is included; a lot of the of the article is based on unverified rumors and speculation (the alleged proof for Snyder's cut of Justice League being 214 minutes long is absurd: a tiny number included with no explanation on an Snyder-related event poster, speculated by its fans to refer to its length in minutes). The content itself is excessively long and pedantic, trying to cram as much known and speculated detail as possible and detracting from readability and general accessibility. Some parts poorly adhere to Wikipedia's NPOV. If this article is kept, it will require a major overhaul by neutral editors to give this article some semblance of quality. 45.64.167.178 (talk) 11:33, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well referenced article, and reliable sources are now talking about the article and this deletion discussion causing it to pass the WP:GNG with that alone. Dream Focus 20:02, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others. The amount of coverage this topic has gotten is staggering. JOE BRO 64 20:34, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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