Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 November 21

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 20 November	22 November >

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:28, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Akis Samiotis[edit]

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

He possibly fails WP:NFOOTY as by the time Ethnikos Pireaus was promoted to the third tier of Greek football is when we don't classify that as a professional league. HawkAussie (talk) 23:57, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 23:57, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 23:57, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 23:57, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:10, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 14:11, 22 November 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 13:51, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shiv Kotecha[edit]

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

I see no evidence that this person meets WP:NAUTHOR. The reviews his works have received aren't from reliable sources or from the standard major sources we usually use to judge notability of authors/their work. I can find no independent coverage of him that would otherwise satisfy any other criteria and the fact that he's written for notable publications is probably great for his resume but ultimately irrelevant in establishing his notability. Praxidicae (talk) 19:33, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:46, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fifthavenuebrands (talk) 13:19, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (Article Author) Note: I disagree with the above. This author clearly meets "2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique." If you would like specific examples where he does this in his second novel, The Switch, then examples need to be included from the reviews written by notable poets and critics in the various literary organizations used to cite this page.

Regarding his writing and criticism for notable publications...this is exactly what an art and culture critic does: "express or analyze the merits and faults of a work of literature, music, or art." I don't think it should be undermined by a Wikipedia editor's ignorance of the literary (or any cultural) sphere and basis that cultural spheres rely on meritocracy (i.e. "for his resume") - because they don't. Again, if you are looking for specific examples of "merits and faults," otherwise known as opinions and perspectives, then I agree that direct examples should be included. Please note that he is referenced in various artist's and writer's Wikipedia pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frutti xperiment (talk • contribs) 15:46, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The Keeps need to quote the specific references (WP:RS) in this AfD that demonstrate NAUTHOR and/or GNG to avoid a Delete; try one re-list
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 23:08, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:39, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:40, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and question. Frutti_xperiment, I'm unclear what is meant in this case by "originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique." I don't see significant coverage for either the writer or whatever "new concept, theory, or technique" he created; I'm intrigued by what is meant by that. The only notable poetry/cultural journal cited in the article is the The Brooklyn Rail, which could be one piece of evidence towards notability. The others, while reliable sources, are just plain review journals and aren't avant garde. Please ping me as to what else you can find. Can you prove this writer has done something new? Bearian (talk) 16:18, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete article suggests a typical author. No indication of notability per nom. Graywalls (talk) 08:47, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - looks promotional - Jay (talk) 08:45, 29 November 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:23, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy Osefo[edit]

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

Subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in secondary sources independent of her hereby failing WP:GNG The article claims a lot of notability for its subject but doesn’t substantiate those claims with reliable sources. In the references provided most are broken links. Furthermore article is written as though it were a WP:PROMO & WP:LARD is strongly observed in this article. Celestina007 (talk) 22:32, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:32, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:32, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:32, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:32, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:32, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I should say what I find most disturbing is the heavy WP:PUFF in the article without provision of inline citations/references to substantiate claims of notability. Clicks on references that look promising all redirect to a dead/broken link. Celestina007 (talk) 22:35, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article has been cleaned up and much of the puffery has been removed. It still needs work but with the existing sources as well as coverage found in Google search, subject passes WP:GNG and meets WP:BASIC. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 06:12, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one @AuthorAuthor: , I saw your WP:C/E work on the article but a more pressing issue is that of reliable sources, could you please provide on this AFD the ones you can find that discusses subject of article with significant coverage and with in-depth. I have searched as per a WP:BEFORE but could not find any.Celestina007 (talk) 15:16 November 2019 (UTC)

Keep. Puff isn't a reason for delete, nor is clean-up. scope_creep^Talk 12:13, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: no WP:PUFF isn’t a reason to delete an article that’s why the reason I gave was that subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable source. I mentioned WP:PUFF as a secondary issue.Celestina007 (talk) 15:12, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Surely you would have seen the significant coverage on the subject. scope_creep^Talk 10:24, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I don't see much else that needs to be removed, although I'd like to see deeper coverage about her, which is not in the article yet. She writes for The Hill and has appeared on television, which would make her marginally notable. Bearian (talk) 16:24, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to meet the GNG and the promo issues seem o have been resolved. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 02:55, 28 November 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:24, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

3D Derby Deaf Drama[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NORG. Local theater group. Lacks multiple sources with independent in-depth coverage. The sources are Facebook, two minor mentions of events, and one small article in a church newsletter. MB 21:16, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Short-lived, defunct local theatre company. No significant independent coverage, let alone any sustained coverage in national press. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:50, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was unable to find anything about this company in my searches. The references in the article are all terrible as well, being either unreliable or not WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:NCORP, which requires "significant coverage in multiple, independent,reliable, secondary sources." Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:41, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only of local interest. Graywalls (talk) 17:22, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems like it doesn't meet the required standard for organisations. Refs do not support the GNG and I can't find better. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 02:57, 28 November 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:24, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jaren Kerr[edit]

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

Non-notable journalist. Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. Some minor coverage related to one position but nothing else. scope_creep^Talk 20:07, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete Fails WP:BIO Celestina007 (talk) 00:46, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As always, journalists do not get an "inherent" notability freebie just because they exist — but winning a student journalism award is not an article-clinching notability claim in and of itself. The references here are primary sources, like his staff profiles and contributor directories on the self-published websites of his own employers, not reliable source media coverage about him. And checking the article history, it was clearly created to WP:COATRACK some allegations of unethical reportage that were referenced entirely to blogs rather than any evidence whatsoever of reliable source coverage about the matter in real media — but Wikipedia is not a forum to attack people for stuff that bloggers merely allege. Bearcat (talk) 18:36, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - editing Canadaland or being a staff writer for a newspaper are not by themselves notable accomplishments. If there were deep coverage in secondary sources about the person. I'd change my mind, Has the subject appeared on network TV such as CBC? Bearian (talk) 16:28, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any sources to support this person meeting the GNG. Links used in the article are all affiliated. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 02:59, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 21:34, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bushwackers Drum and Bugle Corps[edit]

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

Contested PROD. PROD reason by John from Idegon was "Only source is a fan page. I can find a few mentions in local media but nithing that shows notability in WP:BEFORE. Clearly fails WP:ORG. WP:NOTEVERYTHING likely also applies." I agree. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:32, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - see above. Muboshgu, can you point me to the undelete request? John from Idegon (talk) 19:42, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@John from Idegon: Here is the WP:REFUND request. —C.Fred (talk) 19:45, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- Thanks. I was just about to remove that request as I had found it too. John from Idegon (talk) 19:48, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:07, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:08, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:08, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A long established drum and bugle corps which has consistently won/placed highly in many competitions at regional and national levels (such as Drum Corps Associates Open Class World Champions) in a field that appears to have its own culture.Djflem (talk) 18:57, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep multiple independent third party feature articles in various news sources show a clear pass of the general notability guideline and I can see no policy violation nor any other reason to make an exception. Specifically, WP:ORG calls attention to anything that leads to "advertising and promotion" and that's clearly not the case here--plus it is subordinate to WP:GNG. Also, I don't see any section or part of WP:NOTEVERYTHING that would apply here.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:18, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources already in the article so there is no need for deletion in policy terms imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:20, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I have nominated other such groups for deletion, the sources here available in the article satisfy the notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 05:26, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First I must say that I have a conflict of interest on this issue. I believe that this article shows adequate notability based on the multiple independent sources covering this topic. MartiniHoff (talk) 15:19, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 21:34, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zyfra[edit]

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

Company/Startup article that fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. First six refs don't mention the company. Run of the mill business finance news that fails WP:ORGIND as well. scope_creep^Talk 19:12, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:09, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:09, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:10, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:13, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NCORP | Celestina007 (talk) 00:52, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article fully complies with Wikipedia rules, which is shown in the first link. All the links have the company’s name. In addition, all references in the article are given to reputable sources. I will add two more links now --Egorov97 (talk) 13:01, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve added two more links to the article, now everything is fine, so and the article can be kept --Egorov97 (talk) 13:09, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is just more of the same, advertising and promotional references. scope_creep^Talk 13:11, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These are not commercial, but the reputed source links such as leading national newspapers and other media. --Egorov97 (talk) 13:20, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Egorov97: They are not links. This isn't a forum or social media site. They are sources when they are in a document or web page and references when they are in the article. Please refer to them as such. scope_creep^Talk 13:29, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete trivial mentions from sources are "legal" to keep in Wikipedia articles, but for the purpose of establishing the notability requirements for organizations and companies, these sources don't contribute towards it. The article is lacking significant reliable coverage in sources of general interest that have vast audience base. Graywalls (talk) 08:51, 27 November 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. This is very borderline, and difficult to get at any essential notability due to the article being poorly written with trivial sourcing that should not have been used. As noted in the discussion, the article is not focused on why the subject is notable (which appears mainly due to the Nextdoor incident), but attempts to create a general notability for which there is little evidence. There is some disagreement over the value of the alcohol article in establishing notability. I haven't given that article nor the discussion against it much weighting either way. It appears to a promotional piece for a book she has written, though that thought is not present in the discussion, so I have not considered it as weighing against notability, and on the whole have viewed that article as possibly leaning toward notability, though it would require more than that to keep the article. The most viable piece of sourcing for the subject's notability is the Nextdoor incident, though it is argued that coverage is about the incident rather than the person, so one event would apply. The delete arguments used in the discussion are more closely aligned to our inclusion criteria and policies than the keep arguments; and though there are more keeps than deletes, the keep statements are more assertions rather than rationales. "Meets XYZ" without giving details is not helpful to a closer. That is not to say there aren't some detailed keep statements and a healthy and lively discussion has taken place, but where there have been solid keep rationales, they have been refuted by reference to inclusion guidelines. I did consider this as a No consensus close, but on the whole feel that the delete arguments were more convincing when looking at the article and the sourcing, so close as delete, though will userfy on request to anyone who feels they can rewrite and refocus the article appropriately. SilkTork (talk) 19:45, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Erica C. Barnett[edit]

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

Noticed an open RfC on Talk:Erica C. Barnett regarding whether to restore, or leave deleted, some content from a potentially editorially conflicted editor Ericacbarnett who appears to be the subject of the article in question. I think this misses the larger point—that is, is this subject notable? As written, most of the references are either passing mentions, tangentially-related, and there's a fair bit of primary sources authored or co-authored by the subject herself. No indication of any significant coverage. Thus, I thought we should bring this to AfD as a potentially non-notable blogger and regional radio personality/guest host. Doug Mehus (talk) 19:15, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 19:15, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 19:15, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 19:15, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly tags: Chetsford, as initiator of the open RfC, and Bearcat, for his expertise with respect to person/biographical notability as there's a lot of primary sources, passing mentions, and questionable, non-reliable sourcing in this article. As well, the potential WP:COI doesn't help and it may be a case of WP:TOOSOON for her autobiography which is not yet published. Doug Mehus (talk) 19:22, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete The bulk of RS merely mention her in passing as the author of this or that article. I almost AfDed it myself but found more thorough - albeit unflattering- treatments I thought redeemed N (which are currently undergoing RfC as to whether they should be included after the subject of the article issued a call on Twitter for the article to be defended against "assholes" [I think that's me]). I don't suspect the RfCs will allow said coverage to be included due to lack of participation from non canvassed editors. Since the only sourceable references are, therefore, not SIGCOV I'd cautiously support delete with no prejudice against future recreation. Chetsford (talk) 20:21, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chetsford, Agreed. I think once she's got her autobiography published, given her journalism work, she may be notable, but WP:TOOSOON seems to apply here. Perhaps, then, someone, non-editorially conflicted can re-create a slimmed down version this article? ;)Doug Mehus (talk) 20:24, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — the three articles at [1][2][3] are sufficient to meet WP:GNG and the sources at [4][5][6] show the subject is considered a signifant player in the post-print media landscape, doing city hall beat work after the downsizing of print newspapers. The sources at [7] [8][9][10][11] further corroborate this, demonstrating that Barnett has filled the void in local reporting using new media and crowdsourcing. Taken together, they meet WP:ANYBIO, that the person made a "widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field." --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:28, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
KeepShe is undoubtedly notable, and a significant presence in the public sphere of the Pacific North West. In the age of a decline in the influence of print media, she has earned the hostility of the establishment, reporting on issues that otherwise would have been passed over.Oldperson (talk) 01:47, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets GNG, which is challenging for a profession like a journalist (or historian), where they're usually the ones writing about others, not being written about themselves. Schazjmd (talk) 01:54, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have a number of concerns about the article - many of the sources in the article don't cover her in a WP:GNG capacity, the (only two though three links exist) sources listed above which appear to satisfy WP:GNG only cover her in the context of one event, and the article definitely has some COI/promotional issues. I expect this to be kept based on experience and I don't mind draftifying, but based on context and sources, I don't see her as notable. SportingFlyer T·C 09:13, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SportingFlyer, I agree. I'm not seeing any sources which provide significant coverage on which to write more than a stub-class article. I assume there's a similar provision for biographies as WP:CORPDEPTH such that we cannot use all primary sources to write a longer, detailed article because there may be two or three sources that meet WP:GNG but because they make relatively little mention to the subject, we can't "get" much out of those sources?

Don't get me wrong, she's to be commended for her investigative work uncovering malfeasance, corruption, or shenanigans at Seattle city hall in age of declining print journalism, but we need to remember to check any biases or preferences in favour of seeing whether the subject is notable, eh? Doug Mehus (talk) 14:55, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some bloggers are notable, and this one is per the SIGCOV in RS. Lightburst (talk) 14:39, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:35, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:35, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sourcing is not adequate to show actual notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:59, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The RS clearly passes WP:SIGCOV. Those saying otherwise are clearly WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments.4meter4 (talk) 09:48, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think is SIGCOV? SportingFlyer T·C 11:46, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SportingFlyer, Well said. I think we're seeing a lot of vague waves here from the "keep" camp, which is likely why administrator RL0919 relisted it as still in "no consensus" territory. Good example of not !vote counting by RL0919. Doug Mehus T·C 18:53, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The charitable, good faith assumption is that we're seeing editors who evaluated two arguments, found one more compelling than the other, and !voted without need for further embellishment, confident enough to ignore bludgeoning and sealioning. Ignoring someone yelling "debate me, dude" doesn't make them right. It usually means that the facts are already on the table and further debate would amount to mere repetition. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:09, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Bratland, True, but I'd note only one editor (yourself) has provided sources to substantiate whether WP:SIGCOV is met here. It would be nice to have some substantive analysis of the sources, so we can have a collaborative and constructive evaluation of the sources on offer. I've said why I disagree with that, so won't repeat, but I'm just saying that it would be nice to hear other editors say why they feel those sources meet WP:SIGCOV beyond merely stating that they do. SportingFlyer, did you have anything to add to this, since we're replying to your comment? Doug Mehus T·C 20:23, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, you should assume they're competent and diligent enough to have read the prior !votes, and choose to be concise, rather than re-state facts already given. If this was a blatantly obvious swarm of newly created SPAs in response recruiting on Reddit or someplace, you might have reason to question their competence, but there's no hint of such a thing. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:46, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Bratland, I don't have a strong opinion one way or another. I'd be open to withdrawing my nomination as "speedy keep," without prejudice to renomination in the future (although there's never prejudice to renomination in the future since AfD discussions are notionally not precedent-setting); however, I'd need the consent of Johnpacklambert, Chetsford, and SportingFlyer to proceed since differing opinions have been expressed. Doug Mehus T·C 21:15, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

