Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 June 23

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 22 June	24 June >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. If events unfold which would make the subject notable, see WP:REFUND. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:57, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vardhan Puri[edit]

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

Fails on WP:NACTOR as yet to make debut in the film industry as an actor. Not meeting WP:GNG either. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:20, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:20, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:20, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify Since the subject currently fails WP:NACTOR, His only claim to fame is AmrishPuri's grandson. His movie is expected in September after which he may become notable. So the draft may be improved in the meanwhile. I have no objections if this gets deleted. --DBig Xrayᗙ 11:04, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:29, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:28, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MrClog (talk) 22:43, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

comment Hello, i have added some more information. Hope this helps :-) 🌝Lucas🌞B🌎1991 (talk) 21:32, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:LucasB1991 I hope you are referring to this edit of yours, well he may have been assistant director but that is not sufficient. being a director of a notable movie would have probably helped his case. --DBig Xrayᗙ 06:19, 28 June 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. In order for a subject to be notable, there must be significant coverage of that person in their individual capacity in reliable sources. bd2412 T 00:55, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Rowley[edit]

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

There appears to be very little coverage of the person himself. Provided sources, if of any length, are about a technology named Pylon Cam that he invented; he only gets passing mentions in these. The other refs are primary and promotional. - As for the list of awards and honors, it looks impressive until you follow them up and notice that the awards aren't for him but for productions he has worked on - again, passing mentions (e.g. [1]). I don't see sufficient personal notability demonstrated here. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:06, 8 June 2019 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:06, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:59, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:59, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (copied from talk page --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:48, 9 June 2019 (UTC)) I just found your reasoning. It appears mostly due to the cited references on the Pylon Cam and awards. I'm not sure how I rectify the Pylon Cam debate without publishing internal documents. I know a lot of his former R&D team at ESPN and they acknowledge that executives do the interviews about new technology, while the producers and lead R&D personnel still get credit among industry veterans. In this case, I'm curious what you would expect me to link to for something that is often considered just "made by ESPN," when the creator would like to get credit for it after leaving?[reply]

Equally, in regards to the awards, it's pretty common for media producers to receive credit for the awards that their shows receive. This is an industry I know pretty well, and marking accolades by program is the standard. Almost never does an individual producer get an award in the TV business; it always goes to the shows. Is there a concern he didn't work on these shows or would it be better if I linked to archives of on-air footage of Marc? ESPN isn't searchable by producer, but I know how to find it if I need to.

LMK, - HK Hwkeyser (talk) 05:31, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My issue is not with the content/form/origin of the Pylon Cam references, but with the fact that these are about Pylon Cam - not about Rowley. To have an article about a person, as opposed to about their work, we require in-depth, independent coverage of the person themselves. As an example, if all coverage of Facebook were to merely state, somewhere in passing, "By the way, this was created by Mark Zuckerberg", then we would still have a dozen articles about Facebook, but none about Mark Zuckerberg. It appears to me that Pylon Cam has received a certain amount of coverage, and it might be possible to source a short article about that (although I wouldn't depend on it); but the inventor has not, and thus we should not have an article about him.

We don't generally regard "having been part of a team that worked on something that received an award", as equivalent to "having received a award", but I'm admittedly not too sure regarding the Emmys, and maybe there's even some special convention here. One reason these things are being put up for discussion is so that better-informed heads can weigh in :) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:07, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can see few articles that mention the person - one main one on the person [2] and a few other minor mentions - [3][4][5]. Those with minor mentions are generally ignored for notability assessment, therefore you need a couple more that focus on the person like the first link to satisfy the GNG criteria. While Emmy awards are generally notable, the particular awards are given to him as part of a team rather than specifically the person, see the number of people listed in the awards (one of them appears to give more than a hundred names for a single award) - [6][7][8], therefore I'm inclined to ignore the Emmys, while the others appear to be very minor awards. At the moment I'd say he marginally fails the notability criteria, but a couple more like the Feed Magazine article (possibly just one more) might pass him. Hzh (talk) 20:13, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This was a tough one because he seems to be an inventor of some accomplishment - the Emmy's being a signfier of that if not in this case individual notability. I don't see enough indications that Feed, which doe seem to be the best source, is RS enough to combine with other things we know to be true to get to notability. I think he's one RS profile away from notability but is for now a delete for me. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:15, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:00, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MrClog (talk) 22:42, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reads relatively promotionally, and I'm not convinced the sourcing is quite there to get him over the WP:GNG line. SportingFlyer T·C 08:08, 24 June 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:06, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The March of Voices[edit]

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

Does not assert enough information to establish notability, has been marked as needing additional verifiable sources for eight years with little to no work since that time. Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Edits) 18:43, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:40, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:41, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MrClog (talk) 22:41, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it looks like this was short-lived. I can’t find anything on it. Mccapra (talk) 07:14, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. The topic appears to be notable. (non-admin closure) Masum Reza^📞 17:58, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kashmar carpet[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and looks promotional. Masum Reza^📞 22:39, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.~~ Masum Reza^📞 22:39, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I get quite a number of hits on "قالی کاشمر " and naturally even more on قالی کاشمر . I suppose nom is fluent in Persian, could they please explain why they think this topic is not notable with a view to the sources. Why was this sorted into India, nom's own country, and not delsorted into Iran? Sam Sailor 13:12, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Sam Sailor: Hello thanks for pointing out. It appears that it is a mistake on my part. I've struck out my above comments. Masum Reza^📞 17:49, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Masum Reza^📞 17:53, 25 June 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. WP:V concerns as well as consensus that this term fails notability requirements. Just Chilling (talk) 23:00, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Drome numbers[edit]

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

No claim of significance, and no supporting literature outside of a bare-bones MathWorld entry — in fact this might actually be a MathWorld Nihilartikel. This would be a speedy-deletion candidate under A7 if not for that criterion's precise category requirements, and one might argue that it still is under A11. —Twice Nothing (talk) 22:19, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable dictionary definition. The term drome number isn't even used in the source - it only defines metadromes, plaindromes, nialpdromes and katadromes. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 10:41, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:15, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. After searching Google and the original reference used in the article, I can find no sources (even passing mentions) suggesting that this term even exists - much less that it is notable. In that case, I would agree that this is possibly an A11 candidate. ComplexRational (talk) 21:42, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. They do have OEIS sequence numbers (A023784, A023771, A023797, and A023757), but they all only cite MathWorld. I suspect the few mentions found in the literature of the terms (nialpdrome does get two Google Scholar hits, for example) are from people who took MathWorld at its word; other than that the concept is insignificant enough mathematically that the terms don't seem to have been widely adopted. Double sharp (talk) 05:20, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. Our hexadecimal article used to mention the words "plaindromes", "nialpdromes", "metadromes", and "katadromes" with a citation to Martin Gardner's Sixth Book of Mathematical Diversions from "Scientific American" (p. 105), but the quoted page does not actually contain them. Double sharp (talk) 14:06, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An umbrella term for a handful of definitions that nobody has managed to make interesting. The OEIS entries refer to MathWorld, as mentioned above, and the MathWorld articles cite ... the OEIS entries. This has the look of a pet idea thought up by a recreational mathematician who really liked coining words. Nothing wrong with having that hobby, but this example of it just isn't encyclopedia material. Generally, I think our community sentiment is that merely having a MathWorld page is not enough to warrant an article here (example). XOR'easter (talk) 20:47, 29 June 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:06, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Christoph Kohl (architect)[edit]

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

Tagged for notability issues for 5 years, article is about an architect who works in a partnership. There's no indication of notable works that can be acscribed to him. Any mention in book publications seems to be about the partnership. This seems to just be an architect doing, erm, architecture with nothing that makes him more than run-of-the-mill. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST. Time for it to go. Sionk (talk) 20:52, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Sionk (talk) 20:52, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources provide significant coverage of this person. He may have authored some articles and a book (or two) but these are primary sources. He has received passing mention in one journal article. There is nothing remarkable or notable about this person that has been published. For a book to be notable it should be written about or talked about in reliable sources as well, but this might not indicate notoriety for the author - only for the book. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:49, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:53, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:54, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:16, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Subject has no significant or wide coverage. Fails WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 20:59, 28 June 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:07, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Forshaw (musician)[edit]

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

I considered A7ing this, but I'm doing this instead as the article's been here for 12 years. This is a poorly sourced article on a non-notable musician. Adam9007 (talk) 20:46, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:54, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:54, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:55, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing found that would indicate that any criterion of WP:NMUSIC is satisfied. --Michig (talk) 08:26, 24 June 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:08, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Epcot Forever[edit]

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

Not everything that happens at DisneyWorld is notable. I don't find significant coverage of this fireworks display which has not yet started. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:17, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:55, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:17, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it's simply WP:TOOSOON and perhaps redirect to Epcot – The Grid (talk) 21:10, 29 June 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 20:34, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Akron Beacon Journal Player of the Year Award[edit]

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

A local award for high-school students. While it has been awarded to notable people, there's no coverage about the award, and in general these types of awards are not notable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:14, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:14, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:14, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete local youth sports cruft. SportingFlyer T·C 08:09, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:17, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Unnotable award from a minor newspaper. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:45, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. local newspaper, local event , not notable, Alex-h (talk) 16:55, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The award might be meaningful to its winners, but it is not notable as per Wikipedia standards. Capt. Milokan (talk) 23:26, 29 June 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. ST47 (talk) 14:57, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

James Genrich[edit]

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

WP:PERP not met. Coverage beyond the standard local newspaper coverage is a TV episode. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:11, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:11, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:11, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:17, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not everyone convicted of murder is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:14, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a heinous crime, but not notable by WP:NCRIME standard.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:39, 27 June 2019 (UTC) withdraw after reading article about this case and Pattern matching in The Nation.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:11, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, The Nation has a substantial article that concentrates on this case here, there are other reports by KKCO (here and here - could be deemed routine?), The Washington Times (here - a mention(?) but interesting that this case was specified), but is this enough? Coolabahapple (talk) 13:56, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure. In part because despite the fact that according to The Nation (Feb. 2018) the Innocence Project was looking at this case, I see no articles about the Innocence Project getting the case reopened. The 2013 attempt you mention (also Denver Post, 2013: [9]) to overturn the verdict with DNA evidence was denied in the Washington Times article your cite. That, plus an article revisiting the case on the 20th anniversary, doesn't quite seem to add up to WP:PERP, although the Denver Post did cover the 1992 - 93 arrest and trial intensively.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:19, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Genuinely unsure. If this happened today, there would be commentators discussing incel, the term is new, but the tone of the notes cited by The Nation is "incel". And the Denver Post coverage really was intense.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:47, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree that this one is difficult, but I'm unsure that it's really possible to write an article about Genrich as a person. Genrich doesn't strike me as notable, nor does the crime he was convicted of. The related issues--reliability of forensic evidence, incels--are, and Genrich could be mentioned in those articles. Mackensen (talk) 04:25, 1 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 20:33, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nice To Meet U Tour[edit]

