Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 July 24

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 23 July	25 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Mhhossein ^talk 19:00, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Jett

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

Does not meet notability requirements. Was previously evaluated for deletion and was found inconclusive at the time. Notability has not been established since that time. Calvinballing (talk) 23:39, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:08, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:09, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:09, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 14:41, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ There was this article about him Joey Jett is ready for liftoff in the children's section of the regional daily when he was a 7-year-old, noted during the first AfD. But overall I concur with Nom, small amount of local/regional coverage doesn't make him h=notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:03, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject's notability is not temporary WP:NTEMP. WP:SIGCOV. Non-trivial coverage Monterey Herald, ~~trivial>Port Discovery~~, CBS Baltimore, Baltimore Times, Also beyond regional coverage ~~repeat of Monterey Herald Arkansas Democrat Gazette~~, Washington Examiner. The article needs a rewrite with proper references however WP:NOTCLEANUP. Lightburst (talk) 14:32, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I undertook some article rewrite work, and added proper references. Lightburst (talk) 19:01, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been better able to establish notability than I expected based on my own searching. Thanks! I update my position to Keep at this point. Calvinballing (talk) 12:43, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes the general notability guidelines do to significant coverage found in reliable sources. Dream Focus 15:45, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY; good work by Lightburst. Bearian (talk) 13:53, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep There are two unique biographical features on this person in RS (Baltimore Style and Washington Examiner, the latter story being syndicated outside of the Washington-Baltimore metroplex) separated by a period of a decade. There are also two non-biographical features in RS (Baltimore Sun and a local Baltimore TV station) that are more than simply incidental mentions. In my opinion this gets it over the GNG requirements, albeit just barely. The loss of even one of these sources would make Joey not notable. Chetsford (talk) 17:38, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's enough independent sourcing there to pass GNG; I made a few tweaks just now to tidy up some of the wording, but the current sourcing looks decent. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:23, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:55, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shagun Sharma

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, the only coverage available appears to be routine casting news, tabloid/gossip coverage, and interviews. Does not appear to meet WP:NACTOR: while several roles in TV series have been listed, it's not clear that these roles were particularly significant within those shows. The initial editor also appears to have pretty clear COI/AUTOBIO issues, and this article has also been an item of interest for banned socks. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:15, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:15, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:15, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article was moved to a user page and then was speedy deleted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:26, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:35, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Mitchell Murphy

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

These just get worse and worse. Based upon my research in trying to find evidence that she modeled for "Chanel, Valentino, Yves St. Laurent [sic], Ungaro, and more."–anything to improve this article that does nothing but advertise and mention that she was married to Eddie Murphy 50 times–it's evident that some lazy bogan literally just copied and pasted practically this whole "article" from an unreliable forum called solarey.net. I'm not shocked, but I expected more originality in the plagiarism. Outside of all that, what it comes down to is she's not independently notable and there seems to be no actual verification of her career endeavors. Even today, this very day, it's "Nicole Murphy who was to Eddie Murphy with whom she has 5 kids and was engaged to Michael Strahan was spotted kissing Antoine Fuqua." The reach has to end. Trillfendi (talk) 22:54, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:05, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:05, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:05, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:05, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:05, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:06, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:06, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:06, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:07, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:07, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. She seems to have some kind of business in Los Angeles, California, but she's not Notable enough for that, or for anything else. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:04, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT, WP:NOTINHERITED, and WP:COPYVIO. She might be notable, but this plagiarized piece isn't an article. Bearian (talk) 13:51, 30 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) 08:35, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

James Ndambo

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

Moved out of AfC after being declined. Coverage is very limited. Several mentions, but most is either from press releases, blogs. Not enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sourcing to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:10, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:19, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:19, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of significant coverage from reliable sources indicates the subject of this article does not meet WP:GNG. Red Phoenix ^talk 15:27, 24 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) 22:53, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. Mccapra (talk) 22:34, 31 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. If somebody really wants to work on this, ping me, or WP:REFUND and ask for it to be userfied. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:01, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ramin Kousha

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

Not enough coverage to pass Wikipedia:Notability (music). The sources that are not self-published have just brief mentions of this individual. Article creator appears to be the subject. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 22:50, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:07, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:07, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:08, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:08, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:08, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:09, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:09, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:09, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete concur with nom, sources are either WP:SELFPUB, not reliable (I'm looking at you, IMDb), or tangential mentions, fails music notability and GNG. creffett (talk) 02:40, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Sandbox There is a very obvious COI problem, of course. But as the composer of the Sharknado film, there is a sliver of notability. This might be best if the article was put in a sandbox and editors with no connection to the subject were given a chance to fix it. Capt. Milokan (talk) 18:34, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC because the sources are all either self-published, unreliable, or brief mentions, not sustained independent WP:SIGCOV. The very apparent COI issue with the creator of the article means this article should be swiftly uprooted, so as not to reward corruption on Wikipedia. Newshunter12 (talk) 16:15, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Bruce Henricksen. Sufficient argument has been made to justify merging content here, rather than outright deletion. I’ll redirect the article now accordingly, any merging can be done from the article history, giving proper attribution where appropriate. (non-admin closure) Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 01:16, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lost Hills Books

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

An extremely minor, short lived publishing house. It seems to have only published two books, both of which were either written or compiled by the founder of the company. By all accounts, this very well may have been just a one-person show, as a venue to publish his own work. All three of the sources currently in the article are defunct, but none seem to have been valid reliable sources even at the time - one is just brief local coverage, one appears to be a book review and not on the company itself, and the third was a blog. I have been unable to find any additional sources that discuss the company in any meaningful way. I had initially been planning to just redirect the article to Bruce Henricksen, the company's founder (and seemingly sole contributor), however the utter lack of notability for the company, and the dubious assertion of notability of the target article, made me bring it to AFD instead. Rorshacma (talk) 21:01, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:47, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:47, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:47, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, LHBs published more than two books - ie. From the Other World, After the Floods, Estuary, and Staying Blue, checking these with WorldCat, they are little known with all but 1 held by under 10 libraries (and it, From the Other World in under 20 libraries), a quick goog search hasn't brought up anything, so not looking good. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:25, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The nominator's assessment appears to be right, for the reasons stated by Cool. Cosmic Sans (talk) 15:14, 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) 21:05, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails gng and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:10, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Bruce Henricksen (where I have added some sources). This small press certainly published books by multiple writers, Poetry: "Tumbled Dry" by Charmaine Donovan, published by Lost Hills Books won a prize. (Book Awards announced at UMD; McClatchy - Tribune Business News; Washington [Washington]18 May 2012.) Also here [1]. I added 2 WP:RS about the publishing company to this page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:17, 23 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) 🐱 22:31, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Bruce Henricksen, which will add two more sources to that article, I think (plus more found by E.M.Gregory here). Then create a redirect from "Lost Hills Books" to Bruce Henricksen. It looks like Bruce Henricksen has possible notability (as author or editor or publisher or a combination), and that can be tested in a separate AfD anyway. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:41, 31 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. Whether or not the player meets nfooty is ultimately not relevant. Nfooty is a presumption of GNG. This has been challenged and no sources have been presented that come close to satisfying GNG. Fenix down (talk) 07:00, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Brown (footballer, born 1984)

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

Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. The Scottish 2nd tier did not become fully professional until 2013 when the Scottish Football League and Scottish Premier League merged to form the Scottish Professional Football League (SPFL). Simione001 (talk) 22:21, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 22:24, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 22:24, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 22:24, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:38, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:39, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the Scottish second tier has always historically been considered fully-pro, meaning this player meets WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 08:30, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Says who? It is not listed - Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues. Michael Brown played in the Irn-Bru Scottish Football League which consisted of a mixture of both professional and semi-professional clubs meaning the league is not fully professional. This is backed up by the first line of the Scottish Football League page article. Simione001 (talk) 09:19, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment It's worth noting that the "Scottish Division One" was replaced by the Scottish Championship, which is on FPL. Division One was actually listed at FPL pre-Championship, as seen here. R96Skinner (talk) 10:11, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - Michael Brown played in the Irn-Bru Scottish Football League which consisted of a mixture of both professional and semi-professional clubs meaning the league is not fully professional - the league as a whole had semi-pro and pro teams, but that does not mean that this applies to every division within it. FPL considers individual divisions in isolation (eg for Cyprus only Division One is considered fully pro, not Divisions Two and Three). If EFL League Two had semi-pro teams in it, we'd still consider the EFL Championship to be fully pro, even though they are both part of the EFL..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:35, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unless someone can produce significant coverage in reliable sources, the discussion about whether and when Airdrie United was in a fully professional league is academic and irrelevant. All I see is routine transfer coverage and the like ([2]), which is insufficient sourcing upon which to build a biography of any kind. The article under discussion is 8 years out of date. Despite the opening (and, farcially, only) paragraph of the article, Michael Brown does not play for the Bonnyrigg White Eagles.[3] That's the atrophy that you get when you ignore the general notability guideline: a sea of flotsam and jetsam of out-of-date biographies that no-one cares about, except of course for the poor subjects about whom the biographies are written. It is irresponsible to argue that biographies like this should be kept without giving a moment's consideration to that institutional failure. --Mkativerata (talk) 11:27, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – even if he meets NFOOTY, there is no indication the article subject meets GNG. – Levivich 22:32, 29 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) 08:35, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Alexander (D.C. activist)