None of the articles presented above, in my opinion, get us close to WP:SIGCOV. The first three presented are about how she was suspended from Nextdoor, which isn't about her but something which happened to her in furtherance of her own journalistic position. In the other sources, she was on a panel, she was in a story about the panel she was on, a story she wrote was mentioned in another story (twice), and she's got a brief blurb from SeattleMag for starting a blog. Where's the significant coverage of her specifically? All we've established is that we've verified she's a journalist in Seattle, but there's absolutely nothing here which suggests she's notable enough for Wikipedia to have noticed. She hasn't received any sort of coverage outside of Seattle, either, and the articles which claim to establish WP:GNG are all about one event, the fact a website shut down her account. Given all that, I think it's absolutely fair to question those !voters who claim WP:SIGCOV has been established. SportingFlyer T·C 04:35, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SportingFlyer and administrator Chetsford, thanks for the added discussion. Yes, this is the sort of thorough vetting of the sources Dennis presented which should help the AfD closer thoroughly analyze whether WP:GNG is met. I'm of the same opinion as you both; the articles presented aren't what I'd call significant coverage. She's a noteworthy Seattle blogger for uncovering city hall corruption and misspending, but noteworthiness does not equal notability, as I understand it. So, I tend to think this is actually a delete rather than a no consensus, at least not yet. When significant biographical works (in book(s) and/or significant, at-length biographical essay or documentary about her) are created, we can always re-create this article. Doug Mehus T·C 16:42, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We often see this argument in WP:N discussions about journalists, that because their name is often cited by other journalists we can create a long reference list and a long reference list must mean WP:SIGCOV is crested. But the articles about Barnett do not contain deep, biographical information, they are merely acknowledgments she reported on this story or that story and, because this is her profession, do not rise above the level of merely WP:ROUTINE coverage of her. Chetsford (talk) 04:59, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is not routine for lone bloggers to scoop major news organizations, on their own beat, with consistent regularity. When you call it routine, you’re arguing with cited sources that tell us Barnett has had unique success in the wake of newspaper downsizing. You’re asking us to weigh your personal opinions against reliable sources. Sources carry more weight than an editor’s original research. Deep biographical information has no relevance to notability. We don’t delete articles about people with significant accomplishments because we don’t know the name of their high school or their birthdate. Such trivia is beside the point. Dennis Bratland (talk) 08:09, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I don't see anything in the sources which would lead me to believe Barnett has had "unique success" as a journalist. In fact, reviewing the sources, I think that argument is WP:SYNTH. I've discussed the extent of the sourcing above, and I do not believe there's anything which definitively demonstrates she's notable in any of the sources. If there are articles written specifically about her, not four-sentence blurbs which discuss her in passing with her other editor, not stories that could have been written by any journalist who was temporarily blocked from a website, which I acknowledge is difficult for a journalist, I'd be more inclined to support. I just don't see any accomplishments here much less any significant ones. I also searched for the most important Seattle journalists to give you an example of someone I'd find notable - Mike Baker received national press for winning a journalism award and he doesn't have an article yet, but he would be an example of someone I would think would be a wiki-notable Seattle journalist. SportingFlyer T·C 12:58, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point out which other independent journalists regularly scoop major media, changing the course of events and public policy in the process? If it's routine, it must happen all the time. I see Barnett credited in the Seattle Times regularly, but I don't see other names similarly credited. I see her cited for the significance of her work after the decline of newspapers, and you're saying there's many others just like her? Who? I'm looking at sources telling us Barnett is particularly notable for this. So you have sources saying there are many others like her? Please cite them. Mike Baker is an example of the opposite, one of the few remaining major newspaper employees. Twenty years ago reporters like Baker covered city hall, but now, per multiple sources, we don't find out what's going on from the Times, the local TV stations, or NYT correspondents like Mike Baker. It's not clear we would get any such reporting if it weren't for Barnett. Not that anybody is stopping you from creating an article about Baker; whether he is notable or not isn't really relevant. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:20, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Bratland, I can think of a few independent and mainstream media journalists who do independent exposés on those subjects, including Essex Porter, Christina McKenna (former KIRO-TV journalist; now in academia and no longer reporting—the linked "Christina McKenna" is someone else), Robert Mak (again, not the journalist who even had his own KING5 Investigators TV program!), and Sharyl Attkisson. Three of those don't have Wikipedia biographies likely because they'd fail WP:GNG despite them having more notoriety. Ms. Attkisson has her own article because there has been a lot of significant coverage about her and she's published multiple non-fiction bestsellers. Erica C. Barnett does not seem to be there, at least not yet. Doug Mehus T·C 19:27, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the citations that they regularly scoop major media? Where are the citations that they played a major role in the post-newspaper landscape? The claim is that ECB’s work is merely routine, so the Seattle Times, KOMO, KIRO, Stranger, etc must routinely credit others as they do Barnett. Please. And why are you mentioning employees of major media and not independent journalists? Because there are few if any others like her? That she is exceptional? Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:35, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Bratland, No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that there still are some mainstream media journalists left in the investigative reporting realm. So she's not the only investigative journalist left. Nonetheless, I don't think that makes her notable. Commendable? Certainly. Noteworthy? Perhaps. Notable? No, not yet. Doug Mehus T·C 21:53, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Christina McKenna isn't working as a journalist, correct? She's evidence of the exodus of investigative journalists, yet your fellow editors here would see your list of names and be deceived. Sharyl Attkisson? When was the last time she did any Seattle reporting comparable to Barnett? Seems to be working full time as a Trump apologist, promoting Russian state media anti-Ukraine conspiracy theories. A bunch of anti-vaccine "exposes" before that. While Barnett's reporting has affected public policy, this Atkinsson person can share the blame for debacles like the 2019 Pacific Northwest measles outbreak. Are we supposed to take that seriously? Essex Porter appears to at least still be employed, but doing what investigation? Citation please. Robert Mak hasn't done anything since 2016, and even then, no investigation.

It appears you're making a series of false claims. You tell me there's all sorts of investigative journalists here in Seattle doing the same things as Barnett, yet you can't name one. The names you've given suggest there's an extensive list, when in fact that's entirely misleading. Would you please retract your false claims? None of the names you've mentioned support your case; in fact, they are merely a list of the journalists who have left the field, and evidence that independents like Barnett have the city hall beat to themselves. Your examples only underscore Barnett's exceptional status. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:20, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Bratland, I'm not sure how you see my claims as "misleading." We're comparing notability of comparable journalists, whether print or non-print. I'm not trying to suggest Sharyl Attkisson ever worked in Seattle or covered Seattle city hall like Erica C. Barnett. I used her as a point of comparison in that she, like Barnett, is an independent investigative broadcast journalist. Likewise, whether McKenna or Mak are no longer working as journalists, I am going from my memory of them having done good exposés for which each won journalistic awards from their industry peers on Washington State political misspending, political corruption, and the like.

I reject your claim that Ms. Attkisson is a "Trump apologist" who promotes "Russian state media anti-Ukraine conspiracy theories." I'll work on digging up the stories Porter, McKenna, and Attkisson have won either of an Emmy, RTNDA, or Edward R. Murrow award, but am busy right now. --Doug Mehus T·C 23:30, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Further, as I said, Erica C. Barnett may well be noteworthy for the investigative work she's doing, but we need more than that to confirm notability guidelines for people. And, even if she may meet the SNG for journalists, she still fails WP:GNG due lack of significant coverage in multiple (minimum two; three is better) reliable sources beyond merely one, two, or three line, or even paragraph mentions about her. Multiple works noting her laudable work is a start, but it doesn't equate to significant coverage. Doug Mehus T·C 23:35, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Other editors agree with my three sources that meet GNG, and my several examples that add upt to meeting ANYBIO. You posted your objections, and failed to sway most of them. Not much to add.

On Attkisson, here you go. And here. In what way, shape, or form is this investigative journalism? And why are you ranging far and wide across the entire United States to find investigative journalists?

Here, in Seattle, one of the two major daily newspapers stopped printing, and the rest underwent massive downsizing. Sources tell us Barnett is notable for filling the void left in local reporting. In Seattle. Barnett is repeatedly credited with uncovering news that nobody else got, and having a decisive impact on subsequent events. You tell us the sources are wrong, and pretend you have evidene of that, but you're only throwing around a lot of names that are irrelevant, and don't offer evidence that the sources are wrong about Barnett.

Can you cite anybody else doing what Barnett is doing? Here. Not off somewhere else. Not a Sinclair Broadcasting-paid propagandist. A real investigative reporter. Not someone who did investigations 10 or 20 years ago. Now, in the current media environment.

Everything you're posting here is misleading and disruptive to the discussion. You claim there are lots of others like the subject, and throw around a long list of irrelevant examples. Please retract these claims if you can't substantiate them. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:48, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We disagree and I think we're always going to, it's as simple as that - but the fact of the matter is, I've just looked through everything you've posted here and the sources in the article and there are no sources which state Barnett "frequently scoops major media" or that she plays a "major role in the post-newspaper landscape." There are articles on her alcoholism and a blurb about her memoir, but that is your own conclusion and not the conclusion the sources support. You write she's "repeatedly credited with uncovering news nobody else got" - are you talking about the single-sentence mentions in a couple of the articles above? Where's the evidence she herself has had "decisive impact on subsequent events?" Where's the source that says that? Sorry to be pedantic, but sources =/= notability, and I'm not "refuting" the sources - I'm saying none of them are enough to demonstrate notability. SportingFlyer T·C 23:58, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SportingFlyer, Well said. I wasn't trying to in any way be misleading, as Dennis claims. Nor was I trying to suggest Ms. Barnett's work is not laudable, but, like you and administrator Chetsford I'm not seeing any reliable, independent sources that provide Ms. Barnett with significant coverage about her. Doug Mehus T·C 00:09, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Already done, to the satisfaction of most who read my !vote. I asked you to cite examples of anybody else doing work equal to Barnett's supposedly "routine" reporting, and you offer none. Now you ask me to waste my time repeating everything already stated and cited? The evidence is here in the current version of the article. Click on the footnotes and read. They tell you what ECB uncovered that others missed, and they tell you what influence it had on subsequent events. I'm not going to bother walking you through it if you won't bother citing the examples I asked for, or else admitting you have no comparable examples.

Most of the editors who saw my argument and read the article !voted keep. You're challenging me to go over it all again? That's bludgeoning and sealioning. You can forget it. You claimed ECBs work is commonplace, routine, yet when asked for examples of anyone else doing the same thing, you deflect. That says it all.

Dmehus, please retract your false claims, or cite support for them. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:18, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Bratland, I haven't made any "false claims." I'm currently busy right now, but will try and find sources showing Christina McKenna's, Essex Porter's, Robert Mak's, and Sharyl Attkisson's Emmy, Edward R. Murrow, and RTNDA award wins for "investigative news reporting" within the next day or so. In the mean time, I might suggest a Google advanced phrase search for their names and phrasing for their award wins with respect to investigative reporting.

The only ones who have presented any sources or substantive discussion beyond mere !votes are yourself, SportingFlyer, administrator Chetsford, and I. You presented the sources, which SF, Chetsford, and I challenged as meeting significant coverage. I'm not asking you to explain everything over again, so not sure how you might see that as "sealioning" or "bludgeoning" (sorry, I'm new-ish to Wikipedia editing and not familiar with those Wikipedia essays). I am assuming good faith, and ask that you do the same with me with respect to trusting that I know what I am talking about; I watched those reporters' investigative reports for years in the mid to late 1990s when I was 14-18 years old. Doug Mehus T·C 00:29, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I asked for, and I think it's unhelpful, and even disruptive, to continue to waste others' time talking about people who are not investigative journalists in Seattle. Nobody cares that Attkisson won an Emmy 20 years ago (she burned her reputation to the ground since then with anti-vaxx misinformation[12][13] and far-right talking points). Twenty years ago Barnett had a job at a newspaper. What this is about is what happened after the newspapers had mass layoffs, and the remaining local reporters were spread too thin to sit through hours long city council meetings taking notes of on things that mostly go nowhere, poring over public documents and transcripts and mostly coming up empty. That's what changed. Seattle used to have two daily newspapers and two vibrant weeklies that paid multiple reporters to spend all their time doing this stuff. The TV news had to be good enough to compete with that. You're right that many years ago there were all these people doing that work, but that's not what this is about. Now the workforce is laid off and scattered, as in your examples of former local reporters who are now off elsewhere doing something else.

If you have no examples of anybody here in Seattle doing what ECB does, then please simply admit it and stop this waste of our time. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:44, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Bratland, I apologize if you feel it was an unnecessary diversion. SF, Chetsford, and I have disputed that the sources you provided meet WP:SIGCOV and explained our reasons why.

You're probably right that my including the other journalists' accolodes was an unnecessary, tangentially-related diversion, so I'll concede that.

I maintain my position that the sources you provided, for which I duly thank you for doing in addition to your discussion contributions for which I also thank you, do not meet our definition of WP:GNG. Erica C. Barnett may well meet the SNG for journalists/bloggers for her investigative journalism, which I'd already stated, but perhaps Chetsford and SF can clarify...SNGs an are an additional guideline, not an "instead of" guideline. Put another way, meeting an SNG means a subject is likely to be notable, but it does not guarantee notability if the subject fails WP:GNG/WP:SIGCOV, which is what we're arguing. Does that help clarify? --Doug Mehus T·C 00:51, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"That's not what I asked for, and I think it's unhelpful, and even disruptive, to continue to waste others' time talking about people who are not investigative journalists in Seattle." For the record, as an observer - and occasional participant - in this conversation I do not consider my time is being wasted. Chetsford (talk) 22:28, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"If you have no examples of anybody here in Seattle doing what ECB does" - There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of what constitutes notability insofar as Wikipedia is concerned. There is a difference between a person being objectively notable and a person being notable for purposes of WP. A person is only notable if they are the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. A person who invented a working time machine would not be notable, as far as WP is concerned, if they were not the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Barnett may very well be filling a void left by the demise of newspapers or whatever, however, the doesn't make her notable for purposes of WP. She may well deserve a prize or an Attaboy, but that doesn't mean she gets a WP article. There is only and exactly one route to notability for a journalist and that is through WP:SIGCOV. Our individual perceptions of their value or goodness is not a route to WP:N. Chetsford (talk) 22:34, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Glad that at last we agree on the facts. Some of us feel those facts meet at least one if not two routes to notability, while your opinion is they don't. Not much more to say.

Unfortunately, as with the howler earlier as to the use of original research in an AfD discussion, a bit of misinformation has been introduced here, and someone needs to correct the falsehood that WP:SIGCOV is the 'only and exactly one' path to notability. At the top of WP:N: "it meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right". I've cited 3 sources that I and some others feel meet WP:GNG (also known as SIGCOV), and even if you aren't convinced of that, I've argued that the topic also meets WP:ANYBIO, for the reasons I stated above. Some others agree with me; you and some others of course disagree. Fine. Your opinion is your opinion. Maybe you think you've made strong arguments, but I don't see any valid arguments because you haven't cited sources that support them, such as for example, instances of others doing the 'commonplace' 'routine' thing that ECB is supposedly so unremarkable for. But lacking sources, it's ultimately a matter of editorial judgement, whether one, or both, of the two claimed routes to notability are met here. --Dennis Bratland (talk)

"Not someone who did investigations 10 or 20 years ago. Now, in the current media environment." Dmehus can validly cite someone from 1,000 years ago if s/he likes. Notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY. This is Wikipedia, not Everipedia. Chetsford (talk) 22:55, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a question of whether or not those other people are notable. It's whether any of them are counterexamples to the assertion that Barnett's work is exceptional, not routine. That fact that 20 years ago these other reporters did routinely do the work that Barnett, and few if any others, now do with no institutional/corporate support, actually bolsters the case that she is notable. Some editors here have claimed her work is merely routine but so far none have named anyone else who does what Barnett does. The !delete argument hasn't cited any of the most obvious kind evidence that would make their case. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:06, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"none have named anyone else who does what Barnett does" Because that's WP:OR. We don't engage in original analysis of resumes and notability is not a synonym for uniqueness. The world's only one-armed trapeze artist may be unique but, unless he is the subject of significant and non-routine coverage about himself, he is not notable insofar as we're concerned. You seem to be under the impression that we're here to pass judgment on Barnett's qualifications or innate goodness, which we're not. As far as I know, she may be the most fabulous journalist since Edward R. Murrow. Neither the presence nor absence of a WP article is a comment on a person's vocational competence. Chetsford (talk) 00:28, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First, WP:NOR says: "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards."

Second, you said "acknowledgments she reported on this story or that story and, because this is her profession, do not rise above the level of merely WP:ROUTINE coverage of her." Did a source say that? Or is it a conclusion you reached as a result of your own original research? WP:ROUTINE says it's a common thing, everyday. If that's something that happens every day in Seattle, that local independent journalists are credited by major media with scoops that affect subsequent events or policy, then cite them. Or simply admit that there isn't anybody else getting credits like this in the Seattle Times, the weeklies, and TV news.

Innate goodness? What? Are you just making stuff up now? Can you focus on the subject at hand, and on the issues that have actually been raised? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:46, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Are you just making stuff up now? Can you focus on the subject at hand, and on the issues that have actually been raised?" Hi Dennis - I appreciate your passion but it would be welcomed by myself, and others in this dialog, if you could winnow your comments to those related to our policies and not use the Talk page to attack or disparage the motivations of other editors as you did here, and have repeatedly done with others. Thanks, in advance, for your kind consideration and your willingness to help make WP a welcoming space for civil discussion. Chetsford (talk) 01:10, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In that case you had no reason to say "You seem to be under the impression that we're here to pass judgment on Barnett's qualifications or innate goodness, which we're not." You pulled that accusation out of thin air, correct? If you didn't, then please cite what I posted that would justify characterizing my editing in such an uncharitable way. It appears you're casting aspersions on me, for what reason I can only guess. Please assume good faith and cease questioning my motives, or belittling my posts by accusing me of advocacy or somehow promoting anybody's "innate goodness", whatever that even means. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:27, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"You pulled that accusation out of thin air, correct?" Incorrect. Chetsford (talk) 19:56, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, excuse me but I think you forgot to post the diff that goes with that. Thanks! --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:25, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chetsford, very well said. Erica C. Barnett may well be an intrepid investigative journalist willing to hold the powers to be to account, but of the sources provided so far in this AfD and of the sources I've been able to search so far, like you and SportingFlyer, I can see nothing which amounts to significant coverage about her. A lot of editors seem to be under the mistaken impression that passing an SNG amounts to the subject passing notability, but it's a wrong assumption. Here we have a case where the noteworthy journalist is not notable due to failing WP:GNG. Doug Mehus T·C 18:02, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ——SN 54129 15:57, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject of article clearly passes WP:GNG. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 06:57, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The discussion seems to be leaning Keep, but it's still in No Consensus territory, so giving another round to develop consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 18:35, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to RL0919 or other AfD closer: note that significant new discussion is occurring in the thread above this line. Thanks. Doug Mehus T·C 19:31, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep First, please note that WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV are fundamentally subjective. Those advocating for 'keep' have presented some support for WP:GNG or WP:SIGCOV, and the question is only whether that support is sufficient. There are so many guidelines on WP:BIO that both 'keep' and 'delete' sides have found supporting guidelines. It would be great if there were an objective criterion like a simple numeric cutoff for citation counts, but there isn't.