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

Notability concerns -- while the singer is notable, there's no evidence the tour is notable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:51, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:56, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:56, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:57, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:18, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NTOUR. Jmertel23 (talk) 17:11, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As always, the notability test for a concert tour is not just the ability to use the artist's own self-published website and a user-generated setlist database as technical verification that the tour existed — the notability test is the ability to use reliable source journalistic coverage and analysis about the tour's importance in terms of "artistic approach, financial success, relationship to audience, or other such terms". My go-to example is always The Tragically Hip: of the literally dozens of concert tours they undertook over the course of their career, just two actually have Wikipedia articles: the multi-artist festival bill they staged three times in the 1990s, and The One That Literally Shut Canada Down. But there's no content here to contextualize any importance at all — this is literally just "tour happened, the end", which is not the recipe for a notable concert tour that needs its own standalone article. Bearcat (talk) 14:36, 25 June 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 Steven Curtis Chapman discography. MBisanz ^talk 20:32, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Abbey Road Sessions/The Walk[edit]

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

Album did not chart and does not appear to have substantial coverage. Toa Nidhiki05 19:51, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Steven Curtis Chapman discography. First, it's an EP so I'm not sure why it's listed as an album. The AllMusic entry is only a database entry—no review or rating. JesusFreakHideout.com has no review of it. I did not check to see if CCM or other publications had reviews. I suspect that they would have been WP:ROUTINE. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:06, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are no reviews listed at his entry on CMnexus. Toa Nidhiki05 20:08, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Steven Curtis Chapman discography. I can't really find any sources talking about this album in depth at all. A redirect to the artist's discography page, where it is already listed, should be sufficient. Rorshacma (talk) 20:08, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:57, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:57, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:57, 24 June 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 Steven Curtis Chapman discography. MBisanz ^talk 20:32, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas Is All in the Heart[edit]

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

Album did not chart and does not appear to have garnered significant coverage. Toa Nidhiki05 19:39, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Steven Curtis Chapman discography. Nearly all the sources I can find are actually about the earlier song "Christmas is All in the Heart" that he wrote, which is oddly not even in this album, according to the track list. According to this book, this album was actually just a reissue of The Music of Christmas, with a different title. If this is actually true, then it could be merged/redirected there. However, as the track list recorded here for this album is completely different than the one Wikipedia lists for the earlier one, I don't know if this is accurate. Rorshacma (talk) 20:02, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Steven Curtis Chapman discography. Agree that the references are for the earlier song. This was an attempt to profit off that song and it failed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:07, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, there's only one review listed at CMNexus. There do appear to be some new songs that were later included on All I Really Want For Christmas, but this project itself is a fairly standard unnotable retailer-exclusive album. Honestly it might even be worth just redirecting this to The Music of Christmas since that song is on that album and I'd wager more people are looking for the song than for an obscure Hallmark album. Toa Nidhiki05 20:09, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:58, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:58, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:58, 24 June 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 20:32, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Street influences in fashion[edit]

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

This is an essay and not written in the style of an encyclopedia article. The author claims it is a homework assignment. Unfortunately that's not a reason to keep something that does not conform to the policies (e.g. WP:OR) and style of the site. ... discospinster _talk 19:00, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 19:00, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I noticed this article when it came through the New Page feed and I was curious what would happen to it because it's not written at all like an encyclopedia article. There are a number of refs (fewer now because I combined the repeats), and it's possible some of those could be used to expand the existing Street fashion article. I'm not sure the editor even looked to see what already existed before writing this one. Schazjmd (Talk) 19:49, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The article was moved back to draft space by a page reviewer (after the author prematurely moved it to the mainspace) with an explanation of why it wasn't ready for the mainspace, but the author moved it right back to the mainspace less than 30 minutes later. So here we are, analysing a homework assignment . . . Orville1974^talk
Delete Author admitted this article is original research WP:OR CabbagePower (talk) 17:46, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unnecessary fork of Street fashion, some of the information about notable fashion designers/houses that have been involved in its development could be included under a "history" section there, being careful of any original research, but, otherwise, this is not required. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:39, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:OR, so its contents can't even be merged with the Street fashion article. Orville1974^talk 21:14, 27 June 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. Keep with respect to "List of" articles. Some copyright concerns were raised, but I'm not sufficiently convinced to speedy delete at this point - as Justlettersandnumbers states, the data we're reproducing is primarily simple facts from a government database, so even if the California Institute of Technology claims copyright over the design of their webpages, the data from NASA JPL seems like it should be PD. As Rfassbind and Dlthewave state, I'd encourage contributors to start a focused discussion perhaps at WP:CCI or one of the talk pages for more focused investigation (and please ping me if you do, as I'm interested).

No consensus with respect to "Meanings of" articles. If the nominator still wishes for those to be deleted, I'd recommend they create a new AfD, as there is some support here to delete them or merge them. Due to the combined nomination here, they may not have gotten the full attention of the participants in this debate. ST47 (talk) 14:54, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Post-close note: I've posted this at the copyright problems noticeboard. Mentioning here so that interested editors are aware. –dlthewave ☎ 21:52, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of minor planets: 500001–501000[edit]

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

List of minor planets seems to be an attempt to build a database of all 500,000+ minor planets that have been discovered to date. The first few thousand have individual names and even Wikipedia articles in some cases, but everything past about 100,000 is nothing more than a list of numbered entries accompanied by a completely empty "meanings of names" list. They show no sign of notability or significance, neither individually nor collectively

There are over 400 pages that fit this description so I just picked the first 10 in the 500,000 series as a starting point.

Also of concern is the fact that each page is a near-exact copy of data from the Minor Planet Center, which raises potential copyright issues. –dlthewave ☎ 18:11, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:40, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:20, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Jesus lord I had no idea someone had made something like this on Wikipedia. I appreciate their effort but I have to agree with the nominator and agree that there seems to be a lack of notability for a lot of these.★Trekker (talk) 19:23, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete the Meanings of Names articles. Massive WP:TROUT to the irresponsible person who mass-created scores of literally empty articles that couldn't even be theoretically filled since these have only numeric names. Delete other lower-numbered Meanings of Names articles that do have some namesakes, which are copied directly from the respective citations already provided in the main lists. Perhaps the main lists could have a column for 'Named after', but we do not need to have articles just to copy and paste the primary source for something not covered by tertiary sources; the Citation column links to the meanings page through a repetition of the name, but it's unclear what warrants the duplication or what makes this a citation – both have the same JPL link in the Ref column. Weak keep the main planet lists: Yes there's a lot of them but I believe these were a compromise as a way to cover scientific information without having articles on individual asteroids, though there are still quite a few of them e.g. 4585 Ainonai that are certainly not notable, all sources being databases of stats without WP:SIGCOV. These should be redirected to the lists with linked citations. Reywas92^Talk 19:24, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Redirect the Meanings of minor planet names pages. Maybe we could merge all these pages into a parent Meanings of minor planet names: 500,001–600,000 page. (That sounds like a lot of work, but maybe it could be automated somehow?) The meanings of pages past 500 000 are indeed particularly sparse (note that as of May 2019, there are only 21922 named minor planets), but the occasional one does show up (e.g. 510045 Vincematteo). Supposedly the number of named minor planets is growing at a rate of about 670 namings per year, but we can always WP:SPLIT later if necessary. Keep the List of minor planet pages. This AfD for the list of minor planets page is a bit old, but I think it establishes that the concept of a list of minor planets is notable. WP:LSC suggests that it is acceptable for certain types of lists (e.g. all known species within a taxonomic family) to be exhaustive. I'd argue that a list of minor planets also falls under that category. I think the list of minor planets page was only split into subpages to keep the page sizes manageable, so the overarching notability of the list as a whole should still be applicable to these subpages, in my view. Per Wikipedia:Copyright in lists, I don't think there's any copyright concern. Facts aren't copyrightable, and the minor planet data being listed here doesn't particularly involve any creativity in selection or arrangement. Ahiijny (talk) 20:41, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the List of minor planets This is something you'd expect to find in an Encyclopedia that isn't limited by space. Keep the others also for reasons others have pointed out. Dream Focus 22:59, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm commenting only in the capacity of an AST member who has seen this discussion before.

I was browsing a bit and came across dozens, if not over a hundred of completely empty lists. These lists contain literally zero items. I am talking about the articles in the category Meanings of minor planet names: 494001–495000. Take, for example, Meanings of minor planet names: 419001–420000 494001–495000, 461001–462000, 514001–515000, and 523001–524000. Many only contain one or two named minor planets. Surely, this is not a preferable situation? I believe that, right now, we could have a list for "Meanings of minor planet names: 500000–599999" and it would be reasonably short. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:58, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The full list of lists is at Meanings of minor planet names. I'd say that anything that doesn't have at least one entry should be deleted. Primefac (talk) 14:33, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A "list" with only one or two entries is hardly a list at all either, I would say, hence why I suggested merging them. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 23:19, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't necessarily disagreeing with you, just saying that a local consensus here would likely be enough to G6/uncontroversially delete the completely empty ones. Primefac (talk) 13:50, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anyone complaining about the deletion of empty pages; with the exception of 516k the entire 500k+ pages are empty. I've cross-posted this to WT:AST but if no one says anything in the next week or so I'll just go ahead and G6 'em all as blank/unnecessary. I'll probably AFD the 516k just to be safe, though a redirect to the list might suffice. Primefac (talk) 16:29, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They are placeholders, due to the randomness at which number receives a name. There are, and possibly forever will be, unpopulated named-regions in the numbered-MP landscape. So the only problem I see is with the navigation headers, which need to cross progressively larger 'unpopulated valleys' of pages to hop from inhabited island to island at the higher numbers. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 17:27, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no named MPs above a certain page, then I don't see any issue deleting those pages (which can be refunded in the future of course). ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 17:30, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair points re: island hopping. But you'd be okay with deleting everything above 516k, since they're all completely empty? Primefac (talk) 17:31, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Correct.