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

Fails WP:NPOL. Could not find much in terms of news coverage outside his unsuccessful mayoral campaign (lost in the primary) in the 2010 Washington, DC Mayoral Election. Maybe redirect to 2010 Washington, D.C. mayoral election? GPL93 (talk) 22:21, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 22:21, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 22:21, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being unsuccessful candidates in mayoral election primaries, but this doesn't even try to make a case that he had any preexisting notability for any other reason prior to running in a primary and losing. Bearcat (talk) 22:55, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete total failure of notability criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:50, 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 keep. I think I could defend either a relist, or a close of NC, but I'm going to take it on faith that the sources added during this discussion are sufficient. If somebody still feels there's insufficient sourcing, feel free to bring this back to AfD for another look. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:58, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Witten

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

Poorly source biography on a living person and the person has questionable notability. Sociable Song (talk) 20:16, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:32, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:32, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:13, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources: Catching up with Matt Witten, Author revisted: Matt Witten, Writer comes out with fourth Spa City mystery , "There is No Cohesion of TV Writing Staff in Germany". And while IMBB is not a WP:RS, his page offers info keywords that can be used. I have added some sources to the page, but I haven't done much - and the page needs a lot.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:09, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note Either there is also a Matt Witten who is an actor. Or this Matt Witten does some acting in plays. Plays on page are plays he has written, noting this here only to help other editors avoid confusion because the actor with this name does get reviewed in the press.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:12, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the sources identified above and added to the article and also WorldCat shows here 1500 library holdings of his works which is a strong indicator of notability of an author as it implies there should be more coverage/reviews offline if not online, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 21:56, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I sourced the page with profile articles in regional newspapers, book reviews, and reviews of his play. I did not tackle the many television series that he is credited with writing - I could have, I just didn't put the time in. I did put in enoughtime to make this a clear pass of WP:AUTHOR.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:30, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:14, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Carter (real estate)

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

This does not appear to be a notable company, either from the references I see in the article or from my own search. Almost all the references are to the company's own web site, and those that are not are either directories or mentions in routine news stories not focusing on the company.

It was previously speedily deleted under G11, as being solely promotional. It's still pretty promotional in tone, but that's not the issue for which I nominate it; my nomination is based on lack of notability. TJRC (talk) 18:21, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Masum Reza^📞 20:01, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Entirely self-serving and promotional - fails WP:SPIP. While the article has 49 references, the vast majority are primary sources from the company's website. Of the others, most are based on company announcements or run-of-the-mill inclusions in listings. I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:26, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia page should not be deleted. Further digging into research provides a plethora of notable works from around the country, particularly in Atlanta. The initial research the user above did could have been confused because the company has changed its name multiple times. None of the links are self-referential to the company's website anymore. I think the article should remain online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mimsr (talk • contribs) 19:56, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- There are more than 50 references on the article page and not a single one of them meets the criteria for establishing notability. Most fail WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH. I encourage you to familiarise yourself with those sections before adding any other references. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:36, 30 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 per WP:SK#1. A valid rationale for deletion is not present. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:30, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rollable display

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

Too much overlap with flexible display? ViperSnake151 Talk 19:42, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:56, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

snow close So if we've produced enough interest in a topic to end up with two articles on it, the answer is to delete them?

Any discussion of merging them doesn't need AfD. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:00, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Already tagged as a merge candidate, so delete is not needed. Praemonitus (talk) 20:38, 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 Maía (singer). (non-admin closure) MarginalCost (talk) 19:41, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

El Baile de los Sueños

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

Notability unmet. Sociable Song (talk) 19:27, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:58, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:58, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:58, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:58, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Maía (singer) – difficult to find any information about the album itself, but the singer is notable enough, with plenty of coverage in her home country and a Latin Grammy Award nomination. Richard3120 (talk) 20:39, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect sounds right. This article is a blatant advert with no RS. Agricola44 (talk) 15:33, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Maía (singer). I could not find evidence of WP:GNG, though I am not sure if the language difference/barrier would effect anything in my search. Aoba47 (talk) 02:13, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: having lived in Colombia for ten years, I'd say it's unlikely. There's no history of music (or film) reviews in newspapers or music magazines, it's just not something the country is interested in, and they simply don't understand why anyone would be interested in someone else's (even a respected professional writer's) opinion of an album. Articles about singers or their music tend to be light puff pieces, as evidenced by the El Tiempo sources in the article for Maia herself. The only dedicated music magazine in the country is Shock, now an entirely online magazine, and it doesn't do music reviews. This is always a problem with sourcing albums outside of North America and Europe, because other countries just don't have the history of music magazines and critical writing and reviews. The only way I would say this would pass WP:NALBUM is if someone finds evidence of a certification, but as Colombia's certifying body doesn't even have a website, never mind a searchable database, it will be tough. Richard3120 (talk) 19:53, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the explanation. Aoba47 (talk) 20:01, 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. The consensus appears to be that this topic does not meet notability guidelines. Generally, for an organization to have an article here it is not enough for it to have lots of branches or lots of members; we need that various independent reliable sources have written about a given topic. WP:NCORP has some criteria. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:34, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Allatra IPM

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

Non-profit organization of questionable notability. No indication of how big they are, or what of any consequence they do, except holding conferences on very vague topics. I can't evaluate the non-English sources, but the English ones seem to be from websites of questionable reliability, or straight-on esoteric fringe nonsense (e.g., [4]). The text also reads as an attempt at self-promotion. Sandstein 11:12, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:21, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:21, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very helpful article and reflects the IPM Allatra description fully. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjakubis (talk • contribs) 19:50, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Trying to find information about this on the net, but the more I try to design precise searches, the less I find – it appears that there are few secondary sources about the topic. I did the following: 1. follow the links in the article, in the section Links all links were dead, of the 2. some of the links in References seems to go to articles which are perhaps secondary, perhaps self-published, 3. Google for "AllaTra International Public Movement" and "Lagoda Movement", but when I forced google to include the words verbatim, virtually all secondary sources disappeared. I think they are non-notable, and perhaps (mis)using Wikipedia as a self-publishing site. They should be deleted. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 20:05, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As for what the deal with, I found some Youtube stuff that they believe that they can transform people to gods by putting them into pyramids built from mirrors. But that doesn't matter, Wikipedia may contain woo, but it must be notable woo. C.f. Ectoplasm (paranormal) Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 22:30, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! Thank you for your feedback regarding our article. We have removed the points which might be regarded as self-promotion. At the same time, we would like to emphasize that our organization really includes a great number of participants who have established branch offices in many countries of the world. Taking this into account, we believe that our organization deserves at least a minimal article on Wikipedia. We kindly ask you not to remove the article about us and give us an opportunity to work on its improvement, in particular by adding more weighty proof links. We truly hope for understanding and fruitful cooperation. comment added by Sashko u 10:42, 23 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) 19:05, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Only mentions I could find consist of press releases and the organization's own website. Appears to have been created as promotional in nature to use Wikipedia to build credibility, not because they're otherwise notable. 136.57.207.196 (talk) 21:34, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good afternoon! While writing an article, we made a mistake, namely we inserted an incorrect link which is not relevant to the topic. We have now removed this link. We extend our apologies and express deep regret that this link might have influenced your impression of us. comment added by Sashko u 10:36, 29 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. MBisanz ^talk 22:54, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nitanshi Goel

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

This looks like a case of WP:TOOSOON article speedied once and prodded once Dom from Paris (talk) 10:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 10:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 10:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:34, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:34, 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) 18:59, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we need better sources to create and keep an article on a 12-year-old.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:16, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:11, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

K. S. Srinivas

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

Article about a civil servant that fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. The sources are either passing mentions (2 sources) or mostly identical appointment notifications (5 sources) or affiliated (2 sources) or an interview (1 source) or do not mention him (1 source) Dom from Paris (talk) 10:39, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 10:39, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with Dom from Paris' assessment regarding current sourcing, and a search did not reveal the type of in-depth coverage needed to meet notability criteria.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:49, 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) 18:59, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sourcing is either passing mentions or WP:ROUTINE announcements, and I don't see any assertions in the article indicating that he is notable under any SNGs.GirthSummit _(blether) 18:13, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:36, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SwanFest