My opinion is that this judgment call, with reasonable opinions on both sides, should be resolved in favor of 'keep'.

° It should take the experienced wikipedians reading this only a minute to find many articles about individuals who are not and have never been marked as candidates for deletion, despite having far fewer notability-supporting citations—even setting aside "stubs" with zero or one citations. It's worth asking why this article, with 34 references right now, was marked and those weren't. If this article has been marked because of WP:IDONTLIKEIT reasons, because of early COI issues with Ms Barnett making edits, because of the difficulty of defining "Blogger" versus "Journalist", or because it may be a difficult page to manage (this article about an ostensibly non-notable person already has over a hundred edits!), none of those are relevant to WP:GNG or WP:SIGCOV. We should recognize the possibility that the initial flagging and some of the comments above are influenced by those concerns. If those not-relevant concerns influenced claims of non-notability, but are not a valid part of the notability debate, that advocates toward resolving the borderline case by leaning the other way toward accepting notability.

° Many sources assert that there is inequity in the wikipedian population that spills over to what is covered, kept, or deleted. Those sources include Wikipedia: see WP:WORLDVIEW and Gender bias on Wikipedia. In a borderline case about a category of people where the wrong call has been made by wikipedians (historically, not necessarily by those in this discussion), the cautious thing to do is to err on the side of 'keep'. This isn't about affirmative action or lower standards for women; this is about taking in the history documented in WP and the press and using it as one piece of information about how to handle a case with reasonable perspectives on both sides.

° People are sometimes notable locally but not nationally or globally. Have a look at the List of Armenian journalists. Almost all have only one or two citations, but I know very little about Armenian culture, and therefore defer to Armenians about evaluating these pages. I think this is analogous to deferring to molecular biologists about who is notable in molecular bio, even though their names are unknown outside the field.

One side of the discussion states that Ms Barnett is notable in Seattle; the other states that she is not notable from the perspective of wikipedians who seem to have time zone markers outside of the Pacific Northwest. I believe that the subjective evaluation of locals should have more than weight the subjective evaluation of generalists, which advocates for resolving this borderline case with 'keep'. For readers who disagree and advocate 'delete' for this page, the only consistent thing to do is to flag almost every page in the list of Armenian journalists for deletion.

I didn't look for additional citations to respond to the people who state that this is not passing WP:GNG or WP:SIGCOV, because there is no count-of-citations criterion. Both sides concede that there is some evidence for notability, and everything after that is a subjective evaluation—especially given the many subjective criteria for marking or not marking notability and the thousands upon thousands of wikipages with a fraction of the citations than given here. Context matters, and I believe that the contexts discussed above indicate that we should err on the side of 'keep' in resolving this judgment call.

[PS: I originally created this article; see the head of the talk page for disclaimers.] B k (talk) 00:04, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"I believe that the subjective evaluation of locals should have more than weight" While a valid belief to have, I would disagree this is within either the letter or spirit of policy. However, thank you for registering an opinion nonetheless! Chetsford (talk) 00:49, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

B k, I agree with administrator Chetsford here. I respectfully disagree that SNGs can trump GNG. Indeed, in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ernesto_Alciati deletion discussion, S Marshall, myself, and a couple other editors, in the minority, argued that the SNGs do not, in fact, trump the WP:GNG. Despite having "competed" in the 1920s Olympics, many editors argued he passed the SNG WP:NOLY (technically, he was scratched in that he never got to compete in the Olympics, but they still argued that he passed that and thus WP:GNG did not apply). The closing administrator even felt that those arguing delete had the stronger case because, in fact, SNG does not trump WP:GNG but still ruled "no consensus."
It's a similar story here, I suspect, in that the delete arguments are, arguably, much stronger, so the best outcome that those arguing "keep" can hope for would be a "no consensus" outcome. That would still effectively mean the article stays in place, with notability still very much in question. But, throughout your long opinion, and the preceding apparent evidence that WP:SIGCOV was met (still nothing about Ms. Barnett has been presented, I noted), I see no evidence as to WP:SIGCOV having been met. Doug Mehus T·C 01:26, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is certainly an interesting AfD, but I want to counter some of the points which have been recently made:

Local editors are in no better position to determine notability than anyone else, with the potential exception of language issues. The only thing which matters is whether she passes our notability guidelines, and there is nothing that suggests editors from outside Seattle are more likely to determine she's notable than people outside Seattle - it's all about whether there are enough reliable, secondary sources which support her notability. I'm mostly commenting because I'm concerned about some of the keep !votes and don't want to create a slippery slope based on their arguments at other AfDs.
Whether SNGs trump GNGs or not (they do not, the article still requires reliable sourcing), she still fails WP:ANYBIO, as there's no evidence of her "widely recognised contribution" in the historical record.
I don't concede there is some evidence of notability, there's at best one or two articles which might count.
Citation counts are indeed irrelevant, this is a straw man.
For those voters who are passionately voting !keep, please note I'd be open to changing my vote to a !keep if sources which definitively discuss her can be found - not just about her one flap with NextDoor, which as I've said above really isn't about her, and not articles which quote the articles she's written, because that's not significant coverage. I do not think she passes WP:GNG - the best sources on her specifically are blogs, or about a minor event she was specifically involved in. I'd like a reliable secondary source specifically on her which discusses how she's worked to change media in Seattle, and that might change my mind. SportingFlyer T·C 02:09, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For those just tuning in, here are some of the articles cited on the page that are about Ms Barnett, but not about the NextDoor incident.

A radio interview.^[1]
A short piece about Ms Barnett's importance in Seattle politics reporting.^[2]
Her mention as one of "Seattle's most influential people"^[3]
Her award from a civic association.^[4]
A piece about why Ms Barnett's forthcoming book is already gossip-worthy.^[5]

There don't seem to be arguments specifically addressing the citations, something of the form "Seattle Magazine's 'most influential' column does/doesn't indicate notability because...", so evaluating whether these are sufficient to pass Wikipedia's notability requirement seems to be a subjective call about an overall impression. B k (talk) 03:10, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quick source analysis of the four articles presented, which emphasises how I don't think she passes WP:GNG:
- 1) Interviews of a subject do not lend themselves to the notability of that subject, they're primary.
- 2) This article is written by the organisation about how Barnett joined that organisation, it's not secondary.
- 3) Barnett is mentioned twice and only in passing, the blurb might lend itself to the notability of the organisation PubliCola but unfortunately not Barnett
- 4) This is a good award to have won! Unfortunately the citation comes from the award's own website, and the only press to cover the award I can find is the newspaper Barnett was working for, so they're both primary. SportingFlyer T·C 03:18, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - (edit conflict) SportingFlyer, it's incorrect to say " Interviews of a subject do not lend themselves to the notability of that subject, they're primary." Interviews very much serve as evidence of notability. Nobody gets to have themselves interviewed at will at the New York Times or on 60 Minutes just because they wish to burnish their fame and promote their brand. Sources devote interview space to people who are significant. The word count or minutes or bandwidth a publication gives to a subject is evidence of that. The truth value of what the interview subject says in the interview is a whole other matter; that is WP:PRIMARY. It's no more reliable than if they tweeted it. They're only stating their opinions, not necessarily establishing fact just because the NYT printed the quote. It's WP:SELFPUB in that sense, but the reliability of information as a citation and the value of coverage for notability are two entirely different things. A subject expert can be reliable and cite-able in their field of expertise, yet not be notable enough for a Wikipedia bio about them. Someone can be notable, and have a Wikipedia bio about them, due to the amount of coverage they get, yet not speak a single trustworthy word, or not be considered expert or knowledgeable on any topic except their own opinions. Your error here is mixing up these two categories. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:48, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Dennis Bratland: Sorry, but please read Wikipedia:Interviews#Notability, specifically If it's primary and non-independent, our guidelines make clear that it does not contribute to notability.. I am certain I have not erred in my assessment of that source for the purposes of Ms. Barnett's notability. SportingFlyer T·C 06:30, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - Merely an essay. Carries no weight as a guideline or policy does. All you're telling us here is that out there somewhere is another guy who shares your opinion that interviews don't add to notability. Just an opinion, not a guideline, not policy. Some editors have wished to add this to the notability guidelines, but they've failed because that opinion lacks consensus. It makes no sense. Any John Q. Nobody can go write a Wikipedia essay, but John Q. Nobody can't get themselves interviewed in the Times. That honor is reserved for a select few. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:45, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        She didn't get interviewed in the Times. She was interviewed by a local radio station. And it's still not a reliable secondary source. SportingFlyer T·C 06:51, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Yep, we get that. Once again, as I and others have been saying, that's your opinion. Repeating it this way doesn't give it any more weight than the first time you said it. You all keep going on and on and on with this, but you're not adding information to the debate. You're just telling us all over and over that your position is ever more entrenched. We get it. It seems to bother you that your points have failed to win a majority as the !votes roll in, but this bludgeoning isn't helping. It's time to step back and let everyone judge the sources on their merits. They're just as capable of that as you are.
        I don't like just letting it go when false statements like this thing about interviews are posted, or that there's only one route to notability, or that original research is banned form AfD discussions, but that's how these myths take life. Somebody has to speak up when misinformation is spread.
        But the outcome of the AfD hinges on the sources themselves, not this lame debate. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 07:02, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        
        It's also your opinion. It doesn't bother me at all my points haven't gained traction - several people I respect agree with me, people like yourself who disagree with me haven't produced any quality sources, and I'm comfortable being correct in my analysis. AfDs aren't meant to be won or lost, they're discussions. I'm more than happy to agree to disagree with you and to move on. SportingFlyer T·C 07:16, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        
        "not this lame debate" If you feel this debate is lame, we're lame, everything here is lame - as you keep reminding us in different ways - you are free to choose not to participate. Obviously your participation is welcome but I feel it's necessary to advise you that it is also not compulsory, in case you were under the misperception your presence in something you find so "lame" was something beyond your control. Chetsford (talk) 19:41, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Dennis Bratland, Essays do help to interpret policies and guidelines, so I would take issue with your opinion that they carry no weight. SportingFlyer is correct, wholly, in his detailed assessment with respect to sourcing. I support all four of his points. Doug Mehus T·C 21:01, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'm only replying because these bald contradictions of policy need to be corrected. People believe this stuff if they read it. Read WP:ESSAY: "Essays have no official status, and do not speak for the Wikipedia community as they may be created and edited without overall community oversight. Following the instructions or advice given in an essay is optional. There are currently about 2,000 essays on a wide range of Wikipedia-related topics." Read WP:POLICIES: "Essays are the opinion or advice of an editor or group of editors for which widespread consensus has not been established. They do not speak for the entire community and may be created and written without approval." Were I to go whip up my own essay to go with the 2,000 others, saying the opposite of your opinion, I don't think you'd find it helpful. They can serve as shorthand. You could !vote "per <essay>", rather than writing out a full treatise on your opinion, you refer to someone else who expounded on the same opinions. "Sorry, but please read <essay>" is a fallacious argument from authority.

Why not just let it go? Surely you've presented all your best arguments. You really don't need to keep reminding everyone that you support those points which you've previously expressed support for, I count, six times? Each person who !votes keep doesn't need to comment on every other keep !vote saying they agree with the others. If you were to suddenly cease supporting them, you only have to go cross out your !vote. If you say nothing, we all presume you continue to hold the position you previously stated you hold.

I will now not go and post "I agree" under each of the keep !votes. Not. Necessary. We. Get. It. Can we all drop the stick? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:19, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the articles you've cited are, in fact, the very articles you've previously said should be omitted from the article under all circumstances because they supposedly violate BLP (i.e. those acknowledging The Atlantic libel case and her alcoholism). If the articles are RS for purposes of establishing N, then you should have no objection to reinserting them into the article. If the articles are not RS, then they can't even be considered for purposes of N. Chetsford (talk) 05:28, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria by which the article is being proposed for deletion strike me as absurd. By this logic, we would delete the article for Harrison Salisbury, which contains considerably fewer independent verifiable sources indicating his importance. If Wikipedia had articles only for journalists who have been frequently and extensively profiled, rather than their work being frequently and extensively cited, we would have very few articles about living journalists, except for a few that have become celebrities in their own right. - Jmabel | Talk 22:37, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jmabel, Well, that may well be that Wikipedia is full of articles of non-notable journalists who shouldn't otherwise have articles. Nevertheless, that's not a valid argument for keeping this article. No evidence has been presented thus far, of the sources Dennis has presented (the only "keep" !voter to present actual sources; the other "keep" !votes were mere vague waves). We do not, as far as I'm aware, justify keeping articles because other questionably notable people have articles. Administrator Chetsford or editor SportingFlyer may be able to add further to this; better than I can. Doug Mehus T·C 00:30, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Jmabel, Also Harrison Salisbury had an at-length obituary published in a major metropolitan daily newspaper; that qualifies as significant coverage. There are also in-text and footnote references which indicate offline sources exist that would turn that into multiple qualifying services. Thus, I think he passes WP:GNG relatively easily. No such luck for Ms. Barnett. There has simply been not even one qualifying significant coverage reliable, independent source presented, never mind the required multiple ones (WP:THREE indicates that three is considered the best minimum, but two would suffice). Doug Mehus T·C 00:34, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said, "we would have very few articles about living journalists" (emphasis added). Yes, they get obituaries. - Jmabel | Talk 01:12, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- (if there is any doubt what I'm saying) keep. I would think membership in a short-list of "Seattle's most influential people" would, on its own, come at least pretty close to sufficing for inclusion. - Jmabel | Talk 01:15, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Dmehus: How is Seattle magazine not an "independent source"? or are you saying that inclusion in such a list is not significant? - Jmabel | Talk 01:18, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Seattle magazine clearly doesn't cover her significantly, it just name-drops her twice. It also covers by my count 48 people and the "students, teachers and PTSA of Ingraham High School" in a list format. By WP:OSE, Harrison Salisbury has thousands of matches on a simple Newspapers.com search even though the Wikipedia article itself is currently undersourced. Finally, Dmehus, I would appreciate if you would stop pinging me into this discussion - the case for deletion is clear, but I've already spilled a lot of ink and don't want to spend any more time bludgeoning the discussion here. SportingFlyer T·C 01:42, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant coverage for both the Nextdoor incident, as well as other coverage, such as her receiving a “Government News Reporting of the Year” in 2007 [14]. Samboy (talk) 15:18, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Samboy, While the Nextdoor story may be a significant item in her life, it is, crucially, not significant coverage for our purposes of determining notability. There has to be multiple (two minimum; three is better), at length biographical essays or reportings about her life from cradle (or near cradle) to current (or grave, in the case of deceased subjects).

I would also point you, others, and the XfD closer to this recent AfD discussion which closed as "no consensus" despite a plethora of vague wave "keep" votes and a minority of stronger "delete" votes. In that case, which is remarkably similar to this case, the vague wave "keeps" insisted on the subject "competing" at the Olympics so per WP:NOLY (an SNG), he "must" be notable. Similar story here where those !voting "keep" because she passes the SNG for journalists, she "must" be notable. Yet, as SportingFlyer, administrator Chetsford, and I have pointed out, the SNG does not replace the WP:GNG, which Erica C. Barnett has clearly and, crucially, not met. Note from SF's and Chetsford's replies above, the the Sound Effect podcast interview is neither a reliable sources (at least for establishing notability because it's crucially a primary, or quasi-primary, source. The remainder of the sources identified by Dennis in good faith have been mere tangential, passing mentions. Until her memoir is published, and even then, we need at least 1-2 more sources, she's not-notable and should be deleteed. Though, probably the "safe" close for the XfD closer would be to close as "no consensus" (which would have the effect of retaining her article, with notability still in question, and at least appeasing the non-evidence-substantiated "keeps"). Doug Mehus T·C 16:17, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It’s not a “vague wave” Keep vote. The Nextdoor issue has has significant coverage or is the primary topic of multiple articles in reliable third party sources: [15] [16]. The award she received in 2007, as well as a full article about her upcoming book from a reliable source means there is not a WP:BLP1E issue. Please be aware that “a pattern of groundless opinion, proof by assertion, and ignoring content guidelines may become disruptive” Samboy (talk) 17:52, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Samboy, respectfully, that's irrelevant whether the Nextdoor issue has significant coverage. That's important in the context of establishing whether Nextdoor is a notable publication (it may well be worthy of its own article, if it doesn't already have one), but such coverage does nothing to establish the significant coverage notability requirement of WP:GNG for Erica C. Barnett.