Courtesy ping to Rfassbind, in case he is planning another batch update, or if there is an MPC update coming up in the near future (they are quarterly?). ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 19:36, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MPC batches come out each full moon, with some exceptional months without MPCs announced in advance. I don't really see much of a difference between the last unnamed island and the ones that fall between names; I would favour keeping them all, even if the last few are completely empty, simply because then the start of redlinks shows how far numbers have been assigned. Double sharp (talk) 07:32, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ Primefac and Maplestrip: yes you are correct, there are plenty of empty lists. While such empty lists are not a "beautiful" solution, they are consistent with the overall minor-plant project and the best solution I can imagine. I created them so that other editors can easily add new naming-citations, without the need of creating a new list first (probably copy/pasting it from an existing list without remembering all the small little details that need to be changed).

As stated before by Tom.Reding, the naming of minor planets has increasingly become random in terms of their number (e.g. new naming per 25 Sep 2018 with 516560 Annapolisroyal being the highest numbered one in that batch). Historically, only low-numbered bodies were named (current distribution statistics), but that has already started to change and it will intensify considerably in the near future.

I don't want to change anyone's mind, I have already learnt that this is hardly possible, but if you really want to create a "mega-list" like the proposed "500000–599999" (actually that should be "500001–600000"), you might also want to consider changes in Template:MoMP, and amending the last column in the List of minor planets, e.g. List of minor planets: 516001–517000#560, because as soon as "500000–599999" will be split into, say, "500000–549999" and "550000–599999" due its growing size, more and more inconsistent cross-references will appear elsewhere. Rfassbind – talk 10:18, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've transcluded it here since it's relevant to the overall discussion of keeping or deleting these. Primefac (talk) 01:07, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the list of minor planets contains 541,128 objects in 542 partial lists. About 3,200 articles of notable objects are linked from, and about 23,500 non-notable objects are redirected to this catalog. It is neither sensible to propose the deletion of one (or 10) page(s) from a 542-page catalog, creating a gap in an otherwise complete list, nor is it correct to assert that objects above #100,000 have no notability or significance (just see object (134340), for example). Currently, the highest numbered minor-planet articles are 514107 Kaʻepaokaʻawela (named) and (533560) 2014 JM₈₀ (unnamed), while the highest numbered minor-planet redirects are 518523 Bryanshumaker (named) and (528159) 2008 HS3 (unnamed). The list of minor planets exists in 48 languages on Wikipedia including the French, Spanish and Italian versions – there is no copyright issue, as the data provided by the MPC and JPL are freely available. Also the list of minor planet meanings goes along with the catalog pages (toggling between the two lists). While there is currently no named minor planet in range 500,001–510,000, this will likely change in the near future. Deleting/merging pages would cause inconsistencies now, and numerous amendments in (re-)creating/splitting pages later on. Rfassbind – talk 03:34, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. I have absolutely no problem with creating a list for some of the more notable minor planets, possibly the named minor planets, but this is not encyclopaedic as it stands. SportingFlyer T·C 08:11, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Such lists are notable per WP:LISTN; for example, see Dictionary of Minor Planet Names, Volume 1. Our policies WP:NOTPAPER, WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE clearly indicate that deletion is not appropriate. The specific guideline WP:DWMP expects these lists to exist as an alternative to lots of separate pages about each minor planet. I'm not sure why the lists of meanings have not been merged with the main lists but am content to leave such implementation decisions to the people doing the actual work. Andrew D. (talk) 09:43, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominator hasn't provided any direct wikipedia policies against this information, the concern over copyright doesn't really apply either as Minor Planet Center is a public released database via NASA and other Non-profit agencies. You could argue that mathematical significance applies here, as you can use the data to calculate other possible uses in the data. This would make the argument of WP:NOTDIRECTORY void in many respects. I hardly see GNG or LISTN any point to the information here either. It seems we have probably been through this path before and Andrew Davidson has pointed to WP:DWMP which would suggest that this AfD would be invalid next to previous discussed policy. I see no other reasoning not the keep the articles, and keep the chain. Govvy (talk) 10:31, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong KEEP all per above - notable per WP:LISTN. Per above, "Our policies WP:NOTPAPER, WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE clearly indicate that deletion is not appropriate." Also, no copyright issue - the MPC and JPL archives are readily available (and they're non-profit organizations like NASA). Paintspot Infez (talk) 11:49, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (nom) - Although the Minor Planet data has been "publicly released" and is "freely available", this does not mean that it is in the public domain or meets Wikipedia's specific copyright requirements. Just because it's published it on the Internet doesn't mean we can copy it. Both JPL [10][11] and IAU [12] make copyright claims for data hosted on their sites. There's certainly a grey area regarding the copyrightability of raw facts and data, but please be aware that the MP data has not been released for unrestricted copying, reuse, etc. –dlthewave ☎ 12:20, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is no copyright issue here. If you wish to argue that point there is a noticeboard to discuss such things with those familiar with copyright law. Dream Focus 15:18, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, copyright's definitely an issue based only on a cursory review of the sites dlthewave has linked, and I know dlthewave to be knowledgeable about these matters. Both sites claim that the information isn't in the public domain and that permission is required to republish it, though the NASA dataset use may be acceptable if we link to it. In short, these databases aren't in the public domain, there's a colourable argument we could use some of the data, but if this is kept, we absolutely should take this to the copyvio noticeboard. Anyone claiming copyright isn't an issue here is definitively incorrect. SportingFlyer T·C 19:03, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright isn't created by ipse dixit. If the material itself is not copyrightable, and facts are not, then it doesn't matter what sites claim about it. postdlf (talk) 20:56, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't passed judgment on whether it is copyrighted yet, but it does need to be looked at. There's a large problem with everyone saying "it's publicly available, so copyright doesn't apply!" above. Databases of facts can be copyrightable, and some of the figures (the diameter) may not actually be "facts." One of the sites say numerical calculations can change quickly. SportingFlyer T·C 21:02, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging CCI regulars Diannaa and Justlettersandnumbers for assistance with the copyright question. –dlthewave ☎ 22:59, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Diameters are publicly available at the Planetary Data System. In the JPL data base, the physical data of an object is always sourced. For the scope of this AfD, all diameter data comes from the NEOWISE mission. Rfassbind – talk 02:26, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as per copyright concerns above. Otherwise, this should be deleted anyway because wikipedia is not an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of knowledge nor a WP:DIRECTORY.--Rusf10 (talk) 20:23, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Additional Comment Erm, do you some of you people even know how copyright works? minorplanetcenter.net is an NPO of Harvard and Smithsonian, the only copyright material are the images. The collected data is shared data, if the data is fact data. You can not copyright factual information. Hence you can not copyright this information. Govvy (talk) 21:47, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable per WP:LISTN. Policies WP:NOTPAPER, WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE ...deletion is not appropriate. Lubbad85 (☎)(Edits) 03:30, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment in response to ping. I'm not the best person to ask, US copyright never ceases to perplex me. Here, for what it's worth, is my initial take. There two separate questions here, the list data (number, name, diameter, etc.), and the meanings of the names (in pages that actually have any of those, which as far as I can see does not include those listed here, which appear to be empty):

The listed data seems to be devoid of creative content, and is ordered in way that is available to anyone (by number); hosting it here appears to be acceptable based on WP:copyright in lists.
The meanings are running text giving information that could equally well be expressed in other ways, and so eligible for copyright protection. As an example, something like "Michelle Abi Hackman (born 1993) was a finalist in the 2010 Intel Science Talent Search, a science competition for high-school seniors, for her behavioral- and social-sciences project. She attends the John Miller Great Neck North High School, Great Neck, New York, U.S." was copy-pasted from here in 2016 (Internet Archive is down, so I haven't been able to verify whether that page existed before that time). The copyright statement of that website reads "JPL-authored documents are sponsored by NASA under Contract NAS7-030010. All documents available from this server may be protected under the U.S. and Foreign Copyright Laws. Permission to reproduce may be required.", which seems clearly to indicate that the content is not unambiguously in the Public Domain. It may be, of course, that it was copied there from some other source which is verifiably PD, in which case it needs to be provided with attribution; otherwise it should be removed. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:46, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The meanings of minor planets is now attributed with {{US government sources}}. This has previously been done to some individual pages only. I don't think, however, that this issue belongs to the scope of this AfD. Rfassbind – talk 18:11, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Public domain resources explains US Government copyright in more detail. Although works created by government employees are automatically public domain, the work of "contractors and grantees" typically is not. JPL would appear to fall under the latter category. Since JPL does claim copyright, it would be prudent to discuss this at the copyvio noticeboard after the AfD is closed. –dlthewave ☎ 03:53, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, according to Minor Planet Center new method will enable minor planet numbering and naming to proceed much more frequently. CabbagePower (talk) 17:30, 25 June 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 20:31, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Lowe[edit]