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

the sources do not show that this festival has obtained sufficient coverage to show notability. In a WP:BEFORE search all I could find was blogs and press releases. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:15, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:15, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:15, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:47, 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) 18:51, 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 speedy keep. No credible reason listed for deletion. New editor is cautioned to go slowly with advanced issues such as deletions. Secondary schools are generally kept lacking a good reason not to. No such reason provided. John from Idegon (talk) 08:18, 25 July 2019 (UTC) (non-admin closure) (non-admin closure) John from Idegon (talk) 08:18, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hardee High School

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

Notability unmet and poorly sourced Sociable Song (talk) 18:42, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:15, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:16, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:16, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please note WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. – The Grid (talk) 19:29, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. Added one independent news source. StonyBrook (talk) 02:30, 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. (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 18:39, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Howard Finder

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

Author does not appear to be notable by any standard — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elfhewer (talk • contribs) 06:18, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG, WP:N, WP:ANYBIO, WP:AUTHOR.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:38, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 July 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:39, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable enough in the SF field to have an entry in The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and to be Guest of Honor at a Worldcon. (If you're not familiar with that distinction, I'll quote from our List_of_Worldcon_Guests_of_Honor article: While other conventions may select guests on the basis of popularity, Worldcons usually select Guests of Honor as an acknowledgement of significant lifetime contribution to the field; typically at least 25 years of activity. Selection as a Worldcon GoH is treated by authors, fans, and others in the SF field as a lifetime achievement award. Schazjmd (talk) 18:54, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Schazjmd (talk) 19:08, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:17, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:17, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:18, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:18, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Schazjmd. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:14, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, along with the previous discussion, also found enough news mentions of his death describing contributions in multiple fields to establish notability in life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.57.207.196 (talk) 21:40, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Most of the sourcing for our article does not contribute towards WP:GNG but we should only consider here the sourcing that does count. We have a newspaper obituary (local, but written by the newspaper rather than a paid family death announcement), another obituary in a notable trade magazine, an entry in a specialized encyclopedia (not currently in the article but mentioned above), and a newspaper story from before his death in a non-local paper that covers him in non-trivial detail. I think that's enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:48, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Schazjmd‘s comment convinces me that Kratman meets the criteria for notability necessary to be included in Wikipedia. TimBuck2 (talk) 23:43, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable in SF field. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:50, 27 July 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per WP:SNOW Lightburst (talk) 18:24, 31 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) 17:56, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Boys in the Band (2020 film)

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

WP:TOOSOON article about a film that only just entered the production pipeline a few weeks ago, and is likely not going to be released until next year sometime. As always, planned future films are not always automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles the moment it becomes possible to single-source the fact that they're planned -- lots of films have entered the production pipeline, but then fell apart and failed to ever come out the other end as finished films, so simply being announced is not an automatic notability guarantee. Rather, a small elite tier of highly notable films that get a lot of coverage throughout the production processes (e.g. the Star Wars or Marvel franchises) get to have articles started once principal photography has commenced, while the vast majority of films have to wait until they have a confirmed release date. But there's only one reliable source here, while the other is a WordPress blog that is not support for notability at all. Obviously no prejudice against recreation in 2020 when a release date is announced, but this does not have nearly enough GNG-worthy coverage to already make it a special notability case today. Bearcat (talk) 17:38, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:38, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:38, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:38, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of sources are appearing online for this like a short tvline article and engadget.com article. Passes basic WP:GNG in my opinion. Govvy (talk) 18:21, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Engadget is not a reliable or notability-supporting source; TVLine is just a short blurb that reverifies the exact same information as the one valid source that was already present in the article, without adding anything new. GNG is not just "anything that can show two media hits" — a film has to have a lot more than just two sources before it's exempted from having to pass the "an exact release date is confirmed" test. Bearcat (talk) 21:29, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you seeing this "exact release date" test. I could not find it in any of the wiki notability guidelines. Affied (talk) 01:04, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The core notability criterion for films is the existence of published film reviews by professional critics. By definition, that type of coverage cannot exist this far in advance of a film being released. Bearcat (talk) 15:34, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you seeing this as the core notability criterion? This is not what it says on the Wikipedia Notability for future films (WP:NFF).Affied (talk) 19:56, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Boys in the Band (play)#Film until we have full release information, though merge what we have in there (and in any circumstances due to the 1970 film, that should be re-disambiguated to The Boys in the Band (1970 film) in due time, with the main BitB page becoming a disambiguation page). Nate • (chatter) 07:09, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a topic that meets both WP:GNG and WP:NFF (which is especially permissible for having subject-specific criteria per WP:N). We know there is a film in the making for sure, and specific to this subject, we know that having started filming means a tangible product (as opposed to just plans for it beforehand). Based on this, it is a waste of an action to sweep this article under the rug only, with certainty, to pull it back out again. There is zero lack of merit in this proper film-type presentation of cast and crew and production details in a standalone article. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:45, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article meets GNG, as there are plenty of sources about this movie. [5] (Hollywood Reporter), [6] (Yahoo), [7] (Vulture), [8](Entertainment Weekly), [9] (Deadline), [10] (NY Post), [11] (LA Magazine), [12] (Newsday). This was only after a cursory Google Search, there are probably more if you go deeper. Affied (talk) 00:59, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also this article meets WP:NFF, as it is currently filming Affied (talk) 20:11, 30 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. MBisanz ^talk 22:54, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Icon Savings Plan

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

Lacks in-depth, WP:TOOSOON Meeanaya (talk) 04:15, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 04:15, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:38, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. New fund/company. Coverage doesn't come close to meeting WP:NCORP. Icewhiz (talk) 10:59, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 17:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Way WP:TOOSOON and entirely referenced by primary sources. Nothing I see in GNews is going to help at this time. Pegnawl (talk) 21:11, 29 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. MBisanz ^talk 22:54, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reyna I. Aburto

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

This subject does not meet WP:BASIC. Coverage in independent, reliable sources consists of minor name checks and meager passing mentions. Sources presented in the previous AfD discussion consist of the same, and primary sources, which does not establish notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:03, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:03, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:03, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nicaragua-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:03, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:03, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We have mulitple, indepdent sources with articles from papers in multiple cities.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:15, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – None of those sources provide significant coverage, just name checks and very minor passing, one-sentence mentions consisting of routine coverage. Some sources are primary, consisting of sermon quotations and the like. None of these establish notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:13, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I updated the reference list to be more encyclopedic. Per the [table which I created here] to assess the sources, most of them are not name checks, one-sentence mentions, as many of the local news sources have more biographical information later in the article. While the sources originating from the church do not establish notability, the other sources do. In my view, these mentions pass WP:BASIC. Rollidan (talk) 20:13, 12 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) 15:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:24, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 17:02, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:BASIC.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:24, 29 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:49, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sarika Sehgal

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

Biography of a television journalist, not adequately sourced as passing our notability criteria for journalists. Three of the four references here are a press release on an unreliable source discussion forum, a routine event calendar offering technical verification that she once attended a gala, and a glancing namecheck of her existence in the footnotes of an unreliable source article that isn't about her, none of which are reliable or notability-supporting sources at all -- and while her death itself is referenced to a real article in a real industry trade magazine, that isn't enough coverage to get her over WP:GNG all by itself as the only decent source in play. And even on a ProQuest search for older coverage that might not Google, I'm not getting any new sources that represent notability-supporting coverage about her -- all I'm getting is transcripts of her work as the bylined creator of journalism about other things, where making her notable enough for an encyclopedia article requires her to be the subject of journalism created by other people. So she doesn't clear WP:GNG, but nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to clear GNG just because she existed. Bearcat (talk) 16:32, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:32, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:32, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:15, 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) 16:33, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - coverage is really light here, too light to meet GNG. Appears to be not a notable subject. Red Phoenix ^talk 02:06, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 17:00, 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 delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:49, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jai Gurudev

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

Fails WP:NPOL. What sources do exist explicitly note how he had no meaningful impact on politics in India, and there's a lot of subtle (sometimes less-than-subtle) promotion throughout. The uncritical ridiculous age claim doesn't help. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:58, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:08, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:08, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:08, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The person is notable and some more sources should be added in the article to keep it updated. --Harshil169 (talk) 03:29, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSNOTABLE. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:13, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an unelected candidate for public office.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:12, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Meets neither the specialized notability guideline for politicians nor GNG. The lengevity claim is just plain silly. But, being of a certain age myself, this person's name called to mind a lyric in the Beatles' song "Across the Universe". So I went looking for a connection between the mantra "Jai Guru Deva Om" and Jai Gurudev. I cannot find one. If there were one, and if one could find coverage of this in a reliable source, my view might change. But, as they say, if wishes were horses, beggars would ride. David in DC (talk) 17:33, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:48, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Oregon Ornithology