No one claimed a WP:BLP issue for Erica C. Barnett, so not sure why you are mentioning that. As to your citing some digital-only blog's announcement of her receiving some local award in 2007, that, too is not significant coverage. WP:SIGCOV requires multiple, reliable, independent sources of sufficient length of the subject's life to write more than a stub-class article. The only source that comes close to meeting WP:SIGCOV is the Sound Effect podcast interview, but the problem is it's (a) a primary or quasi-primary source and (b) it's not a qualifying reliable source. Thus, she still fails WP:GNG.

I respect your, and other editors', good faith !votes, even though this is notionally not a vote as it's an evidenced-based discussion, and would ask that you do the same by not saying my replies are "groundless opinion" or "proof by assertion." I'm simply pointing out that this is not a vote and, while some of the replies may not have been "vague waves" (that might've not been the right language), they are, nonetheless, !votes unsubstantiated by policy or evidence. That's all I, administrator Chetsford, and SF were trying to say. Doug Mehus T·C 18:12, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Barnett, Erica C. (April 11, 2018). "A journalist gets sober, then hits the bars". Sound Effect (Interview). Interviewed by Gabriel Spitzer. KNKX. Archived from the original on October 26, 2019. Retrieved October 23, 2019.
^ "Erica C. Barnett (and her Mad List of Sources) Joins PubliCola Staff". Seattle Met.
^ "Seattle's Most Influential People of 2011". Seattle Magazine. October 17, 2011.
^ "2007 Civic Awards Recipients — Port of Seattle Press Release". web.archive.org. July 21, 2011.
^ "Seattle journalist Erica C. Barnett is hard at work on a memoir, by Paul Constant". www.seattlereviewofbooks.com. 2017-06-29. Retrieved 2019-09-15.

Move to draft. Everyone will be equally unhappy. Gives time for whatever memoir to impact, or not. Hyperbolick (talk) 18:42, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hyperbolick, a reasonable suggestion. This article has WP:PUFFERY and WP:NPOV issues, so I would support that. As well, when her memoir is published by Viking, that would likely go a long way to establishing her notability. Thank you for this suggestion...sometimes it helps to have someone guide us to a reasonable compromise in heated situations. This is one of those ideas. Secondarily, it would allow the article to be cleaned up for the above issues, not to mention Ms. Barnett's repeated COI editing of her own article. Doug Mehus T·C 18:50, 29 November 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:08, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unidance[edit]

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

Article promoting a dance company including two payment pages. Fails WP:NCORP and WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 18:31, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:53, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:53, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:PROMO article for a non notable organization that fails WP:NCORP. Celestina007 (talk) 00:56, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:07, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Media coverage of cats[edit]

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

This article is largely un-encyclopedic - mostly Original Research. It reads more like an essay on the media's treatment of cats than anything else. I do not think this article has improved since its former AfD. Bensci54 (talk) 18:07, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable concept nor is it encyclopedic.Grapefruit17 (talk) 18:22, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The content was changed quite radically recently. The change was reverted but the novice editor reverted it back. I have reverted again to the long-term version which is about publications covering cats. This seems to be a reasonable start on the topic and the worst case should be merger with a page such as cultural depictions of cats or cats and the Internet. Andrew D. (talk) 19:13, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:11, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:11, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The first half of the article is a list of unnotable publications, the second OR, as the nominator has noted. Cultural depictions of cats is what this mess should aspire to be (but fails miserably to even approach). Clarityfiend (talk) 20:21, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge There are definite problems with the article's tone and sourcing, but I don't think the concept is invalid for inclusion. My issue is that the article's subject has heavy conceptual overlap with Cultural depictions of cats. It seems better to give it some remedial editing and merge under the Modern culture heading there. Skeletor3000 (talk) 21:57, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The massive block of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH at Media_coverage_of_cats#The_Cat_Archetypes has to go. It reads more like a college essay than an encyclopedia article and has no sources; this concept would go at Cultural depictions of cats anyway. Both Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Catnip Times and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Purrington Post were found not notable, not sure why there should be an article just for them but Cats and the Internet could even include that. The magazines could be covered at an improved List of pet magazines. Reywas92^Talk 22:00, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No need to splinter off from cultural depictions of cats. —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:49, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: agree with arguments for deleting by above editors. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 09:42, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I concur. It is predominantly, perhaps entirely, WP:SYNTH. --Bsherr (talk) 19:02, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is a fork of Cultural depictions of cats, as noted above. We have almost always deleted "fork" articles. Bearian (talk) 16:55, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearian. Let's have one decent article and not two "eh" ones. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:26, 28 November 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:08, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Rosen (chess player)[edit]

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

I don't think Eric is particularly notable. There are 3700 IM's, so that doesn't do it for me. He clearly fails WP:NCHESS, but even going by the general notabilty guidelines, there's simply no significant coverage of him. Something like an interview would establish it right away, but that doesn't seem to exist. And as a YouTuber or Twitch streamer he's pretty niche. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[ᴛ] 16:36, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Being among 3700 or any other number of something does not necessarily render one non-notable at all. Failing WP:NCHESS also does not equal deletion, this is stated in the actual guidline. Finally, I was able to find coverage about Eric Rosen through a simple search and ultimately find no reason to remove this article.Grapefruit17 (talk) 18:40, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, but we are looking for significant coverage. If the coverage is simple reporting (like he played in a recent tournament, and it reports which games he won/lost, alongside everyone else in the tournament) that's considered a passing mention and isn't enough. And putting "Eric Rosen Chess" into Google News doesn't bring up anything other than that. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[ᴛ] 15:46, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 16:40, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:16, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The appropriately named Trivia section claims he beat the world champion "at least twice" online, but youtube and reddit are hardly reliable sources. Nothing else even remotely makes him notable. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:30, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:37, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

20,000 followers^[1]. The term "significant cult following" is used under the "entertainer" subheading on the general notability guide^[2], which is exactly how I would describe Eric's viewership. Are the sufficient / necessary conditions for a "significant cult following" stated explicitly anywhere? Capogreco (talk) 15:55, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The best way to know if Rosen meets the cut is if you can find a reliable source that describes him as having a significant cult following. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[ᴛ] 23:06, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The internet hasn't picked up on it yet: No results found for "significant cult following" "eric rosen" (try it for yourself!) SportingFlyer T·C 10:27, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG, not a single source in the article qualifies. SportingFlyer T·C 10:27, 25 November 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:08, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alishka Varde[edit]

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

I do not believe this individual meets the criteria of WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. She has been in two films, and neither were as a leading role. The references provided generally do not discuss her significantly, she is only mentioned as have been in the films or as being related to someone. One reference is about her - an interview regarding her party planning business. Google search for "Alishka Varde" brings up mainly entries in film websites but no significant discussion of her in multiple reliable sources. ... discospinster _talk 16:23, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 16:23, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 16:23, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:57, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:57, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:58, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She acted in two films. According to WP:NACTOR an an actor/actress should have significant (not lead) roles in multiple notable films. She had significant role in Jtyjn according to Indian Express (film review), Hindustan Time (film review) and rediff (film review). For more details, see Jtyjn poster on wiki article. I don't think a person who had a small role in a film would feature on the film poster. She also had significant role in Jhootha Hi Sahi according to sify (film review), rediff (film review) and Indian Express (film review).S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 16:53, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: S. M. Nazmus Shakib is creator of the article. —usernamekiran(talk) 22:08, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per norminator. Subject of discussion fails WP:GNG & WP:NACTOR Celestina007 (talk) 18:22, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even after going through the articles provided by S. M. Nazmus Shakib, I am not convinced that subject's roles were significant. That makes her fail WP:NACTOR. Nominator has already explained why the subject fails general notability criteria. The subject lacks significant coverage. —usernamekiran(talk) 22:08, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Usernamekiran: Do u have seen the poster of Jtyjn on wiki article and read the reviews of Jhootha Hi Sahi of Sify's third para, rediff review (Alishka Varde, sweet face, terrible dialogue delivery), and the review of Indian Express?--S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 23:04, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@S. M. Nazmus Shakib: hi. Yes. But it is not clear if she has a "significant role". Tertiary maybe. Either way, you are taking "multiple significant" role very casually. It doesnt mean "more than one" or "three". It should be at least 7-8 significant roles. I can understand you are a fan of her, and want to keep her article. But sometimes on wikipedia, we have to avoid taking the policies as their exact wordings, and have to use our own logic. Whether it is about deleting/keeping an article, unblocking a user, or something else :) In this case, the subject fails notability guidelines for actors, as well as general notability criteria. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:56, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- Two or three prominent roles in notable productions are usually enough for significant coverage which is what WP:NACTOR is a guide to, seven or eight roles would only apply to minor roles in very notable productions such as Star Wars, so I disagree with your reconstruction of an established guideline, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:31, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some minor coverage, but it is all name drops, cast member lists. Clearly very early in her career. scope_creep^Talk 12:22, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. She has acted in two films, and neither was in the lead role, Fail WP:NACTOR.-Nahal^(T) 08:02, 25 November 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:15, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

James Edward Wood[edit]

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

PROD contested at WP:RFUD. I agree that it's not a notable person. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:14, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:14, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:15, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Tragic, not notable. Hyperbolick (talk) 17:36, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Too short to determine notability, or much of anything else.--Auric talk 18:19, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is pretty clear that notability criteria are not met. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:18, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Alcroft[edit]

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

Subject clearly does not meet WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN. The subject may well do following the 2019 General Election, but this article has been published into the mainspace WP:TOOSOON. PROD contested by @Doop2009:. Domeditrix (talk) 16:08, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"sub-national (e.g., province- or state-wide) office". Carlisle is a major council in the "province" of Cumbria. Please stop this vandalism. doop2009 (talk · contribs)

Subject is one of three local councillor for a small ward, not a council leader or mayor. Notability criteria clearly not met. Also, you may wish to vote in this AfD discussion. Domeditrix (talk) 16:37, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 16:15, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 16:15, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 16:15, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable politician.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lard Almighty (talk • contribs) 19:56, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The subject is not notable enough at the moment. If of course she was to be elected as a Member of Parliament, then it would be entirely appropriate for an article to be created. Dunarc (talk) 21:53, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they have not already won; the notability test for politicians is holding a notable office, not just running for one. The only other way they can qualify for an article before holding office is to have already been notable enough for other reasons that they already qualified to have an article anyway, but being a local councillor is not an "inherently" notable political role either: politicians at the local level are accepted as notable only if they can show a depth and range and volume of reliable source coverage that's unusual enough to make them much more special than most other local politicians, and the sourcing here is completely failing to demonstrate that. Obviously this will be recreatable on or after election day if she wins, because her basis for notability will have changed, but simply being a candidate is not grounds for an article as of today. Bearcat (talk) 22:11, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notable being a candidate. Meeting WP:NPOL is a after elected criteria. Fails WP:NPOL. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:53, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I wish we had a speedy delete category for these candidate articles. Clearly fails WP:NPOL. Bondegezou (talk) 11:59, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coming in late to the party, but not notable. scope_creep^Talk 12:00, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is precedence of other councillors having their own Wiki page despite not being elected as an MP yet. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibrahim_Dogus. doop2009 (talk · contribs)

So there may be a case for AfD'ing that article as well. --RaviC (talk) 23:55, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree with RaviC That does not automatically mean that every Councillor should have an article and is not really an argument for retaining this article - please see Wikipedia:OTHER. Equally I think a case could be made for deleting the Ibrahim Dogus article as well. Dunarc (talk) 23:59, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Councillors can have their own Wiki page if they meet other notability criteria. @Doop2009: what other notability criteria does Ruth Alcroft meet? Discussion on Ibrahim Dogus can continue elsewhere (I think he meets WP:GNG personally). Bondegezou (talk) 10:23, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If this deletion is to be done for all councillors, it should be done all at once and not by individual targeting. We are currently in the middle of an election and I feel that it is wrong to only now start to discuss the deletion of these articles of councillors in provincial offices. Alcroft is a notable figure locally and as a candidate this is why the page was created. Hold off until the 13th December and if she is not elected (or Dogus) as an MP then delete the page. Until then, I feel that this page meets the requirements of a notable politician. doop2009 (talk · contribs)

It doesn't matter what you "feel". What matters is whether she meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. When asked again what, specifically, makes her notable (simply being a local councillor doesn't), you have failed to answer. You have just engaged in whataboutery. Lard Almighty (talk) 15:54, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We do not impose a moratorium on deleting candidate articles just because the election is underway — if we did that, then we'd simply get flooded with candidate articles in the moratorium period, because every candidate in every election would just mob us with their campaign brochures since they weren't deletable anymore. So no, we don't treat such articles any differently during the election campaign than we would at any other time. Obviously, if she wins the seat the article will be recreatable at that time since her notability claim will have changed — but creating new articles is not difficult enough to require a moratorium on deleting the old ones just because recreation might become necessary in the future. We even have the ability to very easily restore the original article with one click on one button if needed.

Also, please familiarize yourself with the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. The fact that Ibrahim Dogus has an article does not automatically mean that Ruth Alcroft has to have one too — it is indeed possible that Dogus needs to be deleted too, but his article is also making other claims of preexisting notability for other reasons besides the fact of holding a local government position per se, and in fact the article already existed for those preexisting reasons before he was even a councillor. So he's not automatically equivalent to Alcroft just because they're both local councillors — they each have to be evaluated strictly on their own merits, and deleting one does not automatically require deleting the other too. Bearcat (talk) 15:43, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Her notability has been recorded and I've made the point of precedence elsewhere on the site. It makes no sense to only enforce part of the rules part of the time. doop2009 (talk · contribs)

Wikipedia is a perpetual work in progress. It is too big for things to be "done all at once". We have to work one article at a time, and that's what the rules and guidelines say we should do. If this article should be deleted, we delete it. If there are other articles that should be deleted, then I suggest you WP:PROD them, or bring them to AfD. I have brought several politician articles to AfD recently. Bondegezou (talk) 12:25, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:POLITICIAN. Subject in question has not (yet) been elected to any notable position of government. --RaviC (talk) 23:55, 23 November 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) 17:18, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Nerkowski[edit]

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

Contested prod at WP:RFUD with the explanation "All the information is factually correct " It is, and the PROD was correct that he fails notability guidelines, WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY, as USL Second Division is no longer covered by NFOOTY. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:12, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 16:13, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:22, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:22, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:26, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:10, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 14:12, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as original PRODer. Keskkonnakaitse (talk) 15:17, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:08, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Silence Becomes You[edit]

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

The article does not qualify per WP:NFSOURCES. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 16:12, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:18, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:18, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete. looks like a movie description, but no indication of notability and zero sources. Graywalls (talk) 09:10, 27 November 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 16:00, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Akira Komatsu[edit]