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

Self promotion concern - low notability and all edits come from single user who has a conflict of interest. The photo is an "original work" taken from a political campaign site suggesting the user is involved in the campaign. FreethStreet (talk) 12:27, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:51, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:51, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being municipal borough councillors, but this is not properly referenced for the purposes of making him special: it's referenced to a mix of primary sources and glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things, not to notability-supporting reliable source coverage about him. Bearcat (talk) 16:11, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note Same author has a draft article here as well--Mjs1991 (talk) 06:17, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another reason why this needs to be deleted: the author created that draft, submitted it to the AFC queue, and then immediately copy-pasted their work directly into articlespace without waiting for a proper AFC review. As always, draft creators do not have that prerogative, but are required to wait for the AFC process to play out — so if I had encountered this before it was already up for AFD, I would have speedied it on the grounds of being an out of process cut-paste of an unreviewed AFC draft, but since we're here, we're here. Bearcat (talk) 17:15, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: - while I know we'd much prefer if they didn't, I wasn't aware that submitting to AfC waived the right to submit directly to mainspace (paid editors etc notwithstanding). Doing so would warrant deletion of the draft, not the article, I'd have said. Could you point out where this is (and/or where we tell submitters about it)? Nosebagbear (talk) 12:40, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While ordinary councillors usually aren't notable, I have always maintained that council leaders of large councils are. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:22, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If they're the subject of enough reliable source coverage to clear WP:NPOL #2, sure. Most definitely not as an automatic notability freebie that entitles him to park on primary sources and glancing namechecks of his existence as a giver of soundbite in articles that don't have him as their actual subject. Bearcat (talk) 13:51, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:05, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Procedurally, I think the article meets the notability threshold as there are external articles made by secondary sources that can verify the notability of Lowe as a regional figure. You can find external articles written by the Express and Star here. There are other articles touching on this including Birmingham Live (Birmingham Mail) here. The guideline set by Wikipedia cites "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list."[13] - Additionally, I agree that the sources require being refined, though references in the article such as the Solihull Observer serve their purpose as using external sites to reference the information aforementioned in the article.[14]. I'd suggest the inclusion of notable articles and others as aforementioned in this comment to fulfil the notability requirement. Borough Councillors themselves are not deemable to be noteworthy, though in the case of Lowe, it is clear as a prospective candidate for regional political office and a former leader of a large metropolitan authority, he holds the notability criteria as comparable with similar articles on politicians of a similar level of political office and service. I hope that admins consider that there is a rough consensus to retain the page in the sense of the seen notability of the figure which is broadly in-line with comparable political figures such as Nick Forbes, I believe the article, with more consistent external sourcing and to provide guidance to edit the article to meet Wikipedia guidelines. DudleyPolitics —Preceding undated comment added 12:43, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Every local politician everywhere can always show a smattering of local campaign coverage — our notability standards for politicians would be completely disembowelled if all somebody had to do to exempt themselves from it was show two hits in the local media, because nobody in politics (not even failed mayoral candidates in no-horse villages with populations in the single digits) could ever not show two hits in the local media. At the borough council level, what a person has to show to be considered notable enough is that they've received a depth, range and volume of coverage that marks them out as much more special than most other borough councillors — such as by nationalizing or internationalizing significantly beyond where such coverage is merely expected to always exist. Bearcat (talk) 13:51, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, if you're not listed in NPOL, the need for a regional figure is to show non-regional coverage. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:11, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bearcat. --Enos733 (talk) 17:10, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat, local politicians need extensive coverage in widely-read publications to meet notability guidelines.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:55, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:11, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Bearcat says it better than I can - fails WP:NPOL #2. Perhaps in a bit he can have an article. SportingFlyer T·C 08:13, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete municipal burough councilors are not default notable and nothing else adds up to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:15, 26 June 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 No. 550 Squadron RAF. This was a complex AfD with many sincere and well argued comments. There is no doubt that this is a nicely written page, that certainly contains much material of interest, and I have considered WP:NOTPAPER. However, we work within the notability guidelines, specifically WP:SOLDIER and more generally WP:GNG. In this regard, I find the 'delete' arguments clearly more policy based, and hence stronger, than the 'keep' arguments.

Moving on to the action to be taken, redirects are cheap and I see no reason not to create a redirect to sourced content on this person that will be useful to the reader. Normally, i would 'delete and redirect'. However, the editors of the target may wish to merge more content and there is no need to make that difficult. Clearly, though, a recreation should not happen without further discussion so I am going to protect the redirect. Just Chilling (talk) 22:14, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Walter Waitt[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:SOLDIER. Unpublished war records are not a RS either. Gbawden (talk) 12:06, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:53, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:53, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note:

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lubbad85 (☎)(Edits) 21:05, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I can see why this has been flagged up, but I'd argue for keep. Waitt was adjutant for a notable squadron, which dropped the first bombs on DDay and whose insignia is still flown on the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight. It was highly unusual for a member of the Royal Flying Corps to be awarded the Military Medal; he was in the forefront of wireless technology in WW1. So, on balance, keep. ---Asteuartw (talk) 10:43, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet any criteria for inclusion. Won the Military Medal, a third-level decoration (actually pretty common in the RFC before the introduction of the Distinguished Flying Medal in 1918). Later a junior officer who served as an adjutant; the fact it was a notable squadron is irrelevant - he was just its administrative officer. A highly honourable war record, certainly, but not an unusual one. Many thousands of personnel could claim a similar record. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:58, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Still Keep~~ Highly honourable indeed, and it is surely thanks to men like Waitt that we sleep safely in our beds and are able pass judgment on what is notable or not. But then, I'm an inclusionist, and I see little harm done by a modest expansion of the encyclopedia with an extra war hero or two. ---Asteuartw (talk) 12:24, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - The problem is, many people with third-level decorations have already been deleted at AfD. Why should this gentleman be kept if they were deleted? Remember, there are hundreds of thousands if not millions of people in world history who have won third-level decorations. For instance, more than 132,000 Military Medals, more than 48,000 Military Crosses and up to 150,000 American Silver Stars have been awarded. That's why we generally have a cut-off of one first-level or two second-level decorations. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:33, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:SOLDIER. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:57, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: on inclusionist grounds (and as a nicely edited article on a very early member of the RFC); worth bearing in mind that the Military Medal, although awarded to "other ranks", denoted a level of gallantry similar to that required for a Military Cross. 45ossington (talk) 08:09, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. Both are third-level decorations. And as I said, more than 180,000 have been awarded, not to mention all the tens of thousands of DSCs, DSMs, DFCs, DFMs, AFCs, AFMs, QGMs, and CBEs, OBEs, MBEs and BEMs for Gallantry! And that's before you add the many thousands more second-level decorations: DSOs, CGCs, CGMs, DCMs and GMs. And that's just Britain and the British Empire and Commonwealth. Add all the countries round the world (many of which award medals far more freely than Britain) and that's millions of people eligible for articles on this basis. There are limits, surely. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:51, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:05, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:SOLDIER is not a policy and is contrary to the core policy of WP:NPOV in that it is biased in favour of senior ranks. Our actual policies include WP:ATD, WP:NOTPAPER and WP:PRESERVE and these indicate that we should not delete this. Andrew D. (talk) 11:32, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course it is. For the simple reason that generals etc are generally much more notable! Claiming NPOV as a justification is ridiculous. That could be seen as a justification for an article on any soldier anyone happened to want to write about. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:SOLDIER says quite plainly at the head of its page that "This WikiProject advice page is not a formal Wikipedia policy ...". We prefer policy-based argument here and mine is based upon the solid policies of WP:ATD, WP:NOTPAPER, WP:PRESERVE and WP:NPOV. That's 4-0. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 11:47, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry, but no, as I've said, NPOV is completely irrelevant to your argument. And essay or not, WP:SOLDIER is generally held to be a valid citation at AfD. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:52, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, I am not persuaded that your opinionated essay trumps all those policies. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 14:57, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        My essay? No, I assure you I didn't write it. And it is in no way opinionated. It has been written and accepted by editors who know a lot about military history. And most people, even non-experts, would appreciate that generals are clearly more notable than privates. But here's the key guideline: WP:ANYBIO. How does he meet that one? And no, the Military Medal, with more than 132,000 awards, does not meet it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:21, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        The subject passes WP:ANYBIO because the military medal is a "a well-known and significant award". The number is unimportant per WP:NOTPAPER and WP:THISNUMBERISHUGE. In any case, we're just discussing a single article here and it already exists. This discussion exists too, even though it is of little interest to our readership. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 13:04, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Verifiability is also a policy, and the article outright tells us that its content is not. Editors have been discussing the Military Medal whilst missing the elephant in the room that the article explicitly tells us that this is not a claim that can be verified because information on this subject has not been published. Uncle G (talk) 18:40, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no doubt that Waitt was awarded the Military Medal. This was recorded in the London Gazette on 11 October 1916. It is also recorded at p408 of McInnes & Webb's "Contemptible Little Flying Corps".^[1] The claim is well sourced. ---Asteuartw (talk) 20:52, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete although he clearly did his bit during both world wars there is nothing in his article that makes him standout from thousands of other airman to be worthy of an article. MilborneOne (talk) 16:37, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:11, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails our notability guidelines for soldiers. SportingFlyer T·C 08:13, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable RAF pilot who served in two world wars. WP:PRESERVE WP:ATD because the article is need of attention and references need clean up. The article needs an editor not a deletion. Lubbad85 (☎)(Edits) 21:05, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - None of the sources on this soldier are significant coverage. Even the most in-depth coverage here is nothing more than a database listing his basic information. Whether or not meeting WP:NSOLDIER is a valid inclusion criteria is irrelevant when the subject does not pass the WP:GNG, which most certainly is. Rorshacma (talk) 16:20, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is not common for a person to have fought in both wars. Which is in itself notable: See Bill Stone, or Bernard Green. Unfortunately notability is not Googleable for a chap like Waitt who did all of his notable things in 1917 and in 1945, (and was dead by 1974). A policy that applies to Waitt WP:NEXIST The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Waitt was surely written about in newsprint and hard copy: ambitious editors are needed. The British mobilized 8,904,467 soldiers in WWI and they had 3,190,235 casualties. How many survived to fight again 21 years later? It is food for thought. Lubbad85 (☎)(Edits) 19:01, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If those sources are found, I will be happy to review them and, if appropriate, revise my recommendation. Until then, though, this article does not meet the WP:GNG regardless of how commendable his service may have been. The argument that the person might be notable and that there might be sources that have not been found yet is not a strong enough argument to indefinitely keep a poorly sourced article. Rorshacma (talk) 19:30, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rubbish. Almost every single senior officer and warrant officer of the British Armed Forces at the outbreak of WWII had also fought in WWI, as had many more junior officers and NCOs. There were only 21 years between the wars, remember. That means someone who served in WWI could be under 40 at the beginning of WWII. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:54, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its hard to find searchable newspapers from that long ago. His accomplishments seem to make him notable enough for 5k bytes on an online Encyclopedia. I know most of the Wikipedia is dedicated to people famous for being attractive and popular so the media usually chooses that as their standard reason to write about them, instead of actual merit, but there is no limit in space so no reason we can't have articles on people like this also. Dream Focus 13:46, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is pretty much a WP:ILIKEIT and WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, though. As someone mentioned already above, most of the claims of his actions during the wars are not even verified at this point. Wikipedia has always had pretty clear guidelines on how subjects can meet notability and verifiability, and appealing to emotion rather than following them is not good practice, regardless of what the subject is. Rorshacma (talk) 15:07, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is a reference at the bottom of this AFD that verifies the claims. And the guidelines pages all have a disclaimer at the top reading: "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." WP:IAR on the other hand is a policy and it simply and clearly states: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." Dream Focus 15:36, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