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

I recently PRODded this article, but that was denied by Explicit because there exists a previous AfD. I had seen that, but didn't think it applied as it was about a redirect (JOO). As Explicit explained on their talk page, that AfD was kind of messy, with page moves and change of focus during the discussion. In the end, I agree that it is better to take this to AfD. The PROD reason still stands: "Non-notable journal. No independent sources, not indexed anywhere. Homepage was last updated 10 years ago, so likely moribund. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals." Hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:30, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:58, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:59, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 17:15, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NJOURNALS. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:05, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Firstly, I note that WP:NJOURNALS is an essay, not a policy. I do note that, according to Worldcat, the journal is held by 44 libraries - not many, but they include libraries in Australia, South Africa, the Netherlands, Spain, etc, which for a journal dedicated to birds of one US state, suggests that it is held in some regard. Still checking for any sources - will return to !vote. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:09, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You are free to ignore NJournals of course, but I'd like to note that NJournals was designed to make it easier for academic journals to be included in WP, as it is extremely rare that such a journal meets GNG. This one misses both by a mile and 44 libraries is paltry, especially for a journal that is available for free online. (So it doesn't cost anything to libraries to list it). --Randykitty (talk) 10:31, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:11, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Devika Singh

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

Does not appear to meet GNG for Actresses Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:07, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:07, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:11, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:59, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:59, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:59, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Garbage for Wikipedia. --Harshil169 (talk) 03:30, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:TOOSOON with only one prominent role in a notable production at this stage. May well be notable in the future with more roles, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 21:50, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON, her debut role was this year! Agree she may well become notable in the future. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:11, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:10, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Rivera

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

NN Mayor of a small-ish city. I see nothing that gets him to WP:NPOL - local political figures must have "signficant coverage". There are a few articles from around the time of his first election which seem quite routine. The article reads like a resume/is highly promotional complete with "mission statemen". Most of the sources are not independent. MB 15:56, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are entire independent countries which are not as large as Lawrence. He is the subject of an article in the New York Times not just the local Lawrence newspaper. There have been more recent media articles than show up in references. The Wikipedia biograhy article is and is supposed to be biographical. The article states his experience and the references back it up.RichardBond (talk) 14:40, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MB 15:56, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. MB 15:56, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:00, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:00, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable mayor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:46, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lawrence MA is large enough that a well-sourced and genuinely substantive article about a mayor could be kept — but it's not large enough to hand all of its mayors an automatic notability freebie just for existing as mayors, and "well sourced and genuinely substantive" does not describe this article. This is extremely overreliant on primary sources that are not support for notability at all, such as the city's self-published website and the social media profiles of organizations he's directly affiliated with, and while there is a smaller amount that is reliable source media coverage, there is not enough of that. Politicians at the local level of office, including mayors, need to show a depth and volume and range of coverage that marks them out as significantly more notable than most other mayors of most other places, not just routine local reportage of municipal election results and glancing namechecks of their existence in coverage of events that took place in their city. Bearcat (talk) 22:50, 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. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:08, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

House of Petrushko

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

Article is unsourced and as such draftified by a reviewer and moved back to main space without improvement. Nothing found to show this is a notable subject. The claimed famous representatives seems false, the bishop of Krakow doesn't have the same name and his bio states "the eldest of three children to the poor farmers Józef Pietraszko and Anna Migdał " and the other (in Russian) says nothing about him being born into a noble family. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:34, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:34, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:34, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, wanted to nominate myself as helpless OR. Renata (talk) 18:13, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless improved and referenced Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:36, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Save Have you seen references in English and Russian versions? All tells that Dom from Paris lies instead of article! Гимназист1748 (talk) 11:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: [[User:[User:Гимназист1748|[User:Гимназист1748]] ([[User talk:[User:Гимназист1748|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/[User:Гимназист1748|contribs]]) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

I saw the sources that were in the original article or rather the total lack of sources. I have also checked the source that you added which doesn't help at all because

there are no foot notes so I do not know what this is supposed to support.
it is nothing more than a list of names
it does not cite its own sources for whatever it is supposed to be showing
it seems to be a personal genealogy website written by an local historian called Krasnolutsky, Alexander Yurievich and not as such considered as a WP:RS because as per WP:RSSELF "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book and claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published sources are largely not acceptable."

I hope this helps you understand why I will not be withdrawing my nomination.

Oh and p.s. accusing another editor of lying without proof is a personal attack and you should avoid this at all costs or a block may follow. --Dom from Paris (talk) 13:30, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:19, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

HDR Play Pictures

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

I found no independent reliable sources that establish notability. — JJMC89 (T·C) 14:40, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 14:40, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 14:40, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:06, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:06, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom and block the two SPAS. Praxidicae (talk) 18:47, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete Not notable. Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:09, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable company that fails WP:GNG. Aspects (talk) 03:27, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are enough citations and information available on the internet to prove the authenticity and notability of the company. Wickeditx (talk) --Wickeditx (talk) 15:09, 26 July 2019 (UTC) Strike sock vote -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:43, 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) 18:12, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seed cycling

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

This article is a novel synthesis from primary sources combined with unreliable sources. I have searched for seed cycling diet and seed rotation diet and cannot find any sources that would pass WP:RS, so while it undoubtedly is a fad diet, it does not appear to be a notable fad diet that is covered in any reliable independent secondary sources. Guy (Help!) 14:32, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 14:43, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:55, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I should have thought that Good Housekeeping was a reliable source for the existence of the fad. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:44, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good spot, I have now found a whole two RS which discuss it, as a lifestyle bullshit thing. However, I have also removed great globs of WP:SYN from the article and most of the references there still don't actually talk about the claims made by proponents. Consensus appears to be: no evidence. Guy (Help!) 20:26, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well the article is in much better shape, and two RS are whatever you think evidence that the fad exists and has, however much people despise it, been noticed. And it's interesting to see an AfD nominator announcing consensus, specially while presenting evidence to the contrary. It'll only take one or two more usable sources and this'll be an obvious keep. I've chopped some more fluff and added a ref to The Telegraph. -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 02:29, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I've added a Reception section; the press are interested but healthily sceptical. I've quoted and cited New York magazine's The Cut and Shape magazine, who both get experts to make critical comments about the diet. It's certainly a thing, and as such is notable, however. -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 03:38, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Got to agree with Chiswick Chap: quite a reasonable amount of coverage from non-Kool-Aid sources. Thanks for heavily pruning the fluff, both of you. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:21, 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. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:21, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tina Hall

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

Was deprodded with the rationale, "Because Tina Hall deserves some recognition for people to know more about her, which could potentially help boast her musical career". Which is not an actual criteria for inclusion in WP. Only a single significant role doesn't meet WP:NACTOR, and searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:08, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:08, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the editor that originally placed the PROD. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:46, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:11, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:11, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:11, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:11, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only obvious source is one human interest piece from a few years ago. Agricola44 (talk) 15:29, 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. General consensus. (non-admin closure) Nightfury 09:44, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andre Reynolds II

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

Footballer who fails GNG and most likely NFOOTY. Does Leagues Cup even qualify as a fully-pro international competition? BlameRuiner (talk) 13:41, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 July 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:53, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep, to save time, the Leagues Cup is a sanctioned tournament between MLS and Liga MX for the top clubs in respective leagues not to qualify for the CONCACAF Champions League, similar to what the North American SuperLiga did from 2007 to 2010, and the UEFA Europa League. I urge the nominator to do some research before going trigger happy on deletion. Quidster4040 (talk) 14:13, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:09, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:09, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:09, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Possibly barely passes NFOOTY with 58 minutes of play in the newly launched League cup (do the teams take this seriously?). He does have some coverage - e.g. Chicago Tribune (+ a whole lot of passing mentions) - so it isn't clear he fails GNG. He is active and on a MLS squad. Icewhiz (talk) 15:16, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:13, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Assuming that the Leagues Cup is indeed an official tournament as it seems to be, it's a current player with an FPL-related appearance. Which is, as NFOOTY consensus stands, enough - as seen at: AfD/Mats van Kins, AfD/Sean Karani, AfD/Danish Irfan Azman and, just last week, AfD/Ricky Kambuaya. Some may not take the competition seriously, but that's nothing unusual; e.g. England's EFL Cup. R96Skinner (talk) 19:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NFOOTY and subject is 18 years old and has just started his career and is (and is still playing) in the top division of a country for Chicago Fire Soccer Club in a WP:FPL league.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:11, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - young player at start of career, meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:30, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chicago Fire Soccer Club until there is significant coverage in reliable sources. It is irresponsible to have a biography on this young fellow until that point. --Mkativerata (talk) 11:41, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Article about professional soccer player who hasn't yet played in a fully-pro league (his appearance in the "Leagues Cup" friendly is definitely not sufficient to satisfy WP:NFOOTBALL), however there appears to be significant coverage that meets WP:GNG. Normally, I'd argue this is WP:TOOSOON for such an article, but I think it just barely gets over the notability hurdle. Jogurney (talk) 16:02, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep subject passes WP:NFOOTBALL Lightburst (talk) 14:50, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep How in the hell did an MLS soccer player get listed here.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:30, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The subject must pass either GNG or NFOOTBALL: See (Notability)