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

He did not play for national team and fully-professional leagues. It does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Association football. 忍者小僧 (talk) 14:38, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 November 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:52, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:01, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:01, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:06, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Given this is about GNG, we're going to need to verify a GNG failure given the language barrier. [17], already in article, suggests this individual could be notable. The apparent name translation (小松晃) brings up 3,490,000 results, likely not all about them but who knows. The Japanese Wiki also shows this, [18], which shows he played for a Japan national team; doesn't seem to be the 'A' team, but adds to the possibility of notability through GNG. Also worth noting that professionalism didn't come to Japan until 1992. R96Skinner (talk) 16:35, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:09, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Is this a joke? 58 appearances for Yanmar Diesel in the top division? Article needs improving and expanding, not deleting. Nfitz (talk) 04:18, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- It is an amateur league. So, it does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Association football. 忍者小僧 (talk) 08:33, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - How is GNG not met, 忍者小僧? It's tough to search contemporary Japanese pre-Internet documents, but a Google News search, get's dozens of hits for relatively recent media article, some of it in-depth easily meeting GNG, about his career, and a Google Internet search yields over 3000 hits, many of which seem to be about this individual (going through the first few pages of results). Nfitz (talk) 17:50, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Most of them are about his goal at high school club.youtube I don't think that it meet notability guideline. 忍者小僧 (talk) 06:06, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - Paragraphs and paragraphs nearly 40 years later about his goal in high school - think about it for a minute 忍者小僧. Of course it's not just about the goal, but how he ~~was the youngest player to ever play at the top level afterwards, and how he~~ didn't achieve expectations, though the goal is definitely a key part in many of these articles that are significant coverage. Some of course are more routine, about his high school coaching career, or his legal issues. But there's several that easily meet GNG. Nfitz (talk) 02:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fifthavenuebrands (talk) 13:22, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:32, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per new sources and discussion below. Giant Snowman 08:53, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete – no evidence of notability.~~ (Updated !vote below.) Neither the 2011 nor the 2016 Sponichi articles look like SIGCOV to me, and the others aren't secondary sources AFAICT. – Levivich 00:13, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Levivich: What are the 2011 and 2016 articles about? I was sure they meet GNG so I put them myself to deprod the article. ミラ P 04:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ミラ, unless maybe I'm mis-reading it, the 2011 article is just two paragraphs (four sentences) reporting that Komatsu was fired for assault. The 2016 article is longer, but 6 of the 7 paragraphs are about a half-court goal he scored (in high school? I think 忍者小僧 posted the video above), and his entire playing and coaching career is only summed up in one paragraph (second from the bottom). I don't think it gives us enough information to write an encyclopedia article about him. So I would say the 2011 isn't GNG at all, and the 2016 is maybe GNG about the half-court goal, but not about the player and the player's overall career. – Levivich 05:01, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've summed up those two particular articles well User:Levivich; I think the 2016 article (36 years after he left high school!) combined with another one or two good articles meet GNG. But as I keep pointing out, a quick google search, finds several detailed articles - many years after his glory days - (one notes on how many interviews he used to give back in the 1980s - and yet we don't have access to 1980s Japanese media). I'm having a hard time seeing how he wouldn't achieve GNG. Generally, someone with so many starts and goals at the top flight would easily meet NFootball - but that isn't true for 1980s Japanese players, because of the quirk of non-professionalism, and the use of large companies bankrolling the teams, using "employees". I'm curious on what kind of attendance the league drew in the 1980s - I don't get the impression that it was 100 per game - but I genuinely haven't found any information (though I admit that doesn't prove anything ... though I'd assume that if was in the thousands to tens of thousands, that someone who played 9 seasons at that level, would have coverage if we could accesss 1980s Japanese media). Nfitz (talk) 05:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nfitz, Maybe, but we can't just assume that such coverage exists, and more importantly, we cant write an article without having those sources so that we can use them to flesh out an article. Even if you are right, it is a chicken and egg situation, we still need those sources before we can make an article on him. If anyone actually finds them in the future, there won't be any prejudice towards re-creation. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 19:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you saying, User:Insertcleverphrasehere that they don't exist? I've quickly seen several detailed articles, as I note above, using this search that I'm linking here for the third time! I've started fleshing out the article, based on this. Nfitz (talk) 19:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nfitz, I have had a look at those sources, and they seem lacking in significant coverage about him specifically. Basically there is a bit about this one 50m shot he made in high school; that's it. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 19:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I'm seeing - at least one talked about his failed national career after the Poland cap. Another talked about him being the youngest player in the history of the Japan Soccer League, and how that played into him being left out of match day line-ups, which lead to him being left out of the national squad. I'll add some more references over the next few days - but I've little time, and it's slow going, with the language barrier. Though, even what we've referenced, seems very unusual for almost 40 years after his big break. I've got to think 1980s Japanese media (how does one even access that) would show more. Nfitz (talk) 20:48, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It should be important to note that the inconsistent issue of source availability is discussed in the first section of this link. ミラ P 04:43, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not even meet the absurdly low notability guidelines for footballers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:44, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How, User:Johnpacklambert is GNG an absurdly low notability guideline? How do many of the articles here not meet GNG? I assume you have examined them. Nfitz (talk) 02:01, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Delete - After having a look at the sources listed by others, and looking over the sources listed in the Japanese article, I have to agree that it doesn't pass the bar of GNG. Not enough significant coverage in those sources about him specifically. Not sure how Japan-wiki does notability, but if he doesn't pass GNG, he doesn't pass GNG. The Ashai article is OK and Sports Nippon article is borderline at best, but they are at least reliable sources. Together they could be argued to meet the GNG, though barely. Honestly no idea on the reliability of the Kisocook source, but it is in depth. There seems to be a reasonable likelihood that the guy also featured in a TV show on TBS, though this isn't really confirmed. Honestly on balance I'm willing to swap to keep per WP:HEY. The article has been improved and there is verifiable info contained therein. The wiki is better with this article than without it. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 21:00, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Looking at the article, I feel like the article would indeed fail WP:NFOOTY as the Japan Soccer League during that time wasn't a professional league which is a part of the criteria for the guideline. So by virtual of that, I would vote to delete. HawkAussie (talk) 22:48, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per rationale provided by @HawkAussie: & @Insertcleverphrasehere:. Fails WP:NFOOTY. Celestina007 (talk) 20:23, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why User:Celestina007 do you feel it fails NFOOTY? I added information and references to the article, since anyone else commented here other than you, showing that it passes NFOOTY with at least one international cap (against Poland in 1981). Nfitz (talk) 22:16, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As R96 Skinner commented at the beginning of this discussion, it is not Japan national "A" team. And Polish national team is U-21 team, not senior team. Nfitz showed this article as a source Akira_Komatsu. This source article have two pages and this is the second page of two pages. First page says that "Japan fought a series of four games against Poland. Poland is a U-21 team." So, it fails NFOOTY. 忍者小僧 (talk) 08:57, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment People who are saying that the subject fails NFOOTY should also take into account the fact that a footballer who fails NFOOTY can still clear GNG. ミラ P 04:43, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Miraclepine, Ultimately, once sources have been thoroughly searched, NFOOTY or any SNG is kinda meaningless. SNGs are only a rule of thumb, sourcing per the GNG is where notability is ultimately decided. There are very few exceptions amongst the SNGs, and WP:NSPORTS isn't one of them. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 08:26, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I closed as delete without realising work was being done on the article, which might now meet GNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 15:55, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've mostly rewritten the article, adding several sources, there's now 3 that meet GNG. There's now a very good source that easily passes GNG Ashai, one very extensive source that could pass GNG, though I admit I don't fully understand the provenance kisocook, and the existing source that I also noted earlier meets GNG Sports Nippon 2016, in addition to other references, don't meet GNG, but confirm facts. There's also a red herring that technically he does meet NFOOTBALL with a half-hour played in an official international A match - despite Poland playing a young squad ... but that's really immaterial, as it's GNG that's important here, not NFOOTBALL. I should have spoken up about this a couple of days ago, but I wanted to add another good source - but I've not had the time to dig further. Nfitz (talk) 17:51, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nfitz, The Ashai and Sports Nippon articles still don't impress me. The Kisocook article has enough coverage but is this considered a reliable source? I can't see any evidence of any kind of editorial policy on the site, in fact, I'm not entirely certain what kind of site this is, is it a blog site? Is it a news aggregator? I don't know. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 18:11, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest User:Insertcleverphrasehere that concern was why I hadn't spoken up yet, as I wanted to dig into that further. You are still concerned about Ashai? I only added it about 36 hours ago, after you reviewed. Was it used somewhere else? Nfitz (talk) 18:33, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nfitz, it was in the search that you linked above. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 18:53, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Good to see someone actually looked at it! I still like that source, and to a lesser extent the Sports Nippon one. I wish we had access to 1980s Japanese media though. Nfitz (talk) 23:49, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've been trying to understand, User:Insertcleverphrasehere, the kiscook.com reference better, as it's by far the most extensive biographical source, though it's provenance is iffy. The date on it is August 11, 2019. I've discovered this is the same day, that Komatsu was featured in an episode of the TBS Television series Disappeared Genius. I'm wondering if this is a transcript or something? Perhaps someone with more awareness of Japanese television can confirm if this is the case or not, in which case, a reference to the television episode, would supply a great GNG source. I've added a reference to TBS's website for the episode pre-announcement itself, and some other references that summarize his more recent coaching career (none of which meet GNG in themselves). Nfitz (talk) 18:14, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nfitz, What is this TV episode? If anything would point toward GNG, that would. I don't see his name mentioned in the summary you linked though (at least not in google translate). Could you clarify? — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 18:21, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Insertcleverphrasehere, The August 11 episode. The TBS link was a pre-broadcast teaser, doesn't mention his name, but describes his famous 1981 goal. But there's a sudden surge of Internet activity about that date, and he's explicitly listed as being featured in that episode, in the Japanese language Wikipedia article for the program ja:消えた天才#レギュラー時代. But as we can't used Wikipedia as a source, I hope to find something else to confirm that. Nfitz (talk) 18:44, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nfitz, that’s not enough to confirm, though it does sound plausible. It explains why a (seemingly) tabloid source like kiscook would suddenly start talking about him after all this time. It could be coincidence though, so I’m inclined to say that the sourcing still isn’t quite there unless we can confirm somehow. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 19:13, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:InsertcleverphrasehereIt's more than plausible, as I've seen other stuff, that doesn't reference particularly well. I'm hoping that someone can fill in the blanks, or that there's something more I can find, that does close the loop completely - I agree that the sourcing still isn't quite there for the TV appearance (though I've already disagreeed as I think the older Ashai and SportsNippon articles achieve GNG on their own). Nfitz (talk) 19:55, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment above. I've decided to swap to Keep, though I think it is borderline at best with the confirmed sources (specifically: ashai is ok, SportsNippon falls short of significant coverage to me), I think that given the evidence we have, there are other sources out there that would fill any gap towards meeting GNG, and that he likely did feature on said TV show. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 21:00, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I finally found a reference I've just added that does explicitly reference his name, the TV show, and the broadcast date - just to tie up that loose end. Nfitz (talk) 07:22, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Celestina007, HawkAussie, Johnpacklambert, GiantSnowman, Fifthavenuebrands. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 08:05, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep (changed from delete) – Still really borderline in my opinion. But Sports Nippon is an RS; their 2016 article as I said above is mostly about the high school goal and has very little about the rest of his career. Now I see the Asahi Shimbun 2018 article Nfitz posted [19]; that's also an RS, and again much of the article is about his high school goal, but it does have more about his career than the Sports Nippon article, and it was written in 2018. This Kisocook.com (aka cococom.com) article is very in-depth, but it doesn't seem like it's an RS. I can't find any information about that website or its editorial oversight, but then I don't speak Japanese. Still, that's two sources (Sports Nippon and Asahi) that are definitely RS and have more than 500 words about the subject, albeit mostly about the high school goal. If Kisocook.com were an RS, then that'd be a clear GNG source. The coverage overall seems to meet WP:SUSTAINED and WP:AUD, which mitigates WP:BLP1E concerns for me. Nfitz has a point that–hey, they're still talking about his 50m shot in the high school championship, 40 years later. That does kind of show some lasting notability, can't deny it. I think it's weak evidence on GNG itself, but tie goes to the HEY, so changing my !vote from delete to weak keep with thanks to Nfitz for improving the article. – Levivich 18:18, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nfitz and Levivich. Meeting GNG, even if just barely, is still meeting GNG. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:38, 26 November 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:08, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bryce Fehmel[edit]

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

Non-notable baseball player. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBASE – Muboshgu (talk) 15:46, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:46, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:47, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:17, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator.-- Yankees10 18:35, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I see no basis for the last relist as there is a delete consensus reached through discussion among participating editors. As such I am closing. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:51, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Banu al-Akhdari[edit]

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

It lacks reliable primary/secondary sources. I can't find any reliable (arabic and english) sources about this tribe. I just can't find any evidence of this tribe actually existing. Surprisingly, the original french version of this article was consensually removed. TheseusHeLl (talk) 20:09, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. TheseusHeLl (talk) 20:09, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Algeria-related deletion discussions. TheseusHeLl (talk) 20:25, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete the sources provided aren’t reliable and a search in Arabic doesn’t show anything else. Mccapra (talk) 21:58, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Banu roughly means tribe in Arabic. There were many tribes in Arabia. There is not much to speak of as defines this tribe, but I can see List of Banu's with this tribe being just one. The Q'uran mentions a few Banu's including at least one Jewish tribe, that was slaughtered on orders of Muhammad.Oldperson (talk) 01:20, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The jewish tribe you're talking about is Banu Qurayza. The other jewish tribes are listed in this page. Actually, Banu means "son's of", "descendants of", etc. The meaning of this word could mean a tribe, a clan, a family, etc. So what's your point? I'm requesting the deletion of a non existing arab tribe. Having the word Banu + the name of an ancestor doesn't mean that the tribe exists -TheseusHeLl (talk) 04:04, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I also searched under 'أولاد الاخضر' and 'أولاد الاخضريً' in case that turned up anything either, but it didn’t. It is possible that the article is a hoax, or that it records some kind of folk belief, but there aren’t any sources I can find to support it, Mccapra (talk) 07:24, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on the Arabic-language article, I think the correct name of this tribe is 'بنو الأخضر', which produces google books results. It's the tribe of Al-Akhdari. I think the google books sources are enough for a presumption of notability, there are likely to be more offline sources as well. --Cerebellum (talk) 20:58, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Changing my vote to Keep per Cerebellum. I’m not sure why I didn’t find these sources when I searched, but there you go. There’s enough here to show they existed and were notable. The article needs to be moved to ‘Banu al-Akhdar’ to be consistent with the sources. Mccapra (talk) 07:03, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mccapra, Cerebellum: I didn't notice this! But there is another problem. I can't find secondary sources confirming the claims in this article, and when searching "بنو الأخضر" the two first results are unreliable (the works of Tarek Gahlan) and all the other results are about the Banu Ukhaidhir, the rulers of yamama (بنو الأخضير, misspelling of بنو الأخضير, بنو الأخضير, etc). -TheseusHeLl (talk) 14:49, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In general, the extracted text of Arabic books in google books is full of data errors. So the problem here is that if you're searching "بنو الأخضر" in google books it gives you بنو الأخضير and بنو الأخضير's misspellings as بنو الأخضر. -TheseusHeLl (talk) 15:55, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TheseusHeLl: Hmm you're probably right, I didn't catch that those were referring to the Banu Ukhaidhir. Why are the works of Tarek Gahlan unreliable? --Cerebellum (talk) 09:48, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @TheseusHeLl: ok this is getting tougher and tougher. I've never been sure how reliable Google searches are in Arabic and only being able to see a snippet view is not helpful. As you say we can't substantiate most of the claims made in the article, and the ar.wiki article doesn't have any sources at all. I'm inclining back towards my original delete vote. Mccapra (talk) 17:22, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mccapra:I'm beginning to suspect that this might be a hoax of some kind. It's some kind of folk belief (like you said) and the editor who created the page is part of that culture. Both this page's french version and its fork were deleted in fr.wiki. -TheseusHeLl (talk) 18:10, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:15, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cerebellum: All of his books are published by lulu.com (a.k.a self-published) -TheseusHeLl (talk) 17:43, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, in that case delete. --Cerebellum (talk) 19:20, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yup I’ve come back to Delete as well. Mccapra (talk) 20:49, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fifthavenuebrands (talk) 13:21, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To get clear consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 15:28, 21 November 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) 17:18, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jo Pike[edit]

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

Appears to have been created as an election candidate, but fails WP:NPOL. Does not appear to meet WP:NPROF: not particularly notable rate of citations. She's contributed to one inquiry, but I don't think that alone meets NPROF #1. Bondegezou (talk) 15:16, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 15:18, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 15:18, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 15:18, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 15:18, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - in political terms she does not currently meet notability requirements, and I would say that many of the arguments for deletion put forward at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruth Alcroft also apply here. The article as it stands does not convince me that she meets the notability standard required for academics. Both of these things could change in the future, but for now I think this should be deleted. Dunarc (talk) 23:48, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Because the case against political notability is so clear-cut, I think the main question is not that, but whether she is academically notable. Senior lecturer is kind of at the borderline level of notability; if she were reader or better professor, I'd be more inclined to expect notability (although that would still have to be proven by some WP:PROF criterion, as that does not directly consider academic ranks). The article lists two reviews for one book, none for another, and I didn't find any more in my brief searching, but the bigger problem there is that they are edited rather than authored and that doesn't count for as much. So I don't think she passes WP:AUTHOR. And her citation counts on Google scholar are 149, 59, 51, 49, ..., respectable but not enough to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:36, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:POLITICIAN. Subject in question has not (yet) been elected to any notable position of government. --RaviC (talk) 23:48, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither was Marilyn Monroe or Albert Einstein. You should address what the subject is (an academic and book author), not what they are not (yet, an MP). —David Eppstein (talk) 01:40, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the subject doesn't meet WP:NMMA or WP:GNG. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:27, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gina Iniong[edit]