His awarding of the medal was verified. I was referring to the bulk of the article, that is talking about his actual actions during the wars, such as why he was awarded the medal. As in, everything that is currently being attributed to unpublished war records, which is the majority of the information being presented. I feel that the argument being presented in this AFD for why the article should kept is basically arguing that notability can be established by how commendable we think a subject is, rather than how many reliable sources actually establish notability and verifiability, and I feel that is a dangerous precedent to set. Rorshacma (talk) 15:47, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the sources have any substance to them, and the widely awarded medal does not establish notability. Unpublished war records do not meet verifiability requirements and appear to cover routine activities that do not set him apart per WP:SOLDIER. Reywas92^Talk 19:17, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, A brave man fought in world war but he was one of the thousands. the article does not pass notability. Alex-h (talk) 17:13, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's true that the number of medal-winning RAF pilots is enormous, but the number of medal-winning RAF pilots verified for having served in both WWI and WWII is a much shorter list. - WPGA2345 - ☛ 16:49, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that he won the MM before he was a pilot. There is nothing in the article about his combat service as a pilot (he was commissioned in WWI "for ground duties"), so he may have qualified after WWI, as he does appear to be wearing a pilot's brevet in the photo. He served as an adjutant (i.e. administrative officer) in WWII; squadron adjutants did not generally fly operationally, although they were more often than not qualified pilots, usually older officers. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:44, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It was not uncommon for men of his age and career to serve in both wars, nor was winning the Military Medal uncommon. Being a squadron adjutant isn't notable. WP:V is a core policy; that much of the article rests on unpublished sources is a good indicator that we shouldn't be writing about him yet. Invoking WP:IAR to keep an article which violates WP:V makes no sense. Mackensen (talk) 04:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't pass presumed notability threashold of SOLDIER, and fails GNG (which needs to be evaluated irrespective of SOLDIER). I was unable to find references of note not present in the article. In terms of references in the article (numbering per this version) - ref1, ref2, ref4, and ref5 are WP:PRIMARY (gazette, war records, national archives) sources (and some of them brief mentions) and do not establish notability. ref6 is a list mention on http://www.550squadronassociation.org.uk - which would not be a source that would establish notability in any event. We're left with ref3- [15] - which is a short paragraph and fails in-depth. In short - at present we don't have in-depth coverage in a single secondary reliable source - let alone multiple. Icewhiz (talk) 09:05, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this appears to be a WP:NOTINHERITED situation; he was involved in research, occupation, sorties, etc., but didn't command anything. Bearian (talk) 13:00, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Command is surely not a prerequisite for notability? ---Asteuartw (talk) 14:13, 2 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 20:31, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mobina Nejad[edit]

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

Subject is a youth taekwondo practitioner. Sources are primary and does not satisfy WP:ANYBIO, WP:SPORTBASIC or WP:GNG. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:00, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:00, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:00, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:00, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some references from reliable secondary sources such as Burnaby Now. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:24, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

:Comment- ps provide sources and youth taekwondo practitioner usually do not considered notable in sport. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:00, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She is the only taekwondo practitioner who has won a gold medal without conceding a point. It's a record, not only for the youth category, but also for the adult category. SadioDaleone (talk) 10:03, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

:Comment: There are all routine coverage for sport and it is a junior category - pls read the source. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:49, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: First source gives mere passing mention to Nejad. Second source is a stats page in a taekwondo database. Third and fourth sources again give mere passing mention. All four would also qualify as WP:ROUTINE coverage. So what we're ostensibly left with (note: I've searched for other sources) is this article from World Taekwondo. Unfortunately, WP:ATHLETE doesn't seem to have any guidelines for martial artists, but as I see it, this also fails WP:BASIC. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 10:09, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Junior martial artists, even junior world champions or Junior Olympic champions, are generally considered non-notable. WP:NSPORTS says athletes should have competed at the highest level and junior events are not that. WP:MANOTE specifically states that only adult black-belt events can bestow notability, and only some of those are sufficient. The coverage is all based on her success at the junior world championships and is typical sports reporting. I would say she fails WP:GNG, WP:NSPORT, and WP:MANOTE. I think both WP:TOOSOON and WP:BLP1E apply. Papaursa (talk) 22:06, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:03, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete Fails WP:GNG, WP:MANOTE, and WP:NSPORT. The only source that might count towards meeting the GNG is the one at worldtaekwondo.org, but that article is put out by the WTF which sponsored the tournament she won so it's not independent. The "Stars of Tomorrow" title also indicates that she's not yet a star and that notability requires a WP:CRYSTALBALL. Junior martial artists have never been considered notable. Coverage is all about a single junior event and claims of notability are too soon.Sandals1 (talk) 15:39, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. She is the only taekwondo practitioner who has won a gold medal without conceding a point. It's a record, not only in the junior category, but also in the senior category as well.SadioDaleone (talk) 15:43, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's your first AfD, but it's worth noting that "not conceding a point" is not part of any notability criteria. In fact, the article sourced isn't even sure it hasn't been done before--it begins "Nobody can confirm whether or not if it is a world record ...". To my knowledge, success at junior martial arts events has never been sufficient to show WP notability. Unverified claims, especially ones that don't establish notability even if true, don't provide adequate justification of notability. I also struck out your last vote since you had already voted previously. Commenting more than once is allowed, but multiple votes are not. Papaursa (talk) 02:47, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:10, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A youth athlete who isn't notable on WP:GNG grounds. Perhaps we can recreate the article if she continues her successful career. SportingFlyer T·C 08:15, 24 June 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. Just Chilling (talk) 22:55, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tele-commerce[edit]

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

This seems to be a dictionary definition (there’s already a Wiktionary entry for it) supported by unsourced original research. The term itself is of doubtful notability - in most of what I can find ‘telecommerce’ is an element in a company name rather than a distinct concept or set of practices to be discussed, Mccapra (talk) 17:04, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 17:04, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 17:04, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 17:04, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 17:04, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No real references, and not much useful content. Rathfelder (talk) 19:09, 23 June 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. ST47 (talk) 14:27, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Bruce-Gardyne[edit]

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

The article makes the (unsourced) claim that "When junior officers were awarded the DSO it was an acknowledgement that the officer had only just missed out on receiving the Victoria Cross." I'm not buying it, and nothing else seems to support notability. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:46, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:34, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:34, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ~~Undecided~~. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:08, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I based the above on the statement that the DSO is typically awarded to officers ranked major (or equivalent) or higher, with awards to ranks below this usually for a high degree of gallantry, just short of deserving the Victoria Cross but having now checked the citation for that, it actually states that the order is generally given to officers in command, above the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel and awards to ranks below this are usually for a high degree of gallantry just short of deserving the Victoria Cross. The subject was a lieutenant commander at the time,^[2] equivalent to an army major and below a lieutenant colonel, so if the citation is correct rather than the DSO article, there may be validity to this article's claim about Bruce-Gardyne. Not sure that that alone is enough to establish notability though. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:00, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(In case it's unlcear, the above relates solely to the potential veracity and notability of having "just missed out on receiving the Victoria Cross".) Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:39, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment a single DSO for gallantry (generally awarded to junior officers, as awards to higher grade officers were usually for distinguished service) doesn't meet WP:SOLDIER, and neither does the rank of captain in the navy. No comment on coverage per GNG, but it seems pretty sparse. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:27, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; so back to delete then. Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:39, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ A Contemptible Little Flying Corps, p.408
^ https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/30194/supplement/7423

Comment. A lieutenant-commander is not a junior officer, so is a perfectly normal rank to be awarded a DSO. In actual fact, the DSO when awarded to junior officers (i.e. below major, lieutenant-commander and squadron leader) was usually used as a second-level gallantry decoration, as there was no other second-level decoration available to officers. It is indeed received wisdom that this was an acknowledgement that the officer had just missed out on the VC, but in fact so many were awarded to junior officers that I suspect that this is merely an urban legend. For example, every surviving commissioned aircraft captain of the Dambusters raid was awarded the DSO; every surviving non-commissioned captain was awarded the CGM, the RAF's second-level gallantry decoration for other ranks. When awarded to more senior officers, the DSO was (and is) usually instead awarded for inspired leadership. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:21, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To note, the source refers to it being an award for "a high degree of gallantry (etc.)" for those not "above the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel", rather than "junior officers". If correct, it would then pertain to the subject. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:42, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that source is incorrect. The Wikipedia article on the DSO is accurate. Many majors and lieutenant-colonels (and equivalents) have been awarded the DSO for leadership instead of gallantry. In fact, lieutenant-colonel is almost certainly the commonest rank for the award (see here). But it's irrelevant anyway, given a single second-level gallantry award is not sufficient to meet WP:SOLDIER. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:56, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment looking at the article it seems aside from the military career most of this is about who Evan Bruce-Gardyne was related to, which is of course not evidence if notability. If it is felt he does not meet WP:SOLDIER (and I am not convinced that he does) then I do not think that he meets any other standard of notability. If it is decided that he meets WP:SOLDIER and the article is retained, I think there needs to be editing to cut back on the family material. For instance I fail to see why it is relevant to state that "Joan Bruce-Gardyne is a Patroness of the Royal Caledonian Ball" and does the section for his son Jock Bruce-Gardyne really need to state his cause of death (which is of course covered in his own article)? To me this looks like padding. Dunarc (talk) 22:41, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 16:57, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reads like a family history but makes no real claim of notability. Mackensen (talk) 04:43, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. He's close to meeting SOLDIER - however his service as a Captain was at shore (in 1917 at Zeebrugge he was a Lt. Cdr) - superintendent at the Royal Hospital School (Navy List) - I don't see any indication he commanded a ship or formation in battle at this rank. In Zeebrugge - he was outranked by several other officers (the DSO was awarded to 5 officers in the action - 2 Capts, 2 Cdrs, and our subject - [16]). I don't think be a Laird confers notability. So we're left with evaluating GNG. The sources in the article do not establish GNG, and from what I see in outside sources - it is mention of the medal, mention of the courtmartial in Jutrland, mention in the context of his MP son - but nothing in-depth on our individual - what convinced me is the paucity of hits (and any in-depth coverage) of Bruce-Gardyne+Jutland+Zeebrugge - which I'd expect to show up in any detailed bio of our subject here. Icewhiz (talk) 09:22, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note the text of missing out on the VC (and possibly other text) may be coming from this source (though they might've copied it from us) - clanmacfarlanegenealogy.info. Icewhiz (talk) 09:26, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It attributes this Wikipedia article as its source. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:46, 1 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:14, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Thompson (artist)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:ARTIST. Unable to locate sources other than obituaries, self-published sources or promotional websites. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:09, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:05, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:05, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:06, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:06, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment From reading the sources, I got the impression that Thompson was a hobby painter. His obit says his was "employed by Blue Cross & Blue Shield, until his retirement". Wickedlocal quotes him as saying that ".. he runs these evening workshops as a “hobby” in addition to his own painting he does in the daytime." His watercolors are for sale for $100. None of this suggest that he was a professional artist. Wickedlocal also says he was a faculty member of the Philadelphia Museum School as well as a graduate. He apparently lived in Cambridge after briefly living in New England in 1961. How he managed to keep a (full time?) job in Cambridge and teach 300 miles away in Philadelphia is not clear to me. I think the source is wrong. Vexations (talk) 20:15, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sources in the article and a search indicate that he was a painter who gave some workshops and participated in what sound like some regional painting shows. There is nothing going on here notability-wise.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:19, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He was a regional TV celebrity and mentioned various times in diverse news sources in Massachusetts. Swampyank (talk) 02:19, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He was mentioned a few times, but not very often. That is the problem. For example there is an article about him giving watercolor workshops at the local library. It's not exactly great coverage. Many of the article sources are event announcements or primary sources.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:31, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Swampyank, can you name the TV shows where he appeared and cite those sources please? Vexations (talk) 12:06, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All I can find is a few listings of exhibitions of his paintings in local public libraries, or announcements of workshops he led at public libraries. 'What's on' listings don't count for notability, and I can't see reviews of his paintings or articles about him or his work. It seems that his work isn't in notable galleries or museums, either. RebeccaGreen (talk) 20:42, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to give User:Swampyank (or anyone else) more time to provide sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 16:50, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clearly fails WP:ARTIST. Worthy artist with some local celebrity but no tangible achievements that would go towards establishing notability. Just Chilling (talk) 22:47, 30 June 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 20:30, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Conner Rayburn[edit]

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

No indication this subject meets either WP:BASIC or WP:NACTOR. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:18, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:18, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:18, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:18, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: As per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conner Rayburn 2nd nom, the previous result was "delete".