A topic is presumed to merit an article if:

It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right (WP:NFOOTBALL); and

It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy. Lightburst (talk) 15:22, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it could conceivably pass ANYBIO as well (although this subject does not).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:30, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per all above, as he appears to meet the WP:NFOOTBALL requirements, albeit barely. Ejgreen77 (talk) 05:13, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep Meets WP:NFOOTY and has some coverage towards meeting the GNG.Sandals1 (talk) 14:32, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep MLS player is definitely notable. Why has this not been closed yet? Looks pretty unanimous to keep.--Seacactus 13 (talk) 18:06, 30 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. Lourdes 03:00, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Latifa Mammadova

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

Deprodded without rationale or improvement. While accomplished, there are not enough in-depth sources to show she meets WP:GNG, and doesn't appear to meet any of the SNG's. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added several sources-- I think the subject passes WP:GNG, though it can be tricky to find sources due to language barriers / different transliterations of her name.Gilded Snail (talk) 15:26, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It does not pass notability guidelines for academics. She is actually an administrator of public libraries [13], and hardly a notable one. My very best wishes (talk) 03:47, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Hi, My very best wishes, Latifa Mammadova is not only the head of a library, but she also is a historian, scientist and former chairwoman of Azerbaijan Committee of IFAP in UNESCO. She was the head of libraries in Azerbaijan from 2004 to 2018. Also, she is author many projects that can be seen in Library activities section of her article. Best regards, --Toghrul Rahimli (talk) 12:03, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Notability guidelines for academics are on top of WP:GNG. That is, if the subject passes GNG, they do not need to also pass academic notability. Gilded Snail (talk) 13:14, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With sources currently used on the page, such as this, I do not think she has significant non-trivial coverage in 3rd party RS as required per WP:GNG, sorry. My very best wishes (talk) 15:04, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this is one of many promotional pages related to Azerbaijan. See for example, Academy of Public Administration (Azerbaijan) (linked from this page). I think it should be also deleted. My very best wishes (talk) 15:52, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 13:51, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A long and distinguished career as a pubic servant at the national level for which she received recognition according to a source in the article. Plenty of sources in the article to support the facts about her to meet WP:GNG. Sydney Poore/FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 03:45, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the director of "Central Office of the Centralized Library System of the Yasamal District" is not really a pubic servant at the national level. Second, this page tells that "under the order of the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan, she was awarded "Medal for Distinction in Public Service". I have no idea if this is really a significant award, but the statement was sourced only to this. Is it even an RS? Does it tells anything of substance about the subject? No. This is a promotional page. My very best wishes (talk) 20:56, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Dear My very best wishes, of course "e-qanun.az" is an official government website. but in case i changed that reference to a better one, from the official website of the President of Azerbaijan. Being the head "Central Office of the Centralized Library System of the Yasamal District" is not an indicator for being an encyclopedic person, i fully agree with that, but that's not the main focus point on the topic. Being PhD in history, she is the author of several books and many articles, those i don't want to add to exaggerate the importance of the subject. Her biography are found in many books, but i only added the most respected ones. What about her earlier career? Please consider taking look at this fact as well: Latifa Mammadova was elected a deputy of the Baku City Council of People's Deputies (XVII, XVIII, XIX convocations) in 1980-1989. Sincerely, --Toghrul Rahimli (talk) 10:44, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Being listed on an official government website, a PhD degree and authoring a couple of books about the "great leader" is not a proof of notability. I do not see significant coverage in any sources currently cited on the page, only mentioning the person in passing (I agree with Onel5969). This page is basically a CV of a person. My very best wishes (talk) 14:11, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - literally millions of people have had long and distinguished civil servant careers, not a valid reason for inclusion. Also, there is a difference between sources which prove the facts of an article, and the type of in-depth sourcing which shows the notability of an article's subject, which this one sorely lacks.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:04, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete civil servants working at this level are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:09, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete Don't believe she's notable as a scientist despite claim to the contrary. Her career as a public servant doesn't show me any notability and I don't think the sources show the significant and independent coverage required to meet the GNG.Sandals1 (talk) 14:51, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I have found this difficult to assess, as my ability to find or understand sources in either Azerbaijani or Russian is very limited (practically non-existent, in fact). The only source I was able to find confirmed her appointment to a position, which does not add to notability. The awards do not seem particularly high. Are there reviews of her books? If there are, and they can be added to the article, then she might meet WP:NAUTHOR. Does Women of Azerbaijan have any more information about her than just the topic of her PhD thesis? So far, I have not seen, or been able to find, evidence that she meets either WP:GNG or any WP:SNG, and unless and until that can be provided, I don't see a reason to keep the article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:22, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:26, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Tiger's Apprentice (film)

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

No evidence main film production has begun, per WP:NFF and WP:TOOSOON BOVINEBOY2008 10:49, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:53, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:26, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:24, 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 delete. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:12, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Sorenson

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

Does not pass any notability criterion D.Lazard (talk) 10:37, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. D.Lazard (talk) 10:37, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:56, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:56, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:56, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not a clear pass of WP:PROF, but plenary speaker at a current major conference. Couple of mentions in news and books that don't focus on him [14] [15]. So clearly verifiable, but department headness and plenary speakerdom are only weak indications of notability.

If I can be petty for a moment: that's "semi-plenary" speaker at a conference which has 10 announced "plenary" speakers. M.boli (talk) 23:38, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

—Kusma (t·c) 12:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm having difficulty finding his works in Google Scholar among all the other Jons Sorenson. But for someone who's been around this long, in a high-citation field (computer science), having a paper with 119 citations in Google scholar as your best known is definitely not enough for WP:PROF#C1. And there seems to be nothing else; being department head or plenary speaker is also not enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:42, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing indicates a passing of the notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:45, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I didn't see anything on his CV that said notable to me. Competent, successful, CS professor who is still publishing original work, but not encyclopedia-worthy. — M.boli (talk) 23:38, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:11, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gareth Arnold

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

I feel I can best start off what I suspect will be a slightly contentious AFD with a quote from the article itself:

"The articles created by Arnold cited unreliable and often irrelevant sources, but rather a similar thing or topic to give it added authority."

Frankly that says it all in the case of this article. It is absolutely riddled with impressive-looking citations that actually do not back up the claim in the text, most of which do not even mention the subject of the article (by any of his various names or pseudonyms). I spent some time this morning checking these and stripping them out, but it's become exhausting particularly as I've come to the conclusion the article merits deletion in any case.

Leaving aside the carnage of the citations, this individual basically has three (maybe four) claims to notability, which I'm going to address:

Creator of British Furst. This has genuinely attracted a fair bit of press coverage, and could possibly be the subject of a standalone article, but Arnold does not get inherited notability from this, and most of the articles about BF do not actually mention him. Those that do, mention him briefly and in passing. The same goes for BFNN, which seems to be broadly the same thing.
The LID Bible / LAD Bible case. A parody Facebook account that attracted a bit of attention for being sued by the subject *might* just merit a mention on LADBible. Maybe you could make a case for a standalone page for LID Bible given the coverage, though I'd argue against it, but a standalone page for the creator? Nope.
And then there's his recent behaviour re Jared O'Mara and twitter. Clearly this is a recent event and we can see how it develops, but, while it will undoubtedly generate some stories that name Arnold, it seems unlikely to be enough to be more than a brief news story that might merit a mention on O'Mara's page, and is not sufficient to overcome WP:NOTNEWS or WP:BLP1E.