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

Subject is a MMA fighters. Fails WP:MMABIO notability requirements as subject has not fought in any top tier promotion and not secured any major title. Sources included major is record of routine sport info which would considered as trivial routine sport report. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:16, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:16, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:16, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:16, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Bubbasax (talk) 23:45, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't get the reasoning of the nomination since this article should not have been created in the first place if Ms. Iniong is not notable given the coverage of media outlets when you click on the Google News articles about her (aside from ABS-CBN news). But since the bio is about an MMA female fighter, there must be at least some notability for example her participation on ONE Championship competitions and her current MMA rank in the South East Asia region. First claim: Not Notabile based on not having a fight under any top tier promotion? Like not being represented by Top Rank or Golden Boy Promotion? Okay. (Sorry, those are boxing promotion companies though). Second claim: No major titles won. Fair enough. Third claim: All sources/references are just citing record of routine sport info and will fall as "trivial report". So the article are just about plain statistics like game logs? Please elaborate on this one. And also, can someone else comment on this third claim? I don't watch MMA though so I am commenting on the form (references, lay-out, lead, verifiability, etc.) which I find okay. I am the only dissenting vote here so please change my mind particularly on the third claim.—Allenjambalaya (talk) 13:24, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Allenjambalaya Pls read WP:MMABIO and WP:NSPORT.. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:30, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - So, she has 6 matches under ONE Championship, a second tier MMA promotion company. Since they need at least three female fighters in top 5 (regardless of weight class), they fall under the second tier. So she needs to win a championship for this article to be kept. Okay. I checked some fighters under ONE Championship (e.g. Mei Yamaguchi, Stamp Fairtex, Ritu Phogat) and no one is looking to delete them though. So yeah, maybe I'm already geared to a weak delete vote probably?—Allenjambalaya (talk) 13:58, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:MMABIO notability guidelines state a MMA fighter only notable if they have fought at least 3 fight under tier one promoter such as UFC or Invicta. ONE championship is not tier one promoter, so the subject fails the notability guidelines. Those ONE Chamionshps fighters with no other notability qualifier could be nominated for AfD, when I have time I will look into AfD if they dont meet MMABIO- see ONE Championship fighter AfD deletion article via AfD Edward Kelly, Jerremy Pacatiw, joshua Pacio, Saygid Guseyn arslanaliev, Zebaztian, Tial Thang, Joshua Pacio, Geje Eustaquio, ONE Championship champion Martin Nguyen and even the fighter less than 3 fighters in tier on promotion (UFC) fighters article was deleted - see Ariane Lipski, Arman Tsarukyan, Tristan Connelly and etc. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:00, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:05, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She has no top tier MMA fights so she definitely fails to meet WP:NMMA. The coverage seems to consist of sports reporting that would be typical for any professional fighter and the onefc articles are not independent. I don't believe that WP:GNG is met. Papaursa (talk) 01:02, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 15:01, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I see that there are concerns about sockpuppetry in this discussion, but on the substance it seems like the various GNG-based claims of notability have been only weakly contested even if the "Harvard University alumnus" notability claim has not gained much acceptance. The BLP1E point is somewhat less clear but it hasn't received enough support to make a deletion consensus. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:23, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Alahverdian[edit]

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

The previous AfD took place in 2013 but the updates in this article don't seem to address the lack of notability. ... discospinster _talk 14:31, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:02, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:02, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:42, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He was also an author who attended Harvard University He wrote: Dreading and Hoping All He was also published in the Providence Journal. Seems to have non-trivial coverage. Quebec Tribune, and again Quebec News Tribune. My opinion is non-trivial SIGCOV exists. It is concentrated on the East coast, New England, but that is not a concern for our guidelines. Lightburst (talk) 21:42, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He was also an author who attended Harvard University What part of that statement goes toward notability? Are Harvard Grads notable now? Praxidicae (talk) 21:52, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that was just something I inserted in there because it is impressive, and independent of WP:N. However the man has quite a bit of non-trivial coverage. Lightburst (talk) 22:59, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing has changed since the last AFD, no new sources, or at least no actual coverage of him exists. Praxidicae (talk) 21:53, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I am compelled to disagree with your claims that "nothing has changed", that there are "no new sources" and there is "no actual coverage." I am not sure how you reached that conclusion when the current article, when compared with the 2013 version, has been heavily edited and improved (and continues to be thanks to the help of other Wikipedia editors finding additional sources), multiple sources have been added (see: here, here, and here for example), and this obviously consists of "actual coverage". Your statement is false. The article has been improved and enhanced, there are many new sources, and there is a considerable amount of "actual coverage." Tkfy7cf (talk) 16:11, 15 November 2019 (UTC) — Tkfy7cf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep Sources cover from 2002 and remain relatively constant for nearly two decades from major news organizations including newspaper, radio, tv, and online. Both US national and regional media have covered him, he is a published author, a published opinion writer for the nation’s oldest continuously published daily newspaper (providence journal, I used to work there), and his whistleblowing contributed to massive calls for reform at the troubled state dept of children youth and families. Bubbasax (talk) 23:41, 14 November 2019 (UTC) — Bubbasax (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete Subject of article fails as per WP:GNG because he clearly lacks WP:INDEPTH significant coverage in reliable source. @Lightburst when did being an Harvard Alumnus constitute notability? Furthermore article calls him an author and he surely falls short of WP:AUTHOR. Celestina007 (talk) 08:42, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May I remind you that WP:GNG consists of the following "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." Have you bothered to read the significant WP:INDEPTH coverage? And since when are major newspapers and NBC and CBS affiliates not reliable sources? Let me help you with the following examples of significant coverage from reliable sources: here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. Your statements are false. There is extensive, significant coverage and there has been for 17 years about this man. The aforementioned articles prove significant, sustained coverage from reliable sources independent of the subject and thus it is "presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article" per WP:GNG. Tkfy7cf (talk) 16:22, 15 November 2019 (UTC) — Tkfy7cf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep Meets WP:BASIC, WP:GNG, and WP:INDEPTH. The length of significant coverage and the depth of coverage in reliable sources of this man meets the WP:GNG and WP:INDEPTH guidelines as a result of sustained and constant news coverage in mainstream media since he first appeared in The Providence Journal in 2002 (seventeen years is arguably a sustained amount of time). A further, cursory search shows appearances in the Associated Press, The Providence Journal, The Daily Herald, Politifact, WPRO Radio, the NBC-CBS-ABC affiliates, PBS, and The New Haven Register. WP:N regards a "topic [that] has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" is notable and it is "suitable for a stand-alone article" (see WP:Notability) (emphasis added). I have found additional sources and will help add to the article when I have a moment. Fifthavenuebrands (talk) 10:08, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I have updated the article, sourced it with content up to 2018, and have attempted to fill in the gaps. As Lightburst and Bubbasax have said, the mainstream news media sources for him go all the way back to 2002 and has steadily continued until 2019. 17 years of coverage is clearly significant. The coverage is significant and non-trivial, and it is constant and substantial. Said coverage includes multiple articles in the Associated Press, NBC, CBS affiliates, The Boston Globe, The Providence Journal, The New Haven Register, and many others. The 2011 Associated Press article alone was published in over 100 newspapers around the world according to the Associated Press. Prior claims that "nothing has changed" should be clarified now as a result of my research and work to make this article better than I found it. I agree that work needed to be done and sources had to be found, especially, recent ones, but I've done that. As a result I now believe that the article meets WP:BASIC, WP:GNG, and WP:INDEPTH even more now that I've updated the article and added the additional sources, stories, and news. Fifthavenuebrands (talk) 12:36, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your assistance in researching this important topic and helping to bolster the evidence and sources for the article. Tkfy7cf (talk) 15:56, 15 November 2019 (UTC) — Tkfy7cf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep See: WP:GNG: "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." The topic, Alahverdian, has received sustained significant coverage from the Associated Press, The Providence Journal, CBS WPRI 12, NBC WJAR 10, The New Haven Register, GoLocalProv, The Boston Globe, and other news entities. The aforementioned news organizations are "reliable sources" -- unquestionably. Further, they are clearly independent of the subject. To deny otherwise is to insult the journalistic integrity of the reporters who have authored the articles that form the backbone of this wikipedia article. Beyond this, the subject of this article is considered a writer in his own right, his opinion having been published in New England's second largest daily newspaper after the Boston Globe. Seventeen years of sustained, detailed coverage with articles that are about this man and do not mention him just in passing are sure to be sufficient to meet the criteria for significant, sustained coverage. To say that there has not been sustained coverage and to claim that there is insufficiently significant coverage is to admit that the sources, links, archives, and research by myself and others has not been adequately analyzed by those who are making those erroneous judgements because, as one can see, the articles are numerous, detailed, historic, and cumulatively meet the criteria for WP:GNG. Indeed, I repeat: 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. To say otherwise after 17 years of coverage with exclusive articles written by award-winning journalists at multiple media entities is to ignore the evidence presented in the sourced article. Tkfy7cf (talk) 15:53, 15 November 2019 (UTC) — Tkfy7cf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
keep because he is a leading advocate for foster children and foster care alumni throughout the united states. i have followed his inspirational story as a foster child myself, and when he spoke to my class at my university, we were in awe of his strength and resilience. Numerous articles including this one from Providence Journal and this one from an Ivy League student newspaper and all of the other news articles, news videos, and radio talk shows listed on the wikipedia articles justify the guidelines for general notability as I've read them on this site. Fencemenders (talk) 18:05, 15 November 2019 (UTC) — Fencemenders (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
CheckUser Note Several of the accounts that have contributed to this AfD on the "keep" side are single-purpose accounts. Even "Fifthavenuebrands", who I have not tagged as an SPA here, has very few contributions outside of this AfD and a slew of pro-forma "delete" votes on other current AfD debates. I have performed a CheckUser on several of these accounts, discovered that they were using VPNs or proxies to edit, and have blocked those VPN / proxy services. The closing admin may wish to take this into account. ST47 (talk) 19:44, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- - Note I do use a vpn, and I apologize if that's not allowed, I was not aware. However, I have been given feedback on the correct way to use wikipedia (apparently editing and deletion voting is for experienced users) and I am in the process of implementing that. Thank you for the information. I wanted to contribute the best I could but perhaps I'll just sit back and learn a bit more. Thanks again. Fifthavenuebrands (talk) 00:07, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fifthavenuebrands, Everyone can edit Wikipedia, and you are most welcome to do so and also to !vote and express your opinion here. It is true that if you make a mistake we will let you know!ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:28, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete can someone explain why exactly he's not a WP:BLP1E? SportingFlyer T·C 09:18, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- - ReplyBecause there are criteria for WP:BLP1E that are not met here. This is not one event, this is twenty years of sustained, significant coverage from multiple reliable secondary sources. The first article published about him was April '02. The coverage has remained since that point in time, and has ranged from his lawsuit (one event), to his lobbying and advocacy (an entirely separate event), to his political advising (another event), and other events as documented in the article (yet more events). Also see WP: What is one event? -- This is not 15 minutes of fame. This is nearly two decades of sustained significant coverage about someone who has had many roles documented and validated by news sources and other evidence. While he may have been a litigant in a newsworthy case, he was also written about in reliable news sources for his legislative advocacy, for the abuse he suffered at the hands of the state (which is a separate event, covered by multiple national news sources including the Associated Press and Politifact, among others), for inspiring the filing of multiple bills to stop the practices (also covered in the news, yet another event, his work as a political advisor (also covered in the news and another event), his work at Harvard (also covered within the context of articles), and his work in other fields (as included in the article). This is the antithesis of "15 minutes of fame." This is not, as the guideline states, "a single specific act that has taken place with a defined beginning and end, which may last for a second or two, or multiple days". In short, back in 2012 it was said of this man, and this is quoted in the article, that "“regardless of what happens in federal court or at the State House, Alahverdian has left his mark. Night-to-night placement has been ended forever. And Manatee Palms, the Florida facility where Alahverdian experienced so much abuse, is no longer used by DCYF. Alahverdian, I have to believe, had something to do with those changes.”" He clearly has had an impact on state policy and practice, and while he has left his mark he has also engaged in other newsworthy events that have been properly sourced and meets the bar set in WP:GNG: "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." I believe I can say without contention that this topic has received significant coverage. Reliable sources independent of the subject have been provided (Politifact, AP, NBC News affiliate, CBS news affiliate, Boston Globe, Providence Journal, Rhode Island State House Press Office &c). This has been over seventeen years of news coverage about multiple events and thus fails WP:BLP1E. It is thus "presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article" see WP:GNG. Tkfy7cf (talk) 11:19, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As noted above by Lightburst, there’s a significant amount of in depth coverage. The article is well sourced with solid research. From what I saw, there were exclusive articles covering the person on a variety of topics. One topic I found that was not included was the ABC/Fox news coverage of his successful attempt to secure a proclamation honouring the Armenian genocide when that city had never done so in the past. He is also a lobbyist and in this role he has been covered separately in the news, both national (US) and international. He was also a litigant in a high-profile case that was rooted in his whistleblowing on abuse and neglect in a state foster care system as a government employee. this also carried exclusive news articles about the man. There are many sources and articles that justify WP:GNG since as we know, “a person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.” Here we have significant coverage from the last two decades with articles appearing rather frequently. It is clear that the article covers a broad array of news coverage surrounding multiple topics, and this isn’t just about one event or even a brief sailing into the spotlight. While primary sources are used, they are used rarely, and the article heavily relies upon news articles published by Boston Globe, Providence Journal, New Haven Register, CBS, ABC, NBC, and multiple other reputable, noteworthy outlets. Some articles are even accompanied by the news stories that aired in addition to the online articles. WP:BASIC states that “If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.” So we see that not only do we have multiple in depth coverage-qualifying stories, but we also have multiple independent sources that are combined “to demonstrate notability”. Seeking an excuse to say this article’s sources are trivial isn’t realistic. The news orgs I mentioned previously did in-depth coverage on this subject, especially Providence Journal and CBS. In short, this article clearly is not based around one event. The subject clearly meets WP:N and WP:GNG. The article supplies significant and reliable coverage that are undoubtedly independent of this man. The historic connotations of what he has done as documented in the article are not temporary, and they have had real consequences for the people and organisations on which he has blown the whistle. Indeed, he has become an advisor to legislators, an opinion and editorial writer for a Pulitzer Prize winning newspaper, and he has left his mark through multiple endeavours, as cited in the article. It is in my humble opinion that this article be kept. SVUKnight (talk) 05:57, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 14:33, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is not BLP1E, as coverage exists over almost two decades. I saw a few sketchy sources and certainly some excessive citing, but I also saw sustained coverage in reputable sources.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:23, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily meets GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:21, 22 November 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. On the contrary to the relist, this is a clear delete. NFOOTY is merely a presumtion of GNG. Neither of the keep votes make any attempt to show how GNG is met. Furthermore it is difficult to see how it could given he played one game, something that arguably falls under WP:BLP1E as well. Fenix down (talk) 14:38, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Janusz Łuczak[edit]

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

This person is known only for playing half a football game, and the references are in no way significant, merely directory-like. Geschichte (talk) 14:30, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:46, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:46, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:46, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - NFOOTY passed. It is normal for that to be enough for pre-internet articles, as far as I'm aware. R96Skinner (talk) 16:24, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NFOOTY is actually not passed as it was not a professional league. And even in the "pre-internet" era, what significant coverage would there be about a 45-minute football player? None. Geschichte (talk) 17:11, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Assumptions like that aren't helpful, who are we to claim that? Besides, don't shoot the messenger... I'm just aiming for Wikipedia to be consistent. R96Skinner (talk) 12:49, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fifthavenuebrands (talk) 13:23, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:14, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As per R96Skinner. Additionally, NFOOTY passed, WP:NFOOTBALL states that the player must play in either an international game or the important one for this page "Players who have played, and managers who have managed in a competitive game between two teams from fully-professional leagues", which even one game reaches that requirement. If you look at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues it states both the Ekstraklasa and I liga. Łuczak played in the I liga, which is now the equivalent of the Ekstraklasa, Poland's top division. Again if you look at the page there is no date for when professionalism started, where as for example: Argentina is 1931. As there is no date for when the league became professional I would take that as any player who played in that league is accepted, as per England, Germany, Italy, etc. OLLSZCZ (talk) 04:39, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG which is more important than technically passing WP:NFOOTBALL (though that is debatable as well). Giant Snowman 15:33, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, GiantSnowman. Just for clarification, if only for myself, do we not keep the presumption of NFOOTY for pre-internet articles? I feel like I've seen many editors, including yourself but others too, do so for British footballers from the same period as Janusz Łuczak. Please do correct me if I'm wrong, it's always possible I'm missing something. R96Skinner (talk) 16:30, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Of course we do - but it's a lot more difficult for players with one appearance! Giant Snowman 17:15, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If it's of course we do User:GiantSnowman, then I don't understand your delete for a player with 58 top-level appearances before the professional era, in the pre-Internet 1980s at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akira Komatsu. Nfitz (talk) 03:03, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is because the player was playing in an amateur league at the time so he can't really be classified as playing in a WP:FPL based league which is what most players would be thinking when they do that vote. HawkAussie (talk) 22:35, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amateur league? According to? WP:FPL doesn't list a start date for professionalism in Poland. R96Skinner (talk) 00:30, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No that was meant to be for the Japanese player not the Polish player as like you said we don't have a start date for professionalism in Poland. HawkAussie (talk) 01:31, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – no GNG sources. A guy that played half a game half a century ago does not have to have a page in the encyclopedia. – Levivich 00:07, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 14:32, 21 November 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. A merge can be done outside of the scope of this AfD. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:09, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Goom[edit]

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 13:56, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 13:56, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 13:56, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: G or List of monsters in Marvel Comics. BOZ (talk) 15:04, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge like Boz said. Barca (talk) 20:15, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails NFICTION/GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:49, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (as above) if there's anything worth keeping, otherwise delete. No evidence of independent notability provided. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:01, 28 November 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 List of Marvel Comics characters: G. Tone 14:44, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Glowworm (comics)[edit]

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 13:55, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 13:55, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 13:55, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: G. BOZ (talk) 15:03, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails NFICTION/GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:49, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (as above) if there's anything worth keeping, otherwise delete. No evidence of independent notability provided. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:01, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 14:43, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Globe (comics)[edit]