(Also, note that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conner Rayburn 2nd nom, as well as this nomination, should be moved to correct titling – e.g. (2nd nomination) and (3rd nomination) respectively – I'll let an uninvolved Admin, et al. do that...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:57, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:39, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:39, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actor has been part of notable productions but i can't seem to find any RS sources that actually write about the subject. HM Wilburt (talk) 15:51, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Subject was in the main cast of According to Jim, but I don't see anything else that can be considered a "significant" role (i.e. a "starring" or a "lead" role, as opposed to a "supporting" role). So that gets the subject to one "significant" role, but WP:NACTOR requires "multiple significant roles". That's why I said the subject doesn't just fail WP:BASIC – they also fail to meet WP:NACTOR as well. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:56, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He also has top billing on Old Dogs on IMDB and his name is credited in the trailer. Looks like a significant role. HM Wilburt (talk) 22:45, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@HM Wilburt: I guess it depends on how you want to define "top billing". Based on Old Dogs (film), it's clear that Travolta and Williams are the "true leads". I checked the "billing block" in the theatrical poster at [17], and I don't see Rayburn's name listed – that implies to me that he's not "main cast" in that film, but supporting cast (though he does appear more prominently in the cast list at the Wikipedia article...). So I'm not sure that it counts towards NACTOR (I personally would say that it probably does not)... And, of course, even if it does, that doesn't really solve the WP:BASIC issue which is the more pressing notability hurdle here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:28, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did some more digging. Conner plays the son of the two dad's (Travolta/Williams) in the film. He is mentioned as starring here [18] and his name is credited in the trailer next to Williams and Travolta see trailer at 2:16. So he has a significant role in the film. Looks like be passes WP:ENT, but he doesn't pass SIGCOV and lacks RS coverage. HM Wilburt (talk) 08:38, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete WP:NACTOR requires significant roles, not starring or leading roles - otherwise it would say so. Supporting roles can also be significant - no doubt that's why there are awards for best supporting actor. However, in this case, I see only two significant roles - Kyle Orenthal in According to Jim, and Zach in Old Dogs. WP:NACTOR requires multiple significant roles. Unless we consider that playing one character in 8 seasons of one show is the equivalent of more than one role, he would not meet the criteria. I don't see coverage about him, so he doesn't meet WP:BASIC. RebeccaGreen (talk) 20:01, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 16:47, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one source does not bring us past GNG, especially when the source is not in any significatn way about him.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:50, 26 June 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. A valid rationale for deletion is not present. As per WP:NEXIST, "The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable." No prejudice against renomination with a valid deletion rationale. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:23, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pioneer Resources[edit]

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

No references Rathfelder (talk) 16:34, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 16:34, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 16:34, 23 June 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) 18:33, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Mary University of London Golf Club[edit]

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

Non notable student club, no mention found in reliable sources. Decliner of PROD suggested merging, that could be considered Aloneinthewild (talk) 15:54, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. Aloneinthewild (talk) 15:54, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Aloneinthewild (talk) 15:54, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non notable university golf club. https://www.qmsu.org/clubsport/find/ doesn't list golf, so the club may have disappeared. In any case the club never was notable. References mostly relate to Wanstead Golf Club not the university golf club. Nigej (talk) 16:41, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is defunct. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 17:05, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This club is not listed on the university's list of sports clubs. Also, I found their Facebook page. Their last post was in 2013. Meanwhile, the article's references are unrelated to its subject. It is clear that this club is both defunct and non-notable. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 17:05, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This club clearly does not meet the level of notability that would be required for it to have its own article. Dunarc (talk) 19:53, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:57, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per above, a student club that is not notable Alex-h (talk) 07:33, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete I can't see a single-sport university club as passing notability unless there was something specific about it, a famous member, or a historical reason. This doesn't have any. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:00, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ORG. Just Chilling (talk) 17:44, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify. The page was already moved to draft by the author - this is just a procedural close. Any further deletion discussions regarding Draft:Gourish Singla should take place at MfD. CC Girth Summit (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 20:48, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gourish Singla[edit]

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

Articles looks like promo for the subject and his company. Current sourcing is a couple of entries in directories, a passing mention, and his company's website - can't find any better sourcing - fails WP:BASIC GirthSummit _(blether) 12:29, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:29, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:29, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:29, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:47, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew G. Geishecker[edit]

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

Not being a judge at the state level, doesn't meet WP:NPOL, and there isn't enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:45, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose He was a judge at the state level, serving in the Massachusetts District Court. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 14:53, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:45, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:45, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:38, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:27, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete state court judges only meet notability standards if they serve at a statewide capacity. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:28, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing in the article or sources indicates he was anything more than a run-of-the-mill trial-court-level state judge. TJRC (talk) 20:26, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just because the Massachusetts District Court is a statewide body does not mean every individual judge on it gets an automatic free pass over our notability criteria for judges; it is the basic trial court, not a higher-level appeals or supreme court, and is divided into several distinct regions rather than one statewide jurisdictional area. So the notability test he has to pass is not simply that he's verifiable as having existed — it's that he can be shown to pass WP:GNG on a sufficient depth and range and volume of coverage about him. But that's not what these references are showing: the only one that's about him to any non-trivial degree is the merely expected obituary, while the remainder of the sources are (a) a comprehensive list of every judge on the court, which namechecks them all without being about any of them, (b) a brief and unsubstantive blurb, and (c) strictly genealogical paid-inclusion death and marriage notices for his non-notable relatives. This is not how you make a judge notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Bearcat (talk) 15:52, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I suppose that there was something notable in his career, which antedates the internet, we don't have any evidence yet. I am assuming he was a trial judge in the ~~court of general jurisdictio~~ the lowest trial court Massachusetts District Court in Massachusetts. Does not meet WP:GNG, which applies I think. Longevity in the position doesn't butter any parsnips, either. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 02:26, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.A.Jacobin (talk) 14:55, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn with no delete suggestions. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 21:57, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Ditmas[edit]

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

No sources besides for Allmusic. Seems to fail NARTIST (although he possibly signed with a label at some point). Google doesn't turn up anything beside basic music database sites. Hydromania (talk) 11:42, 23 June 2019 (UTC) Withdrawing.Hydromania (talk) 09:12, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Hydromania (talk) 11:42, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Hydromania (talk) 11:42, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:29, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:29, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Author Keep The article cites Feather and Gitler's Biographical Encyclopedia of Jazz, a standard reference work on jazz, in which Ditmas has an article; there is no reason why we should not have an encyclopedia article for a musician covered by jazz encyclopedias. This leads me to believe that the nominator didn't read the article closely. AMG is an RS, and it substantiates his playing with a raft of jazz luminaries; as the discography notes, he recorded with Pat Metheny, Gil Evans, Carla Bley, and others of note, which is why he would attract the attention of jazz publications like AMG and Feather/Gitler. A cursory Internet search yields yet more: [19], [20], [21]. Chubbles (talk) 01:33, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and add more sources. I'm not saying allmusic isn't reliable, just that I'm unsure it establishes notability (see for example this discussion). As there aren't multiple RS giving him WP:SIGCOV, notability under WP:NARTIST should be established. The best thing to do to ensure this survives the deletion discussion is to find more references to add to the article. Or explain why he's notable according to Wikipedia's guidelines concerning musicians. Hydromania (talk) 02:07, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to have read neither the article nor Chubbles's comment correctly, because you have completely ignored the entry in the Feather and Gitler book, which is already in the article so there's no point in ordering anyone to add it. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:55, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's plenty of coverage from a Google search, e.g. [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], as well as several briefer mentions confirming his contributions to other albums with notable artists/ensembles. --Michig (talk) 08:35, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's covered in Biographical Encyclopedia of Jazz, an entry already in the article, in addition to all of the other sources listed above which demonstrate his notability. Alansohn (talk) 16:08, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to the above, he has an entry in Grove, which is one of the standard reference works for biographies of musicians (sub required to see the whole thing). I'll add more sourced info to the article when I have time. EddieHugh (talk) 16:02, 26 June 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 20:30, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Casagrandes (characters)[edit]