Even if it turns out that consensus is that those three items above are sufficient for Arnold to merit a standalone article, I'd make the case that this is one of those very rare situations where WP:TNT really might be called for. Hug^syrup 09:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:30, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:30, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:30, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The nominator comment on the sources checks out, looks like obvious self-publicity. Endymion.12 (talk) 09:43, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. A poorly sourced article and little objective evidence of noteworthiness Little Professor (talk) 11:22, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Definitely looks like self-promotion; he even had his Wikipedia page linked on his Twitter profile (although now removed). Ollie231213 (talk) 12:39, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear self-promotion, few sources.Manzarene (talk) 14:02, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT, and only per WP:TNT - subject meets WP:GNG.--Laun chba ller 14:53, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads like a self-created article on a minor subject. Everything in this article can be covered by a small mention in already extant articles, or does not deserve to be covered at all. Ganesha811 (talk) 14:55, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this article has been linked to in the news media - [16] 128.243.2.60 (talk) 14:58, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Obvious self promotion Taewangkorea (talk) 10:26, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable blogger.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:47, 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. MBisanz ^talk 22:53, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Milagros Schmoll

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

One of the innumerable amount of articles that relies on the obsolete, defunt NYMag directory (which does not establish notability) and Fashion Model Directory (which is a last resort at most). Outside of that notability can't be established (no, Perfil doesn't count it's a tabloid.) Trillfendi (talk) 00:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:02, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — The Spanish Wikipedia also links to this interview in La Nación and there's another in the same paper, so it seems there might be some RS from her home country of Argentina if a Spanish-speaking editor wants to look into it. —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 09:50, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is they don’t address the verification aspect of the BLP template. None of them give the adequate information required for her career. Therefore it comes down to: what’s the point? Trillfendi (talk) 04:31, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:25, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable model. Interviews do not add to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:13, 29 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. General consensus. (non-admin closure) Nightfury 09:41, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

F. Harmon Weight (director)

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

I'm not seeing anything much more than passing mentions and credits which don't satisfy WP:FILMMAKER. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:21, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:24, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:24, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:46, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:46, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I originally created his article(Harmon Weight) and have added a few cites for flavor. Some info on him from old trade publications if you can find them. Since he was a silent film director, I created an article on him as most other people who were even near a film camera at this time have a Wiki article.Koplimek (talk) 22:34, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seem to be notable enough per WP:AUTHOR Peter303x (talk) 20:59, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:24, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:43, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AUTHOR? Clarityfiend (talk) 19:00, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the director of eleven notable films with multiple reliable book sources and more offline as mentioned above. It seems a strange nomination as silent film directors are of historical, encyclopedic interest and there is no promotion involved, thanks Atlantic306 (talk)

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. General consensus, further discussion to talk pages please (non-admin closure) Nightfury 09:42, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene Mackaben

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

GNG and WP:ARTIST fail. I cannot find any sources online. Those mentioned at end of article are largely local. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:52, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Mackaben's work is held at Tucson Museum of Art (see here), and the University of Arizona Museum of Art (here, and here), his work was exhibited after his death ie. 1998 exhibition, Tucson's Early Moderns, 1945-1965 held at the University of Arizona Museum of Art (here) (have added this to article), so with the info already in the article (unfortunately without inline references) may be enough to meet WP:ARTIST? Coolabahapple (talk) 00:15, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:05, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the problem is that the way that TucsonArt (talk · contribs) cited sources in xyr original article was fairly rubbish, and has got no better via any cleanup effort since. The ″American Artists of Renown, 1981″ is actually a biography of this person, in a book of artist biographies. It has stuff that this article has not gained in 9 years, including the location and precise date of birth of the subject for example. The one item of TDC coverage that I checked includes biographical information and information about one of the artist's works (Mexican Market Scene, not mentioned in our article), with a reproduction of it above the piece and a report of a prize that it won. I suggest a more thorough review of the citations already present from the initial creation of the article, to see what is being cited and how in-depth they are. I have improved those two. Uncle G (talk) 11:09, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:23, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The article needs the referencing to be improved, but there are some decent sources to be found in the Arizona newspapers. Curiocurio (talk) 00:56, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep having works in permanent collections of [[Tucson Museum of Art and University of Arizona Museum of Art grants passing WP:ARTIST. The referencing and the overall strcuture of article needs to be improved though. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 15:02, 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. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:37, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Odette Henriette Jacqmin

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Odette Henriette Jacqmin

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:BASIC. No significant coverage found in my WP:BEFORE, only two GNews hits, both of which appear to be interviews for a Thai tabloid (and hence not a reliable source) and are labelled as press releases on Google (and thus of dubious independence). Could find no reviews of her musical output. FOARP (talk) 08:09, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:25, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:25, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:44, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:44, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:45, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Google news search of the Thai name โอเด็ต [17] --Lerdsuwa (talk) 11:18, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Paging through the results these appear to be entirely Gossip sites (e.g., GossipStar). I don't see any RS - can you see one? FOARP (talk) 12:17, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These are websites of paper newspaper, not gossip site: Thai Rath [18], Kom Chad Luek [19], [20], Manager Daily [21], Khao Sod [22], Daily News (Thailand) [23]. Even Gossip Star is a published magazine. [24] --Lerdsuwa (talk) 03:13, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, are there any stories here that aren't essentially gossip? I don't see any. The Thai Rath piece is about her new boyfriend and abortion. The Kom Chad Luek story covers the same subject as well as her new husband. The Khao Sod story covers her leaving her husband and having an abortion. The Daily news piece is about her divorce. Gossip stories seem likely to fall under WP:SENSATIONAL and WP:ROUTINE (strangely, on Wiki something can be both SENSATIONAL and ROUTINE!), and unlikely to substantiate the notability of the subject. Some reviews of her musical output, an award, some kind of evidence of charitable or political activity - these are the kind of things that're likely to save this article. FOARP (talk) 07:19, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Orphan, all OR, no sources, etc. Agricola44 (talk) 15:27, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Her active career was during the 2000s, so availability of online sources will naturally be limited. There's this half-hour talk show interview on Channel 9 from 2017[25], but it's not really the type of in-depth third-party coverage that would satisfy the GNG either. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:22, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this article needs expand and improve her works from Thai text. @Paul 012: could you help? 103.200.134.149 (talk) 19:11, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a currently unsourced BLP article. One musical release is almost never enough to make someone notable. Most "one hit wonders" have multiple such releases, although there are a few totally true one hit wonders. However nothing here suggests her release was in any way, shape or form a hit.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:57, 29 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) 08:34, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Tech Consults

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Note - I already removed the first sentence of the lead; given that it was a two-sentence stub, that leaves the article looking pretty strange, but the first sentence was a direct COPYVIO from the company's profile on an on-line directory. I considered rewording, but since I can find zero significant coverage in reliable sources (just directory listings and the odd rehashed press release), I didn't see the point in rewording prior to nominating here. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:03, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:03, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:03, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:03, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any evidence of notability. Sources (or potential sources) appear to be either non-independent or small, niche publications. Nothing amounts to the significant coverage needed per WP:CORPDEPTH. Edgeweyes (talk) 12:57, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NCORP as already noted above. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:03, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails NCORP and probable UPE creation. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:55, 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 speedy delete per WP:G5. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:50, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pavan (actor)

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

Non-notable apart from breakthrough role in Bhanta. It fails WP:NACTOR. Sheldybett (talk) 07:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 07:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 07:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:47, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:47, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep reference is added.Wikiboots (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:06, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
— Note to closing admin: Wikiboots (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.
Comment He is an actor and Enterprenuer. He featured in Some of the major International newspapers.
Newspaper Source:
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29] Wikiboots (talk)

@Wikiboots: You can't !vote twice per AfD policy so I've changed your second !vote to "Comment". GSS (talk|c|em) 15:25, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG and NACTOR. Also, please note this article was previously deleted under various titles.