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 13:53, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 13:53, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 13:53, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Daily Bugle. BOZ (talk) 15:02, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails NFICTION/GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:49, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough coverage to justify inclusion. This is not a central point to plot, as opposed to the Daily Planet in some Superman media.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:36, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The arguments based on WP:POLOUTCOMES are persuasive, particularly that the campaign coverage is routine and WP:NPOL requires more than that. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:26, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vix Lowthion[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:NPOL. The article has lots of citations, but they're nearly all passing mentions in articles about local politics in local media. Does not meet WP:GNG of reliable source significant coverage about the individual. See Talk page for discussion. Bondegezou (talk) 13:35, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:36, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:36, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:37, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:37, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet the WP:GNG. There's still a lack of significant coverage. Some of what's used in the page contributes towards significant coverage, but it's not there yet. There may be a lot of routine election coverage coming up, which won't be useful for establishing notability. Ralbegen (talk) 15:29, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fifthavenuebrands (talk) 13:25, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question: I recognise that the reasoning above is sensible. I wonder what we should make of Lowthion's three appearances (as Green Party education spokesperson nationally) on the BBC Sunday Politics show? These are substantial appearances on regional TV by the national broadcaster. (The Wikipedia entry for the show says 'Each region follows a similar format, consisting of two political figures, normally MPs or MEPs, appearing for the whole 29 minutes') Alarichall (talk) 22:13, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Appearing on a talk show as a speaker is not a notability freebie at all. She has to be the subject being spoken about by other people, not the person doing the speaking on other subjects, for a source to count toward showing her notability. Bearcat (talk) 14:11, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true. The information she provided in the talk can be used as a primary source only, that is, to prove only simple facts. However, the very fact, that she was asked to attend a talk show at all very much accounts for notability, in particular when the broadcaster is the BBC, European's largest broadcaster. It is far more difficult to get coverage in TV or radio than in a newspaper.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 12:31, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, without prejudice against recreation after election day if she wins. Neither being a local parish councillor nor being a candidate in a national election the person has not won constitutes a reason why a person gets into Wikipedia: local councils are not an "inherently" notable office at all, and even at the Westminster level a person has to win the election and thereby hold a seat as an MP to get over NPOL #1. But the sourcing here is a mix of WP:ROUTINE local coverage, of a type and volume that every local councillor on every local council can always show, and/or glancing namechecks of her existence in sources that are fundamentally about other subjects besides her, and that's not what we require to consider her notable enough. Obviously this will be recreated very shortly after election day if she wins, but nothing here is already enough to earn her a place in Wikipedia today. Bearcat (talk) 14:11, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: just repeating here (as creator of the article) my rationale for this article from its talk page. I agree that Lowthion doesn't meet the notability criteria for politicians (WP:POLITICIAN). But I do think she meets the general notability criteria. She has received numerous, non-trivial mentions in a range of reliable secondary sources. While the sources most often cited in this article are local news, non-trivial coverage includes national newspapers (in particular The Guardian) and the international Business Insider(which carried a long piece on her). Alarichall (talk) 18:58, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that some evidence of campaign coverage exists does not hand her a GNG-based exemption from having to pass NPOL, because some evidence of campaign coverage always exists for every candidate in every election. Campaign coverage of an unelected candidate only builds up toward a permanent GNG pass if it demonstrates a reason why her candidacy is somehow much more special than everybody else's candidacies, such that even if she loses she'll still be notable ten years from now anyway. Bearcat (talk) 00:06, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strange argument, no exemption is necessary. There is no need for her having to pass WP:NPOL if WP:GNG is fulfilled already. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 12:31, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG is not fulfilled because there is a lack of "significant coverage" of the person. WP:NPOL helps us interpret WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ROUTINE with respect to politicians. You could string together multiple mentions of most local councillors, but we don't create articles for them all. Election coverage is better done through election articles. Actions taken by a council can go on the relevant council page. Bondegezou (talk) 21:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Every candidate in every election always gets local campaign coverage during the election — so every candidate could always claim to have passed GNG, and thus be exempted from having to satisfy NPOL, if the existence of local coverage in the election context were all it took to get them over GNG. So by definition, NPOL would be inherently meaningless, because nobody would ever actually have to pass it anymore. So we have an established consensus that the campaign coverage does not automatically translate into a permanent GNG pass — in exactly the same way that a smattering of local coverage for playing their hometown live dive does not in and of itself exempt a band from having to pass NMUSIC, a smattering of local coverage for winning a local poetry contest does not in and of itself exempt a writer from having to pass AUTHOR, a smattering of local coverage for recovering from an injury does not in and of itself exempt a high school athlete from having to pass our notability standards for athletes, and on and so forth. GNG is more than just "media coverage exists" — it also takes into account factors like depth and geographic range and the context of what the person is getting covered for, and most certainly does deprecate some kinds of media coverage as being worth less than other kinds of media coverage. Bearcat (talk) 16:53, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed at Talk, Business Insider is only a maybe at WP:RSP. Bondegezou (talk) 08:03, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While there could be more (and probably will be more in the future), I see WP:GNG being fulfilled by a reference mix from publishers like BBC, Guardian, Independent, Daily Telegraph, Business Insider, ~~Times~~, etc. over a span of four years already. Adding to her notability, there were also several long talk shows on BBC and at least one article (by Julian Clegg, BBC) prominently featuring her.

It would be great if more of the provided references would give online links so that they could be checked more easily, but this is not a requirement and what I saw IMO already establishes notability per our guidelines.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 12:31, 17 November 2019 (UTC)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Matthiaspaul[reply]

The article has no references from The Times. WP:GNG requires significant coverage: ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail". Which of the references do you feel addresses the topic of Vix Lowthion directly and in detail? Bondegezou (talk) 13:55, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the correction regarding "Times" != "Times Education Supplement". It does not change the general picture, though. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 14:26, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:POLOUTCOMES. We have not recently kept an article on a party official for a minor party. A few years ago consensus changed not to keep party leaders of the Greens and other such marginal parties, as being too run of the mill. Please correct me if my view is wrong, but she appears to be the leader only on the Isle of Wight, not nationally. There's discussion above that GNG should trump the more specific rules. Bearian (talk) 20:55, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 13:49, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:POLITICIAN. Subject in question has not (yet) been elected to any notable position of government. --RaviC (talk) 23:48, 23 November 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 Teleri. There is clear consensus that this shouldn't have its own article, but the arguments were evenly divided between deletion and merging. Since Nandor (Middle-earth) cites two secondary sources that are not present in Teleri, I prefer to close with a merger. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:54, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nandor (Middle-earth)[edit]

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

No evidence this fictional group of characters passes WP:GNG/WP:NFICTION. Pure WP:PLOT. Deprodded by User:Necrothesp with no rationale. PS. I downloaded Tolkien Encyclopedia: Scholarship and Critical Assessment and Nandor does not have its own entry in it. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:25, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:25, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:45, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Possibly add a hatnote in Nándor to Elf (Middle-earth)#Sundering, but the subject doesn't merit a standalone article. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:21, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect to Teleri. Goustien (talk) 21:31, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Teleri; that's where I would expect to find it, and the bones of the material are already there. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:18, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Teleri. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:52, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 13:49, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Doesn't merit its own article.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect - Non-notable. TTN (talk) 01:01, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Teleri. It'd have to be a selective merge because there's only about two properly sourced sentences in the whole article. Reyk _YO! 09:59, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG/NFICTION. Even the Tolkien Encyclopedia doesn't have an entry. Seriously people... Kacper IV (talk) 08:52, 26 November 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. – bradv🍁 20:17, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

House of Elendil[edit]

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

Generalogical tree of fictional charcters. WP:PLOT. Fails WP:GNG/WP:NFICTION. Deprodded by User:Necrothesp with no rationale. PS. I downloaded Tolkien Encyclopedia: Scholarship and Critical Assessment and Elendil (or its house) does not have its own entry in it. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:20, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:20, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:45, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While the Lord of the Rings is one of the most notable and well known pieces of fiction, that does not automatically mean that every single bit of minutia regarding it is, itself, independently notable. Case in point, this family tree. While some of the specific individual members of the family are notable with plenty of sources, the entire line as a whole really is not. Searching for sources pretty much turns up quotes from the LotR books themselves, or other writings that mention it only because they are quoting passages from the books directly. While the "House of Elendil" is mentioned off hand in a number of sources, the only one I can find that actually talks in depth about it specifically is a top-ten article on Screen Rant, which is completely insufficient to establish notability. I would not be opposed to just having this Redirect to an appropriate target, if one is suggested, as well, but the actual article itself does not need to be preserved in anyway. Rorshacma (talk) 17:04, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect to Half-elven. Goustien (talk) 20:31, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: this is not an article; it it is a family tree. This belongs on a fan site, not here.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:43, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is the first time that I have seen an article violate both Wikipedia:Fancruft and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a directory. Meanwhile, the article on the Half-elven will probably be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion soon. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 19:51, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete such raiding of appendices to create articles borders on copyright violations.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:46, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 13:48, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — Why was this relisted? The consensus to delete is pretty clear.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:22, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:08, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy Sues[edit]

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 13:48, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 13:48, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 13:48, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations. BOZ (talk) 15:02, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails NFICTION/GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:49, 25 November 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. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:21, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Extraterrestrial places in the Cthulhu Mythos[edit]

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

Random collection of placenames with no indication of real world significance. Many are not even Lovercraftian but come from works by writers inspired by his universe. Pure WP:PLOT, no indication this passes WP:GNG, WP:NFICTION or WP:NLIST. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:14, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:14, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is only one potentially notable location on this list. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 15:00, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable fancruft and inuniverse WP:ALLPLOT content._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:42, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Cthulhu Mythos involves more than those works created by Lovecraft. Lovecraft was quite open to other writers using his settings and a number of them did. See the lede:
In addition to the celestial places created by Lovecraft, the mythos draws from a number of other sources, including the works of August Derleth, Ramsey Campbell, Lin Carter, Brian Lumley, and Clark Ashton Smith.
--Auric talk 22:04, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Redirect to Elements of the Cthulhu Mythos#Fictional locations. Goustien (talk) 21:41, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather not merge these articles, as that would flood the elements page with random plot information. However, the other option would be fine. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 23:24, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:36, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nothing random whatsoever. The Cthulhu Mythos is a recognised setting and deletion of information like this serves no good purpose. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:57, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSHARMLESS is not a valid AfD argument. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:06, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And was not used! -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:24, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Using "random" also implies that the list is not yet complete and can be expanded.--Auric talk 22:44, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 13:48, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As mentioned by Susmuffin, only Yuggoth is potentially notable on its own. The rest of these are largely not covered in much detail in reliable secondary sources, because they were not prominent locations in the mythos itself, only being used in a single story, or mentioned off hand without actually being the focus of a story. The information here is presented entirely as in-universe plot information, sourced to primary sources. Information on the few notable planets could possibly be added to Cthulhu Mythos to flesh out that article with some information on the few prominent examples that were important to the setting, but that does not really require the preservation of this list to do. Rorshacma (talk) 16:14, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — excruciating fancruft.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:57, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Trivial, in-universe fictional minutia. Notability is not established for the grouping. There is nothing to show this is a necessary fork article. TTN (talk) 01:12, 23 November 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 Skateparks in Virginia. Consensus is to merge or redirect to one of two articles. Skateparks in Virginia is seen as the more appropriate, and as information is already present, and a redirect can be actioned immediately, a redirect is the most appropriate close. The history will remain at the redirect page, so if anyone wishes to add any information to the listing at Skateparks in Virginia, they can do so. SilkTork (talk) 18:39, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ashland Skate Park[edit]

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

Deprodded without improvement, but with lengthy explanation on article's talk page. However, the explanation doesn't really deal with the fact that despite the article being well written and structured, this is still a small, non-notable local park for skateboarders. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:11, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:11, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:15, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or "redirect", perhaps to Ashland, Virginia, where it is mentioned. Or, would it help satisfy the deletion nominator if it was moved to Pufferbelly Park (currently a redlink) and expanded to cover the larger park's other features, etc.? The larger park is not much more exciting, but it is a higher level. Outright deletion would not be appropriate because merge/redirect to a higher level article mentioning it is feasible. Or just "Keep"ing it would be fine, frankly. --Doncram (talk) 06:30, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:02, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Blatantly non-notable. I don't care about redirects, go ahead, but it's hardly notable enough for that; only mentioned in the town article because the same author put it there, not because the half-block sized park it's in stands out (we don't need articles for every playground in a small grassy area...). Same goes for Carter Jones Skate Park. twoReywas92^Talk 23:26, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, that other one is quite different. This 2015 article gives some history about it developing out of efforts of a skateboarders that formed a group, started a home-built park on their own (though on city property?), then worked with city and/or fought with bureaucracy or what-have-you for a long period, and worked with getting public support and so on. And the leader that emerged and the group that was formed gone on since to develop at least one other skatepark in Richmond (Texas beach one), or maybe two (there is a RVA Southside one). There is a lot of story here, covered in news media. The group and the leader(s) may be separately Wikipedia-notable. Not reflected at all in its current Wikipedia article. About the Ashland one, I am not aware of its origin story involving barricades in the streets, transit system shut-downs, or other drama. --Doncram (talk) 18:22, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Maybe this would better be merged to a list-article about skateboard parks in the state of Virginia. Which i think would need to be created. For which I think there would be at least some higher level sources. This would be more consistent with thrust of defense of article at its Talk page, which i copy in here:
*Object. Ashland Skate Park is notable for being not only the only skate park of its kind, but the only skate park at all, in this area of the state and is heavily used by skateboarders from nearby counties and towns including skaters from the capital region of central Virginia. Unfortunately I haven’t been able to find a lot of media coverage or other news about the skate park because it is in a semi-rural part of the state away from the big media centers, but it meets notability guidelines for being the only public skate park of its kind (or at all) in this part of the state. Because there are no commercial entities who have an interest in promoting the skatepark, Wikipedia is one of very few public sources of objective, unbiased information about the skatepark. PowerPCG5 (talk) 23:17, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Instead of merging/redirecting to town article. Note it is okay to close an AFD saying "merge" to a list-article that needs to be created. That is just making instructions about what needs to be done, as sometimes done in other "merge" closes. --Doncram (talk) 15:47, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Further, there is list-article Skateparks in New York City, which could be better frankly, like if it actually gave locations and had a linked {{GeoGroup}} map. It has a number of sources on the topic, and top 10 lists, whatever. I think it would be okay/good to have an overall List of skateparks (~~currently a redlink~~ was a redlink, has now been created), which links out to Skateparks in New York City and a new Skateparks in Virginia (was a redlink, has now been created). Not the most exciting topic in the world, but there are articles / there is coverage / i think that the general topic of skateparks world-wide is valid, and so is "skateparks in Virginia". Some coverage includes:

USA Today: "Skateparks in Virginia"
Virginia Skateparks - Concrete Disciples Skate Park Guide ..., at here (requires Flash player)
Virginia Beach's page about its 3 "premier" skateparks: here
there are a lot more sources.

On the other hand, maybe this topic is more in the vein of a travel website, i.e. to be included in WikiVoyage(?) instead? But still there is coverage in general about "skateparks in Virginia", so it should be a valid Wikipedia topic. In which this Ashland Skate Park can be mentioned, and if it is so rare in its area then it will stand out in a map included in or linked from the list-article. --Doncram (talk) 18:34, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

About WikiVoyage option, i browsed over there and find my way to Ashland (Virginia) article at WikiVoyage, which i think could/should mention the Ashland skatepark. In WikiVoyage, though, I think everything is organized within geography, so maybe a "list of skateparks" cannot exist there. Does anyone know for sure?--Doncram (talk) 18:42, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - to Ashland, Virginia, as I would hate to see the content deleted, but the skate park is not very notable MenfesKidus40 (talk) 01:57, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, merger to Skateparks in Virginia might be better, and if so it should certainly be mentioned in Ashland article. --Doncram (talk) 07:46, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:46, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I looked to see what could be merged and ended up very amused the one non-primary source in the article discusses a different Ashland Skate Park, over 2500km away. No reason to keep this, by the same token no reason it can't be in a list somewhere. SportingFlyer T·C 02:05, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey SportingFlyer, I'm glad you liked my little addition there. :) By your acknowledgement "no reason it can't be in a list somewhere", I interpret your "Delete" !vote to mean "Merge" or "Redirect", isn't that fair? There's no reason not to leave a redirect behind, and outright deletion is unnecessarily punitive, IMHO. The creation of this article has driven the creation of the i-think-better state-level article. --Doncram (talk) 02:37, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm mostly a delete. There's no sourced content to merge, and even though there's a couple potential redirects, there's another Ashland Skate Park in Oregon, which is secondarily sourced, so I'm not sure a redirect to a Virginia-specific skate park is helpful. I'm just noting there's no reason why we can't include it in a list. I'm not unhappy if the result isn't a delete, though (as long as it's not a keep.) SportingFlyer T·C 05:38, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being, well, sporting about it. Right about there being two of that name, so simple redirect to just the Virginia's one in the Virginia list isn't quite right. It needs to be a two-item disambiguation page, technically, I guess, to point a reader to either the VA one's entry or to the Oregon one's entry, which i will be sure to create right now in List of skateparks. For this AFD, that is effectively a redirect though. And i did merge info already; i think it is more charitable to call the AFD outcome "merge". --Doncram (talk) 06:32, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Ashland, Virginia or Skateparks in Virginia in lieu of deletion. I received a request to look for sources about Skateparks in Virginia.