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

Does not meet GNG - the sources do not focus on the characters themselves. Should we merge or redirect? FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 18:59, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 18:59, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 18:59, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 18:59, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 18:59, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 18:59, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Refocus? Probably good base for starting an article on the spin-off series but not as a stand alone article about the characters. Rmhermen (talk) 20:33, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:LISTN as the characters have been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. [30], [31] These two sources as it is focus on voice casting, and those behind the characters. I see no indication that the nom checked per WP:BEFORE for sourcing. An AfD is also not the place to start a merge or redirect discussion nor is it a place to discuss cleanup issues. Finally the main article is approaching the size where a WP:SPINOUT is warranted as the "characters" section is getting to be overwhelmingly big. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:44, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's no doubt that the parent article is too long. My solution would be to bring that article down in size with some judicious editing. GA/FA content has character sections nowhere of this level of detail. That's how it should be. If this were truly a list of characters, to do a good job there would be a few words, or a sentence max. The show is notable, there should be coverage of these characters as shown by Knowledgekid (though we can debate how RS those source are another day), but that can be done at The Loud House. This level of detail can, thanks to our license, then be moved over to fandom where it would be appreciated. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:09, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that these characters are going to get a split off series, so they will be in two separate in-universe plots. We cant possibly cover these characters in that single context. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:29, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle and Friends supports by my count 8 different universes. The issue is covering these universes at the level of detail currently done. A version that is more in line with our best practices will have plenty of space to do two. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 06:59, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but we are going into WP:OSE here. It works for that article as there is Rocky the Flying Squirrel, and Bullwinkle J. Moose among others that have stand alone articles. If you want to go down that route then what is the difference between this list and say... List of As Told by Ginger characters? The established practice should be to split out character pages, and leave a summary on the main page (List of Tokyo Mew Mew characters and Tokyo Mew Mew). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:56, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to be bold and say you're right other stuff exists. Other stuff, which follows our best practices exists. That's why they exist. The problem that this split is solving wouldn't exist if Loud House followed those practices. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:35, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just linked an FA example, the current state of the list should not be a valid reason for deletion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:47, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It looks like User:PowerRanger200 has illegally moved it to List of The Loud House Characters even though the AFD hasn't ended yet. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 17:30, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is despite a comment by @NickSpark:; available here. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 17:34, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment Two drafts exist for the show: one in draftspace and the other created in userspace by @Amaury:. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 17:34, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The article is now at status quo before the disruption. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:33, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:53, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Newslinger talk 11:14, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Knowledgekid87 WildChild300^Talk 19:26, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:46, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Millan Sachania[edit]

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

School headteacher who doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG. Has some publications, but doesn't appear to pass WP:AUTHOR or WP:ACADEMIC. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:26, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:26, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:51, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a public figure of note? But not an expert on WP:GNG User:Alium888 —Preceding undated comment added 07:37, 10 June 2019 (UTC) — Alium888 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

A simple summary is available at WP:GOLDENRULE, Alium888. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:43, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:05, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Newslinger talk 11:13, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My search didn't find significant independent coverage of him that would show he meets WP:GNG. I am open to being convinced otherwise. Papaursa (talk) 00:11, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 12:46, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Natali Thanou[edit]

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

Model and failed Eurovision contestant doesn't make for notability. Sources confirm she is (was?) a model but little else. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:51, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:51, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:51, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:48, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:48, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:49, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:05, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. Geoffroi (talk) 10:09, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My Greek ain't anything, but there are plenty of Google News hits for "Νάταλι Θάνου" that suggest she has sufficient celebrity. She's been in OK magazine. Bondegezou (talk) 16:06, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please analyze the available sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Newslinger talk 11:04, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment This really needs a Greek speaker, but I've done some work on the article and added some additional citations. Bondegezou (talk) 08:04, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I note in the Greek-language Wikipedia that the corresponding article was the 32nd most viewed of 21 Mar 2019, an indication of some notability! See [32]. Bondegezou (talk) 05:46, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bondegezou - Thanks for going the extra mile! Geoffroi (talk) 10:54, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, at the moment the article and its sources are not showing how Thanou meets WP:ANYBIO or WP:NMODEL (is being greek playmate of the year significant enough?)(the statement about her songs being hits are unsourced), i hope some editors can provide them.... Coolabahapple (talk) 12:15, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:46, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Kazanas[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACADEMIC as well as WP:GNG. Most mentions are within a cottage industry of fringe nationalists masquerading as scholars. ∯WBG^converse 10:09, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 10:09, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 10:09, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 10:09, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see enough impact of his work for WP:PROF#C1. I did find one reliably-published source responding in-depth to some of his work (and trashing his translational skills) [33] but I don't think that's enough for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:41, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
David Eppstein, he is a fringe scholar. The erstwhile version of the article mentioned:-His work was criticized by M. Witzel, Richard Meadow, Martin Huld, Edwin Bryant, D. P. Agrawal, Asko Parpola, Stefan Zimmer, J. P. Mallory, Elena Kuzmina and others *but* w/o any citations.

Choosing to aware you, because I failed to locate the afore-linked pdf and in the hope, that you can track any of these criticisms, which might make him pass GNG. ∯WBG^converse 08:05, 30 June 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) 10:59, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pooja Madan[edit]

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

Subject is an elected member of a ward - the lowest tier of local government. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:57, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:30, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:30, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:30, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per my rationale when I tagged this for CSD. I believe the decline was quite incorrect; being a member of a municipal council isn't a substantive claim to significance; nor is being a politician. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:38, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and Vanamonde93. Definite WP:NPOL fail. Best, GPL93 (talk) 23:54, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:45, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Prosperident[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG. The sources given just mention the company or its CEO; searches by me only bring up other similar sources of the company or CEO offering advice on embezzlement in dentistry. Article author seems to have a COI. Reporting as I'm involved. 331dot (talk) 09:29, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 09:38, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 09:38, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 09:38, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I think this meets the requirements for WP:A7: I don't see any reason given that this company is notable. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:25, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Withdrawn - mea culpa on the lackluster BEFORE search. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:33, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Epistemology of Wikipedia[edit]

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

I don't think there's enough reliable sources of substance to carry this as a standalone article, and I'm not sure there's a suitable merge target. The source from Australasian Journal of Educational Technology looks ok, but Social Science Research Network isn't peer-reviewed, and the Jankowski paper is an MA thesis, which are not usually taken as reliable. It's not enough. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:43, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:45, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. –dlthewave ☎ 15:38, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Premeditated Chaos, SSRN is a repository. To say SSRN isn't peer reviewed is sort of saying that JSTOR ain't peer-reviewed though SSRN"s policy of allowing user-uploads like Academi.edu et al do dilute the rigor.
At any case, the article was published in a peer-reviewed-journal by Wiley.
Also, this, this, this and many more. ∯WBG^converse 09:39, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Winged Blades of Godric. Mccapra (talk) 11:07, 23 June 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. Ylevental was indef blocked as a sock. Sandstein 12:44, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Advocacy for autism treatment[edit]

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

Mainly original research -- adding more information now. Anomalapropos (talk) 04:26, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This page was nominated for deletion because of OR once before, which is why I am opening it again for the same reason. I mentioned I was considering it on the Talk page, and no replies came. The person who nominated it last time noted that they were able to find references to the "medical model of autism" in Google Books and then withdrew their nomination. However, I think perhaps they were missing some context.

Most reliable sources that use the phrase "medical model of autism" are referring to the "medical model of disability", but in reference to autism. You won't find an RS about an accepted definition for a "medical model of autism," at least not the way it's described here. The medical perspective or "medical model" of autism is the mainstream perspective of autism. Practically everything, aside from the introductory paragraph (which is the OR part) already exists in other articles, including pro-cure perspectives, etc. If anything, any new information from this page could be merged into those existing articles: Autism, Autism spectrum, Autism rights movement, Autism therapies, etc. Anomalapropos (talk) 04:39, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure whether the article should be deleted or not, but I found a peer reviewed article titled "A medical model of autism: etiology, pathology and treatment." and added it Ylevental (talk) 13:02, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Does that article substantiate everything else on this page though? (Is it even an RS for the paragraph it's citing? I can't read it.) Almost none of the sources for the content refer to a medical model of autism; the sources refer to pro-cure rhetoric, and this article applies the term "medical model" to those views (I think that's the definition of OR). That's why I'm saying this is a redundant page. Pro-cure rhetoric is already discussed on the main autism pages. Anomalapropos (talk) 00:21, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article presents the pro-cure position, and criticism thereof, in terms of the Medical model of disability. The article found by Ylevental is applying the Medical model to autism. The difference may be subtle at first glance, but it is significant. We don't have articles on "The medical model of tonsilitis/headache/ankle sprain", so this one does seem rather redundant in that sense. However, an article detailing criticism of the cure paradigm might be useful - there could be a baby somewhere in this murky bathwater. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:24, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dodger67: Interesting point. I changed the article title to "Advocacy for autism treatment". Hope that makes sense. Ylevental (talk) 14:41, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's still describing something that is already described in the other articles, though. Also, "advocacy of treatment" implies that opponents of pathologizing autism are anti-treatment. They might not use the word "treatment," but advocates are generally in favour of services and support. As the easiest example I can muster up, my local advocacy group posted [this article] about alternatives to ABA. So describing the position in this article as advocacy for treatment could be misleading. Other advocates' positions are already misrepresented as being entirely anti-therapy when making reference to the social model.