More at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/N R Pavan Kumar/Archive. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt The majority of the sources added by the article creator were for another person Pawan Kumar (director). None of the other sources meet the neccessary standard to show notability. The subject has acted in one film at the age of 10 which is not notable. The web site that he created squad doesn't seem to exist yet. This is way way way WP:TOOSOON. --Dom from Paris (talk) 16:37, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt - possibly SOCK: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/N R Pavan Kumar, if so, then speedy delete. --MrClog (talk) 23:49, 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 no consensus. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:47, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kull Warrior

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

I am the creator of this article, but I did it a really long time ago back when Wikipedia was still where you put fictional cruft about things. Currently it doesn't meet notability standards at all and is better off in Wikia. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:22, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:22, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:22, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - This content looks good, but I agree that it might not necessarily need to be a stand alone article. Would you be OK if I instead tried to see if I could condensate and summarize this content and include it in the Stargate article? Michepman (talk) 22:37, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What I am concerned about is that all the info comes from sources that are WP:PRIMARY and even if merged would not be notable in secondary sources. I'll leave it up to the discussion though._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:43, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's an excellent point. I'll admit that I haven't reviewed the sources in detail yet, and it may be that all we need is to simply mention that the Kull Warriors exist in the Stargate universe if these characters are significant and relevant enough in the broader context of the show to warrant such a mention. Thoughts? Michepman (talk) 22:51, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:05, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I really, really want to !vote keep here but I do have WP:NOR concerns due to the WP:PRIMARY issue. I'd like to see as much of this retained as possible though! --Goobergunch|? 04:55, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:37, 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 merge to Rhondda Urban District Council. MBisanz ^talk 22:53, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1896 Ystradyfodwg Urban District Council

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

The results of a local election in Wales, 1896. Fails a combination of WP:NOT and WP:N. We are not an electoral database. We do not carry pure tables of election results without any discussion or context of who the parties, candidates, issues, etc. were. And coverage of such topics is very unlikely to exist for a 19th century local election. Sandstein 11:20, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:26, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:26, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:37, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:46, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There have been two previous AfDs on urban/rural district council elections, which resulted in merge and merge. Number 5 7 20:59, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge also 1894 Ystradyfodwg Urban District Council election. A UDC was a very low level of local government, often consisting of a single parish that happened to be very populous. It is axiomatic that within WP that local politicians are NN, unless for notable for other reasons. It may be legitimate to have a table showing political party representation in the article on the UDC itself. The particular election we are discussing involved the re-election of most of the candidates unopposed. Quite apart from the wider issue as to such e3lection articles generally, this one is about a thoroughly NN election. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:25, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:37, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Rhondda Urban District Council. There is a good source for the information. Ultimately, it would be good to have a political history of all these councils but there's no need for separate articles for each election now. Cavrdg (talk) 14:21, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Rhondda Urban District Council. Not notable enough for a standalone article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:26, 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 no consensus. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:47, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Binish Desai

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

Article about a subject that fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. At this point it serves only to promote as i could only find passing mentions and nothing in depth. Lapablo (talk) 19:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 05:29, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 05:29, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Binish Desai is a notable personality by his work. I found many online news references that are reliable and independent of the subject. And these resources justify the notability of the subject. Here are few references which are reliable and independent of the subject: Forbes 30 under 30, DailyPress, NDTV, Rotary.org, Firstpost, TOI, ChicagoTribune, and TedX. I also added few new references which are reliable and independent of the subject: ThebetterIndia, DeccanChronicle, Times of India, TOI, Firstpost, LittleIndia, Book — Preceding unsigned comment added by FXBeats21 (talk • contribs) 05:59, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:36, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:38, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:35, 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 22:52, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Estenson

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

Promotion for non notable business man. Comments from him are not coverage about him. Article is bombarded with a lot of sources but falls short of GNG. PR, primary, interviews, routine announcements of comings and goings, listings. Claims he won a Primetime Emmy® Award but the Emmys don't mention him. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:54, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions.--Nahal^(T) 12:59, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:38, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject has multiple secondary source featured coverage in reliable sources. Subject was employed in upper management positions at major media companies. See featured articles, Nashville Business Journal, Hollywood reporter, Adweek, Featured here, here, also more than passing mention in Forbes. From what I have read, the 2007 Emmy award went to ABC – and the award is for Excellence in Interactive Television Programming: the subject was a VP of digital media, and as such the subject was a leader who shares in the Emmy. The subject passes our notability guide. Lightburst (talk) 17:27, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lightburst. Disney and CNN are some of the top corporations and reliable sources accompany his tenure. AmericanAir88^(talk) 18:55, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The linked feature-pieces are paid-for-spam. ∯WBG^converse 07:16, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:03, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:03, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:37, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:10, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as undisclosed advertising, something I have blocked the creator for. MER-C 09:28, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:49, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jepson School of Leadership Studies

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

Insufficient evidence of notability (notability is not inherited so merely being a school at a notable institution does not make this constituent organization also notable) ElKevbo (talk) 03:53, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:50, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:50, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:59, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:49, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

E. Claiborne Robins School of Business

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

Insufficient evidence of notability (notability is not inherited so merely being a school at a notable institution does not make this constituent organization also notable) ElKevbo (talk) 03:50, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:49, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:49, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:00, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:02, 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 delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:46, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stan Richardson

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

No claim of notability. Nothing to indicate WP:MILPEOPLE is met. MB 03:34, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. MB 03:34, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:34, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Recorded subject position and station but subject has not done anything to meet WP:SOLDIER or WP:MILPEOPLE to merit a page in Wikipedia. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:39, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Awful name to BEFORE. There is a playwright with the same name ([30]) that might be notable. During WWII an individual with the same name was the manager of NBC London ([31]) and sent reporters to D-Day - and might be notable. There is another D-Day sailor - who served on the Canadian HMCS Bayfield whose diary was used in a book ([32]) - who is probably not notable. Having found all these other Stans, I can't quite see why our Stan would be notable from the description in the article and I've been unable to locate sources establishing notability. Icewhiz (talk) 07:36, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:26, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Afraid I'm not seeing any notability at all. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:26, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question for User:MB or someone else - Where is this page? Is this page in article space or in draft space? There seems to be some edit conflict, and it seems to have been nominated in both spaces. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:35, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon: I procedurally closed MFD:Draft:Stan Richardson because this was better attended.
Technically, Draft:Stan Richardson needs to go to WP:RFD instead for deletion since it's now a redirect. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:42, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't go to RfD. If this AfD results in "delete", the redirect goes per WP:CSD#G8. If this AfD does not result in "delete", the redirect can stay. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:09, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I know... ^{I am not very funny..} –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:27, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if in article space. Does not satisfy GNG or military notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:35, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Plausible sources found:

~~https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2019/06/06/nbc-radio-reporter-who-witnessed-d-day-told-world-what-he-saw/?utm_term=.b5e18aea2947~~ "NBC London manager Stan Richardson" different person same name, mentioned co-incidentally in relation to the same d-day.

https://www.littlehamptongazette.co.uk/news/people/littlehampton-d-day-veteran-99-to-unveil-commemorative-plaque-at-75th-anniversary-event-1-8955798 "99-year-old D-Day veteran Stan Richardson". Good source.

~~Leaning keep~~ due to unlisted sources being about to be easily found. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:45, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some about other people... E.g. WaPo which you link to has a passing mention of "NBC London manager Stan Richardson" - not our subject. I found at least 3 different people with this name with coverage in WW2.Icewhiz (talk) 03:58, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I am counting one good source for notability. Where there is one, it is worth scratching deeper for another ... --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:08, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But what is his notability? Just a Royal Navy petty officer and later a mid-level business executive. What possible notability guideline does he meet? -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:00, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like just the one, a newspaper story on the family friends Probus club surprise party, the cardboard cut out of his 16-year-old self making a good photo for the paper. Not enough for an article. Delete. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:36, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails the relevant notability guideline. Fails GNG, because the purported source s for notability do not hold up:one is a tribute to a local person in a local paper, and the other is about a different individual . DGG ( talk ) 04:36, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As noted above the subject does not seem to meet notability guidelines. Dunarc (talk) 22:51, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reference and not seeing any notability at all. Best - Blake44 (talk) 18:55, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No credible claim to notability. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:25, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:46, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The John Reed Club (band)

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

DePRODed by creator. Concern was: Fails WP:NMUSIC.
A plethora of sources that are neither mainstream press nor reliable, or bearing only fleeting mentions does not add up to notability. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:54, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:00, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:00, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:00, 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. kingboyk (talk) 00:57, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Maximilian de Gaynesford

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

I am unsure of this person's notability, a cursory Google search brings up nothing, and all I the books I can find on Google Books is a few books where he's credited as a author, and some books that are just copies from Wikipedia. TheAwesome Hwyh 02:16, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be noted that a major contributor to this article, @Phenomenologuy: seems to be Gaynesford himself. TheAwesome Hwyh 02:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the relevant COI noticeboard discussion. TheAwesome Hwyh 02:48, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. TheAwesome Hwyh 02:16, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. TheAwesome Hwyh 02:16, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. TheAwesome Hwyh 02:24, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. TheAwesome Hwyh 02:24, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TheAwesome Hwyh 02:25, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Note that if his chair is an established one instead of a personal one then he qualifies under WP:NACADEMIC #5. However, I can't determine whether it is or not. If kept, the article should be renamed Maximilian de Gaynesford, which appears to be his common name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:21, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 14:19, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep despite PEACOCK nature of page, book reviews on JSTOR establish notabliity. Some with, some without middle name.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:11, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:AUTHOR and per E.M.Gregory. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:51, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is tricky to figure out how the Wikipedia:privacy policy and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy should be applied here. There is an exemption in the former for this, but this is such an extreme outlier of a case that I think that an argument can be made for removal of the article and the edit history in the interests of the spirit of the privacy policy, even if the letter allows it. Uncle G (talk) 00:00, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am not sure what you mean in regards to the articles you have linked. Do you think that you could elaborate further? TheAwesomeHwyh 01:46, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - My concerns about this have been resolved via some oversighting. Uncle G (talk) 12:02, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am the person referred to in this article, which was created without my knowledge by someone unknown to me in or before 2005. Whether the original decision to include an article about me was correct, I happily leave to others. But if it helps make that decision, I can testify that the information in the body of the article is factually correct - I have checked and corrected it regularly over the years. The name itself, however, ("Robert Maximilian de Gaynesford") is misleading - I am known and publish as 'Maximilian de Gaynesford' - so if Wikipedia continues to keep an article about me, I would ask that this correction be made. Please feel free to contact me if I can be of help. Phenomenologuy (talk) 13:53, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
comment moved to bottom by —Kusma (t·c) 14:18, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable academic, and move to the more widely used Maximilian de Gaynesford when this AfD closes. —Kusma (t·c) 14:21, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this article is retained, this selection of the most notable academic articles and reviews discussing the work of its subject by others in the field could be included:

Here follows a pretty impressive list of academic reviews and other material. Drmies (talk)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Reviews of de Gaynesford John McDowell (2004)

by Alexander Baggatini and Marcus Willaschek in Philosophical Books Volume 47, Issue 3, July 2006, Pages 281-4^[1]
by Alexander Miller in Philosophical Quarterly Volume 55, Issue 221, 2005 Pages 667-9^[2]
by Arif Ahmed in Mind Volume 115, Issue 458, April 2006, Pages 403–409^[3]

Reviews of de Gaynesford Hilary Putnam (2006)

by George Engelbretson in History and Philosophy of Logic Volume 28, February 2007 Pages 101-2^[4]
by Robert C. Danisch in Metascience Volume 16, 2007 Pages 107–110 ^[5]

Reviews of de Gaynesford I: The Meaning of the First Person Term (2006)

by Stephen Williams in Times Literary Supplement April 2007^[6]
by Jose Luis Bermudez in Philosophical Review Volume 117, Number 4, November 2008, Pages 634-637^[7]
by Richard Vallée in Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews November 2006^[8]
by Maria Alvarez in Philosophical Quarterly Volume 58, Issue 231, April 2008, Pages 372–374^[9]
by Daniel Morgan in Dialectica Volume 61, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 583-7^[10]

Reviews of de Gaynesford The Rift In The Lute: Attuning Poetry and Philosophy (2017)

by Richard Eldridge in The British Journal of Aesthetics Volume 59, Issue 2, April 2019, Pages 236–239^[11]
by Lowell Gallagher in SEL Studies in English Literature 1500-1900 vol. 58 no. 1, 2018, pp. 219-277^[12]

Articles in response to de Gaynesford on Poetry

by Christopher Mole The Performative Limits of Poetry in The British Journal of Aesthetics Volume 53, Issue 1, January 2013, Pages 55–70^[13]

For biographical evidence on the subject, this data could be included:

Lincoln College Record 2001-2 reports de Gaynesford leaving Lincoln College Oxford in 2002^[14]
Leiter Reports: A Philosophical Blog reports de Gaynesford's move to the University of Reading from the College of William and Mary in 2006^[15]

References

^ "Baggatini and Willaschek".
^ "Miller".
^ "Ahmed".
^ "Engelbretson".
^ "Danisch".
^ "Williams".
^ "Bermudez".
^ "Vallee".
^ "Alvarez".
^ "Morgan".
^ "Eldridge".
^ "Gallagher".
^ "Mole".
^ "Lincoln Record" (PDF).
^ "Leiter Reports".

Phenomenologuy (talk) 10:29, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable by our standards: He's got four books out and they've received a decent number of academic reviews, so he passes PROF. Drmies (talk) 15:44, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep GS cites [33] low, but as expected for philosophy. Book reviews routine but pass WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk).
- I am not sure that "routine" is really the right word. This is not pseudonymous reviewing from Amazon or similar, which would be routine. This is reviews by identifiable experts, some peers in the field. Richard Vallée is another philosophy professor, for just one example. Uncle G (talk) 12:31, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By "routine" I mean that academic books from reputable sources are routinely reviewed in the scholarly literature. There is nothing special about being reviewed in this way. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:24, 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:45, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lunatic fringe (term)

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

Completely a WP:DICDEF and non-notable. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:14, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If the page is deleted it'll leave a redlink at the dab page Lunatic fringe. How should that dab page be modified? Note: I'm the editor who created the page by moving material from the dab page. DexDor^(talk) 05:34, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. The DAB page will do fine without the pipe. We have many DAB pages on common words and phrases that need a disambig to point people to sundry songs, novels, rock bands, etc. E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:36, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DexDor: The link to it should be removed. The Wiktionary box on the dab page is sufficient, no changes need to be made to it otherwise._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:32, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge WP:DICDEF tells us to cover topics by their meaning not their spelling. This means we should combine this with other similar pages likes moonbat and wingnut. This could be a start on a glossary of American politics. Andrew D. (talk) 11:23, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can't merge into an article that doesn't exist. Either way, once it does, surely someone can look in the dictionary and find the definition of lunatic fringe again without this page needing to exist._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:32, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:30, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Nom. Completely a WP:DICDEF and non-notable. --SalmanZ (talk) 20:25, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - DICDEF. If it didn't have the disambiguator in the title it would make sense to redirect, but lunatic fringe already exists as a disambiguation page and I don't see much point in redirecting there (nobody's searching for it with "(term)"). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:29, 30 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. kingboyk (talk) 00:30, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rapsittie Street Kids: Believe in Santa

AfDs for this article:

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

As another editor mentioned on the talk page, this article was deleted after an AfD in early 2017, with the reason for nomination being "No reliable sources found. Only sources are a Wayback link, a 404, and a YouTube link. Special only aired once. No third party reviews found, only 128 unique Google hits and no relevant hits in Books." Concerns raised then do not appear to have been resolved. Moaz786 (talk to me or see what I've been doing) 01:00, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Moaz786 (talk to me or see what I've been doing) 01:00, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Moaz786 (talk to me or see what I've been doing) 01:00, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Has received coverage and general notoriety for its poor quality:

"Believe" it: "Santa" sucks! from TV barn
Exploiting the Archives Week: This Looks Terrible! Rapsittie Street Kids: Believe in Santa from film critic Nathan Rabin
We dare you to watch the worst Christmas special of all time from KTEM
7 completely bizarre christmas specials you probably forgot existed from Rotten Tomatoes
Spread some holiday fear with this horrific 2002 computer-animated Christmas special from The A.V. Club

Rabin's review is particularly in-depth, but none of these are truly just incidental or trivial. They all go in to some detail about the film, and multiple sources have called it one of the worst holiday specials in history, a strong sign of notability. It has also been reviewed by the Notalgia Critic. All of this combined with the unusually strong voice cast lend a strong weight that this is indeed a notable article - substantial coverage has, indeed, been met since the last deletion, which is not surprising given the film had remained lost for years and thus could not receive any new coverage until it had been found again and widely circulated. Toa Nidhiki05 01:41, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another source from Quest News. This is a school paper FWIW but I think it lends credence to the film's poor quality being notable. Toa Nidhiki05 01:47, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I say keep the article, there was already a version made ages ago, but it never got verified simply because nobody thought to give it more than two sources. There are more than enough verified sources for this version. The Rabin review posted earlier might need some looking at, but the rest the sources listed checks out IMO. Zucat (talk)

Keep per above, sourcing is maybe not top-shelf but clearly substantial enough to suggest notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:48, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources such as The AV Club, passes WP:GNG thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:43, 29 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:45, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sagarmatha Secondary Boarding School

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

Not notable school. ~SS49~ {talk} 00:26, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:40, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:40, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:40, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:Per burden of proof . There's literally dozens of schools of this name; how else are we to verify anything is anything. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 20:45, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not pass WP:ORG. Mccapra (talk) 04:23, 31 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.

[1] "Baggatini and Willaschek".

[2] "Miller".

[3] "Ahmed".

[4] "Engelbretson".

[5] "Danisch".

[6] "Williams".

[7] "Bermudez".

[8] "Vallee".

[9] "Alvarez".

[10] "Morgan".

[11] "Eldridge".

[12] "Gallagher".

[13] "Mole".

[14] "Lincoln Record" (PDF).

[15] "Leiter Reports".

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]