Re: criticism of the cure paradigm: There is, actually; it's part of the autism rights movement article. (Autism_rights_movement#Notion_of_"curing"_autism_is_offensive) Anomalapropos (talk) 16:56, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'm not sure if the article should be kept (I want to let others decide), but if the article is to be kept, I picked the best possible title. I think "treatment" in this case means reducing the biological severity of autism, as opposed to providing societal accommodations. Ylevental (talk) 17:58, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I was thinking about it for a while, the best solution would be to merge the article into Controversies_in_autism#Autism_rights_movement, to portray the controversy involving both sides of the medical/social disability debate. Ylevental (talk) 01:05, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposed to that. Sounds fair to me. Not the whole article, mind you; I think some of it is already reproduced in other articles, but the gist of what it's trying to get at is certainly noteworthy enough and the information belongs somewhere. --Anomalapropos (talk) 13:38, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some of this information may be useful in that section. However, that section is already four paragraphs, and adding this entire article would violate WP:DUE. If some of the best information in this article were condensed and transferred, that might be advantageous compared to a flat deletion, but it just depends on what information you think is important. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 03:06, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:24, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This article is a major violation of NPOV. It should either discuss the autism treatment controversy (and be titled to reflect this) or not exist at all. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 20:07, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikiman2718 That's not a deletion argument, at best it's an argument for a MOVE and major editing. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:58, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dodger67: POV forking is grounds for deletion. This article is a POV fork from controversies in autism. —Wikiman2718 (talk) 18:16, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or delete? I'd encourage, if possible, users interested in merging the content elsewhere to start the ball rolling, so the closing admin isn't left feeling that non-neutral content is just being left unattended indefinitely.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:09, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Will do later today Ylevental (talk) 18:37, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 04:04, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 04:04, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:27, 23 June 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 Turf Club (gentlemen's club). Sandstein 12:43, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Turf Club members[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. List does not have any notability Rogermx (talk) 21:33, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 21:33, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. None of the names appear notable. Ajf773 (talk) 21:39, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely unsourced list of people who may or may not be notable. Adds nothing of value to the encyclopedia. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:10, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. What I'd hope to see here is discussion rooted in some understanding of the subject, and what the informational value may be to that parent topic of listing its members, and consideration of whether merger may be a good option. Instead we have the following drive by comments: a WP:VAGUEWAVE nomination, a lazily inaccurate observation (actually, most of the names are notable) that was apparently based on nothing more than the lack of wikilinking in the list at the time rather than any actual research,[34] and a complaint based on current sourcing rather than its potential. So while there may be a substantive deletion rationale for this list, it hasn't been presented yet. postdlf (talk) 21:37, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I concede that some of the names on the list are notable, but it escapes me as to why their belonging to this club is notable. If this were a list of nobles who signed the Magna Carta or scientists who created the first atom bomb, that would be different. Instead, this was a bunch of aristocrats and politicians who went to a club to get away from their families, play some cards, and have a few drinks. Where is the notability? Rogermx (talk) 14:52, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't understand your question, and I think the issue is the analysis you're trying to apply just isn't coherent here. This isn't an article on Turf Club membership of Alexander Fermor-Hesketh, 3rd Baron Hesketh, etc., so it simply isn't meangingful to ask whether their membership was "notable" (unless you mean something else by that other than "merits a standalone article"). The club is notable, and it has notable members, and that's as much as notability guidelines are of use here. We index articles by many kinds of shared facts, including by membership in notable organizations (see List of Skull and Bones members, for a good example, or Category:Members of organizations generally); I don't know if that's something that is also of merit to do here, because no one has yet presented an informed argument on that. Or if the list is viewed more just as a WP:SPLIT from the parent article, WP:SIZE would suggest we should just merge it. One thing that I'm curious about is whether membership is pretty much routine (or even automatic) for anyone of certain rank/title in the UK, which would suggest that a list even in the parent article would be pointless. In the meantime, I'm going to err on the side of merge to parent article, where those knowledgeable with the topic can determine the informational value of listing these there. postdlf (talk) 15:08, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, I could argue that the British Labour Party is notable and many of its members are notable. Should we then list all 512,000 members in a Wikipedia article? A better idea is to merge a list of the notable Turf Club members into the Turf Club article. Postdlf, thank you for your input and the interesting discussion. Rogermx (talk) 19:58, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' Wikipedia isn't a directory. Or Merge to Turf_Club_(gentlemen's_club) seems like both articles are short, so I think it's better to merge them together. Masum Reza^📞 03:14, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The deletion rationales so far need some work
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:25, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge since both articles are short enough for splitting to be unnecessary. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 16:44, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The list could definitely be shortened and added to to Turf_Club_(gentlemen's_club). There is no obvious reason for it to have it's own entry as lot of the members listed do not meet WP:GNG. I would suggest narrowing it down to those that have their own pages to link to. Courtc22 (talk) 18:22, 26 June 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. Redirects may be added at editorial discretion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:28, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Melbourne bus route 509[edit]

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

Completely run of the mill bus route, no significance coverage other than local coverage or primary sources Ajf773 (talk) 08:21, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:21, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:21, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, we don't have articles about any other Melbourne bus routes, and just because this one happens to be the shortest bus route in Melbourne doesn't make it any more notable. Not a very active user (talk) 11:01, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as being entirely non-notable. The references only support the fact it was withdrawn and reinstated. The "shortest route" claim is far from justification for retainment. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:06, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect into List of bus routes in Melbourne. Agree that the standalone article is not notable and the list article now includes the cited information. Bookscale (talk) 01:50, 30 June 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) 08:27, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional magazines[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Same case as List of fictional films. Most of the items on the list are unnotable, the list is very poorly sourced and there is no criterion for inclusion. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Not a very active user (talk) 06:43, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:04, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete very poorly sourced list cruft. Appears to be highly arbitrary, with no encyclopedic value. Not a single notable example included in the list. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:21, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:47, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Entirely unconnected, unreferenced non-notable cruft. Most are just in passing scenes in cartoons without anything to them, simply absurd. Reywas92^Talk 19:35, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Non-notable, poorly sourced list, that is comprised entirely of trivia. It is pure cruft that fails WP:NLIST. Rorshacma (talk) 19:28, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:SNOW applies. AmericanAir88^(talk) 14:58, 28 June 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) 08:27, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ARS (wrestling tournament)[edit]

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

No significant independent coverage of this topic in the references or that can be found elsewhere. Appears to be an ARS enthusiast creation without the availability of reliable sources. Steve Quinn (talk) 06:45, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:06, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:06, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:06, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:06, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions

KatoKungLee (talk) 02:56, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It meets the guidelines for notability for tournaments in the wrestling section - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling/Notability#Professional_wrestlers.

Cagematch is also listed as a reliable source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling/Sources

I'm also 100% certain that the Wrestling Observer, which is also a reliable source, covered it, though I do not have accessed to it since it is a paid publication. I would strongly caution hunting down Japanese wrestling articles due to deletion since there was ZERO coverage of Japanese women's wrestling in the English media due to the mainstream media rarely covering wrestling in America, yet alone in Japan and due to companies like ARSION being unable to be viewed legally in the US at the time. KatoKungLee (talk) 02:42, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cagematch is listed as reliable source for results only. It doesn't establishes notability since covers every single pro wrestling event in the planet. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:37, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question- how does this meet WP:PWEVENT? Nothing I've seen so far suggests it does (unless it was run by a promotion on the list. If this is a simple WP:GNG argument, it fails from all sources I've seen. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:38, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have added references to coverage of the 1998 & 1999 tournaments in the Wrestling Observer Newsletter.Froo (talk) 13:49, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but no rush Not much here except names, dates and results, making this redundant to the Internet's existing stat sites. Even a bit inferior in ways. But these are big names, making deeper coverage in joshi magazines fairly plausible. I couldn't read them if I found them, but somebody else might, in good time. A month seems long enough. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:29, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
soft delete as above, and other conversations at WP:PW, there is possibility of Japanese sources existing, but that doesn't mean that the article should go as badly referenced on that speculation. Delete with no prejudice to recreate if appropriate sources to meet WP:GNG are found. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:18, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the articles are anything but the reporting of results. There's no evidence that WP:GNG is met. Papaursa (talk) 00:01, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There's no evidence that met WP:GNG -MA Javadi (talk) 18:29, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:42, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Knightsbridge Foreign Exchange[edit]

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

No demonstration of notability. This article is advertising as demonstrated by the references, which do not cover this as a subject, but are passing mentions, opinions by the co-founder on general foreign exchange topics, and one line mentions in a couple of lists. In the "Profit 500" (see references) it is listed at 167 - hardly notable. Previously tagged for hotability by User DGG [35] and removed by article creator [36]. Tagged again for notability by User Hzh [37] ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:22, 23 June 2019 (UTC

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:44, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:44, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:44, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:44, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promotional article for non-notable company. Mccapra (talk) 06:28, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Being listed in the Profit 500 at any position ought to be notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:11, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I disagree because being listed in the Profit 500 is merely passing mention. There is nothing in the notability criteria for GNG or Organizations that says garnering a rank in the "Profit 500" indicates notability. Nor should it be the only factor that indicates notability. However, if this company were ranked number 1 by a few lists such as that, then this might be one indicator for notability. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:15, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, an IP editor has added some more content and sources, but ultimately I don't think this quite meets WP:ORGCRITE. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:04, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The language and wording all can be fixed and are not relevant to notability. Citations can be added, better sources can be found, etc. The subject is notable enough, coverage is more than an occasional passing mention, it is relatively high (in the top 50% of) the Profit 500. The text just needs some wikicleanup, not deletion.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 17:30, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if better sources can be found then please do so. Making such an assertion does not mean sources demonstrating notability exist. I do not agree the ranking of this company, at 167, is enough do be an indicator of notability. Also, it is questionable as to whether or not the "Profit 500" should be used as a point of reference. It does not seem to be well known or established like the "Fortune 500" and the "S&P 500". Being ranked on those two indexes probably means something. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:15, 29 June 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 Fortune 1000. It seems like there is enough disagreement with the WP:LISTCRUFT claim that the deletion argument doesn't override the merge ones. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:26, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Fortune 1000 companies by urban area[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminte collection of information. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:00, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep most of the companies are clearly notable and a list would certainly be helpful for the reader to have a rough sense about the distribution of those companies. Viztor (talk) 04:35, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, after a second look, it appears that it could be well merged into Fortune 1000 without an extra article. Viztor (talk) 04:37, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:38, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:39, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Per Viztor. This is essentially a WP:CFORK and can easily be combined with the current page for Fortune 1000 companies. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:51, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The map of locations already exists on Fortune 1000 and the list of numbers of locations per area is WP:LISTCRUFT. Nothing worth merging. Ajf773 (talk) 08:10, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Does not meet my POV on Listcruft. Just a WP:CFORK FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 16:48, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:12, 27 June 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. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY, and there is no notability guideline for futsal. RL0919 (talk) 04:20, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nikita Tšernei[edit]

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

Player hasn't played in a professional league and fails in playing for the senior national team. HawkAussie (talk) 01:31, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 01:31, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 01:31, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 01:31, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:19, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:41, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

comment "fails in playing for the senior national team"? See this https://www.uefa.com/futsalworldcup/season=2020/teams/player=250026484/profile/index.html . --Pelmeen10 (talk) 10:41, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- That's futsal, not football. Number 5 7 11:37, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFOOTY failure. Number 5 7 11:37, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:ANYBIO as I am not sure if he had received well-known significant award or honor. Masum Reza^📞 14:24, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:09, 24 June 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 Son Armado. The sole keep argument appears to be more a merge/redirect argument and the "comment" is only stating that sources exist, without actually showing them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:25, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Herrera[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:ARTIST and also WP:GNG, and is also written promotionally, and much of the content isn't about her specifically. SportingFlyer T·C 00:06, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:41, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:42, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:42, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot find enough independent coverage to establish notability. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:08, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to the musical group she founded, Son Armado, which performs the Son jarocho style of music. Her group has received significant coverage such as this and this. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:09, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen, do you mean merge? The two links you give are for quite short entries (120 words totoal for the two?) on the band. It's not really SIGCOV as far as I can see.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 12:08, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen: OK, I have had my coffee and I get it now. I have moved the relevant content to the notable subject (Son Armado), so I believe this page could safely be deleted, or just redirected to Son Armado. I did not include information about her as a visual artist as it a single group show seemed to be the extent of it.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:29, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:43, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:43, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:43, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hmm. Judging by above comments, the subject appears to meet WP:GNG. I am positive that sources exist. Masum Reza^📞 06:32, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and move her info to Son Armado article. Netherzone (talk) 23:05, 24 June 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.

[contemptible-1] A Contemptible Little Flying Corps, p.408

[2] ttps://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/30194/supplement/7423

[1]

[2]