Sources about Skateparks in Virginia

Wright, Renee (2010). Explorer's Guide Virginia Beach, Richmond and Tidewater Virginia: Includes Williamsburg, Norfolk, and Jamestown: A Great Destination. Woodstock, Vermont: The Countryman Press. p. 108. ISBN 978-1-58157-106-6. Retrieved 2019-11-23.
Colbert, Judy (2019). Virginia Off the Beaten Path®: Discover Your Fun. Guilford, Connecticut: Globe Pequot Press. pp. 87–88. ISBN 978-1-4930-4265-4. Retrieved 2019-11-23.
Moneywise Guide to North America. London: BUNAC Travel Services. 1999. p. 165. ISBN 978-0-9526872-3-8. Retrieved 2019-11-23.
Wixon, Ben (2009). Skateboarding: Instruction, Programming, and Park Design. Windsor, Ontario: Human Kinetics. p. 123. ISBN 978-0-7360-7426-1. Retrieved 2019-11-23.
Parker, Stacy (2019-02-11). "Virginia Beach will eliminate dog and skate park fees". The Virginian-Pilot. Archived from the original on 2019-11-23. Retrieved 2019-11-23.
Blum, Ian-Spiegel. "The 7 Best Skate Parks in Virginia!". Best Things Virginia. American Towns Media. Archived from the original on 2019-11-23. Retrieved 2019-11-23.
Feldman, Jess (2019-06-26). "10 free skate parks to shred at this summer". Northern Virginia Magazine. Archived from the original on 2019-11-23. Retrieved 2019-11-23.
Airey (2019-05-02). "Powhatan Springs Skate Park Officially Opens". ARLnow.com. Archived from the original on 2019-11-23. Retrieved 2019-11-23.
Hood, John (2019-04-23). "Valley skate park closed until further notice". WHSV-TV. Archived from the original on 2019-11-23. Retrieved 2019-11-23.
"Skateparks of the 1970s". Skateboarding Heritage Foundation. 2019-03-31. Archived from the original on 2019-11-23. Retrieved 2019-11-23.
"Best Of The D.C.-Area's Skate Parks". WAMU. 2016-05-11. Archived from the original on 2019-11-23. Retrieved 2019-11-23.
Hornaday, Michelle. "Skate Parks in Virginia". USA Today. Leaf Group. Archived from the original on 2019-11-23. Retrieved 2019-11-23.

Sources with quotes

Wright, Renee (2010). Explorer's Guide Virginia Beach, Richmond and Tidewater Virginia: Includes Williamsburg, Norfolk, and Jamestown: A Great Destination. Woodstock, Vermont: The Countryman Press. p. 108. ISBN 978-1-58157-106-6. Retrieved 2019-11-23.
The book notes:
Skate Parks

Colonial Heights Skate Park (804-520-9204; www.colonial-heights.com/RecParks.htm), 3451 Conduit Road, Colonial Heights 23834. Located behind the Colonial Heights Technical Center. $1–2.
Hopewell Skateboard Park (804-541-2353; www.ci.hopewell.va.us), 100 W. City Point Road, Hopewell 23860. New facility with ramps and jumps.
Laurel Skate Park (804-672-6273; www.co.henrico.va.us/rec), 10301 Hungary Spring Road, Richmond 23228. Lighted park is free for skateboarders, inline skaters, and freestyle bikers; safety equipment required.
Pella Virginia State Park (804-276-9622; www.ymcarichmond.org), 7540 Hull Street, Richmond 23235. Nice park at the Manchester YMCA. Annual community membership $25, plus $7 per session.
Colbert, Judy (2019). Virginia Off the Beaten Path®: Discover Your Fun. Guilford, Connecticut: Globe Pequot Press. pp. 87–88. ISBN 978-1-4930-4265-4. Retrieved 2019-11-23.
The book notes:
You'll see lots of four-wheeling here, but it's of the skateboard variety, at the largest skate park in Prince William County. At the Scott D. Eagles Skatepark (pwcgov.org/government/dept/park/vetspark/Pages/Vets-Skate-Park.aspx), dedicated to a man who died young but immensely enjoyed his skateboarding while he was here (no, he didn't die of a skateboard accident), there are 7,200 square feet of bowls, bumps, moguls, a half-pipe, and smooth surfaces with sidwalk and street features for urban skaters. For those who've always wanted to try skateboarding but were reluctant to invest, skatebboards can be rented at the park.
Moneywise Guide to North America. London: BUNAC Travel Services. 1999. p. 165. ISBN 978-0-9526872-3-8. Retrieved 2019-11-23.
The book notes:
Skating: Lynhaven Skatepark, Great Neck Rd & First Colonial Rd, 422-5122, or Mount Trashmore Skatepark, South Blvd & Edwin Dr, 490-0351.
Wixon, Ben (2009). Skateboarding: Instruction, Programming, and Park Design. Windsor, Ontario: Human Kinetics. p. 123. ISBN 978-0-7360-7426-1. Retrieved 2019-11-23.
The book notes:
For example, the steel-surfaced half-pipe at the Veterans Park Skateboard Facility (in Woodbridge, Virginia) was constructed in 1991 and is still in use today.
Parker, Stacy (2019-02-11). "Virginia Beach will eliminate dog and skate park fees". The Virginian-Pilot. Archived from the original on 2019-11-23. Retrieved 2019-11-23.
The article notes:
In 2016, the city started charging people to use its three skate parks. Attendance at Williams Farm was 19,376 in 2015. It dropped to 15,125 the following year when the fees were implemented.
Blum, Ian-Spiegel. "The 7 Best Skate Parks in Virginia!". Best Things Virginia. American Towns Media. Archived from the original on 2019-11-23. Retrieved 2019-11-23.
The article lists these skateparks:
1. Mt. Trashmore, Virginia Beach, VA
2. MEKOS Skate Park, Newport News, VA
3. McIntire Skate Park, Charlottesville, VA
4. Roanoke Skate Park, Roanoke, VA
5. Laurel Skate Park, Glen Allen, VA
6. Warren County Skate Park, Warren County, VA
7. Skate Night, Fairfax, VA
Feldman, Jess (2019-06-26). "10 free skate parks to shred at this summer". Northern Virginia Magazine. Archived from the original on 2019-11-23. Retrieved 2019-11-23.
The article lists:
1. Powhatan Springs Skate Park at 6020 Wilson Blvd., Arlington
2. Wakefield Skate Park at 8100 Braddock Road, Annandale
3. Lake Fairfax Skate Park at 1400 Lake Fairfax Drive, Reston
4. Manassas Skate Park: Dean Park at 9501 Dean Park Lane, Manassas
5. Scott D. Eagles Skatepark at 14300 Veterans Drive, Woodbridge
6. Eric Brown Skate Plaza at 141 Catoctin Circle SE, Leesburg
7. Schuyler Hamilton Jones Skatepark at 3540 Wheeler Ave., Alexandria
8. SkatePark at Trailside Park at 1022 Crestview Drive, Herndon
9. Dulles South Skate Park at 24950 Riding Center Drive, Chantilly
10. Van Dyck Park at 3720 Old Lee Highway, Fairfax
Airey (2019-05-02). "Powhatan Springs Skate Park Officially Opens". ARLnow.com. Archived from the original on 2019-11-23. Retrieved 2019-11-23.
The article notes:
The Powhatan Springs Skate Park will officially open this weekend, officials say.
Hood, John (2019-04-23). "Valley skate park closed until further notice". WHSV-TV. Archived from the original on 2019-11-23. Retrieved 2019-11-23.
The article notes:
The Stanley Police Department has closed the town's skate park until further notice because of vandalism over the weekend, which it says has made the skate park unsafe.
Police say it's the second time this month that Ed Good Memorial Park has been vandalized. Earlier in April, three teenagers were charged with trespassing, after damaging Easter decorations in the park after it had closed.
"Skateparks of the 1970s". Skateboarding Heritage Foundation. 2019-03-31. Archived from the original on 2019-11-23. Retrieved 2019-11-23.
The article notes:
Directory courtesy of Craig B. Snyder, from A Secret History of the Ollie, Vol. 1: The 1970s (Black Salt Press).
...
This directory is divided into two sections. The first section is the United States, in alphabetical order by state, and the second section is all other countries, in alphabetical order by country. Parks that are listed in orange type means they are still active. Last update: 2019-03-31
The article notes:
Virginia

Concrete Pipeline, Virginia Beach
Flow Motion Skatepark, Richmond
Glass Glider, Roanoke
Mount Trashmore, Virginia Beach
Skate Mall Wall, Springfield
Skate World, Alexandria
Skate World West, Springfield
Skatepark of Norfolk, Norfolk
Skateworld, Alexandria
The Skateboard Park, Norfolk
Thunderbowl, Virginia Beach
"Best Of The D.C.-Area's Skate Parks". WAMU. 2016-05-11. Archived from the original on 2019-11-23. Retrieved 2019-11-23.
The article includes:
1. Powhatan Springs Skatepark at 6020 Wilson Blvd. in Arlington, VA.
2. Wakefield Skate Park at 8100 Braddock Rd. Annandale, VA.
Hornaday, Michelle. "Skate Parks in Virginia". USA Today. Leaf Group. Archived from the original on 2019-11-23. Retrieved 2019-11-23.
The article lists:
1. Rotary Centennial Riverfront Skate Park
2. Roanoke Skate Park
3. Falling Creek Park
4. McIntire Skate Park
5. McIntire Skate Park
6. Yowell Meadow Park
7. Mike's Skate Park
8. Skate High
9. Laurel Skate Park

Cunard (talk) 00:31, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Soft Merge With only one third party source in the article, this should be given a soft merge to another article (preserving the history of this article). Samboy (talk) 15:24, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Skateparks in Virginia. Hyperbolick (talk) 18:35, 29 November 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:10, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Angel Oquendo[edit]

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

A biography of an actor, unsourced except to IMDb (which is not WP:RS) since 2007. A WP:BEFORE search turned up several people of the same name, including a basketball player, a lawyer, a pediatrician, a boxer and a model, but nothing RS about the actor. All his roles seem to have been small. Fails WP:NACTOR, WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 13:55, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:59, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:59, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:12, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:12, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - he seems to be getting better roles as time goes on, and there is a Variety listing suggesting bare notability, but it may still be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Bearian (talk) 14:36, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. His roles have stayed small, so small that he isn't even mentioned in the reviews of the works that he is in. With no leading or even secondary featured roles, he fails WP:NACTOR. I see no indication of him ever becoming notable later either through any press releases on upcoming projects. This is just a minor actor with nothing indicating notability.4meter4 (talk) 08:15, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:27, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:45, 21 November 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 13:53, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Algebraic formula for the variance[edit]

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

This is a fork of content already at Variance. As far as I can find, there's nothing here that's not already covered at the main article, nor is there any apparent benefit to splitting this off into a separate article. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:42, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:42, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:42, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Redundant content as already mentioned, but the search term as a redirect back to variance wouldn't even really be suitable as it's extremely unlikely someone would search this instead of just typing in variance, std. dev., etc. to get the information. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:19, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The assertion that this is "extremely unlikely" is not supported by evidence. The page in question actually gets a significant number of readers – over 50 per day, which is higher than average. Also, redundancy is addressed by merger, not by deletion per WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Andrew D. (talk) 12:39, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You mentioned WP:REDUNDANTFORK, but WP:Deletion Policy specifically says (WP:DEL-REASON #5) that content forks are a valid reason for deletion unless a merger or redirect is more appropriate. It's been claimed that neither is appropriate here. For the merge question, I've asked for more detail below. And for redirecting, it's reasonable to suspect that those page views come from places where this article is linked directly. We can use our common sense that people aren't searching for this instead of just the plain "variance". If you or someone else feels that a redirect is really appropriate, then make a new redirect after deleting. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:06, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If the page is linked to elsewhere then we should maintain those links rather than breaking them. If people are coming here as a result of searches then it seems likely that this is because they specifically want a formula for the variance rather than a more general page. The variance page is unlikely to help them because its talk page and archives indicate that most readers find it incomprehensible. Andrew D. (talk) 15:51, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redundant. HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 22:31, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The main article variance is quite large – over 50K with many sections. There's quite a lot to say as calculation of variances is problematic and so we have another large page about this - algorithms for calculating variance. As this is a vital topic, it naturally attracts a lot of attention and so we should be careful not to disrupt development by over-zealous deletion. See WP:ATD; WP:NOTPAPER and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 09:51, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew Davidson: What content are you proposing to merge exactly? It's certainly possible I overlooked something, but the whole point was that I couldn't find anything significant that's not already covered. Why do you think deleting this is going to disrupt development of anything? –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:06, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The most important content which would be preserved by such merger is the edit history. If you examine this, as required by WP:BEFORE, you find that the page started as computational formula for the variance. Around 2013, there were some attempts at restructuring and these include edits which said they were merging content into algorithms for calculating variance. When content is merged like that, it is our policy to maintain the edit history as attribution – see WP:MAD, which explains the matter in detail. Deletion disrupts our record of contributions because the history is then not visible to editors or readers. Andrew D. (talk) 15:51, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Edit history is not content. Nothing in this was merged elsewhere – an attempt to do so was immediately reverted. A vote of "merge" makes no sense if there's nothing to merge. Maybe you want "redirect", but as pointed out above, this isn't a useful redirect, and there aren't any attribution reasons to keep the edit history. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:13, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An unneeded fork, and something of an unlikely search term. I suppose redirect instead of delete would be alright (cheap etc etc), but I hope we are not seeing the birth of yet another "preserve at all costs" argument here - a pretty edit history. We are not building a museum of article writing, but a functional (and at least marginally streamlined) encyclopedia. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:47, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's an unnecessary fork of variance, and not even a logical one. The variance of a random variable is defined by an algebraic formula, so "algebraic formula for the variance" isn't the kind of material that could or should be split off. ("History" could be, in principle, if there were more of it than the one line and one quotation currently there.) XOR'easter (talk) 22:04, 26 November 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 Homeopathy#Preparations and treatment. Tone 14:45, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Homeopathic Materia Medica[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

More than half of this short article is devoted to the necessary qualification that homeopathy is nonsense, and a discussion of its invention. The balance, still, over a decade since its creation and previous AfD, is nothing more than a dictionary definition. The search term is valid, but I think this should be turned into a redirect to the parent article, which is much more comprehensive and already includes this concept in more context. All this article does is add disappointment by explaining no more than the only article that directly references it, and that with less context, really because there's no more to say. Guy (help!) 13:27, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 13:31, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 13:31, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to homeopathy per nom, no evidence of stand-alone notability. IntoThinAir (talk) 15:06, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. Homeopathy#Preparations and treatment seems like the most relevant section that explains the phrase. I'm not opposed to landing on just the page title. --mikeu ^talk 22:29, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 10:25, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom and IntoThinAir. GirthSummit _(blether) 07:24, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 14:46, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eli Nachmany[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sources include a campus newspaper and "Her Campus" and mentions are trivial. Colestefan (talk) 12:14, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 12:31, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 12:31, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:01, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - low level staffer: not subject to Senate confirmation, coverage is routine, and is literally one of hundreds of Trump staff who have left in the past three years as everything he touches dies. Bearian (talk) 17:06, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 14:47, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Digify[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NCORP. WP is not a listing site. Störm (talk) 12:11, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 12:33, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 12:33, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 12:34, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - another run of the mill company. We are not a web host for company web pages; a mere listing at Bloomberg or WSJ does not constitute significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 17:00, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 14:47, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Memopal[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NCORP. WP is not a listing site. Störm (talk) 12:09, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 12:35, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 12:35, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 12:35, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 12:35, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One amongst thousands. scope_creep^Talk 13:07, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the topic fails WP:NCORP Taewangkorea (talk) 18:15, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 14:47, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DriveHQ[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NCORP. Störm (talk) 12:08, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 12:09, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 12:09, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 12:09, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - another run of the mill company. We are not a web host for company web pages; a mere listings in industry journals do not constitute significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 17:02, 25 November 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 (Is This the Way to) Amarillo. czar 15:47, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is This the Way to Armadillo[edit]

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

Article is not notable and none of the links work anymore. Hardly relevant to UK Defence. BlueD954 (talk) 11:52, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 11:55, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 11:55, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 11:57, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 11:57, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or (EDIT:flipped to Merge only per WP:COVERSONG) Merge to (Is This the Way to) Amarillo. The subject is notable per WP:NSONG, specifically, this song has been the subject of "multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label" in reliable sources. Particularly, it was covered by the BBC, the Guardian, as well as other reliable sources (see, e.g., 1 2 3). Alternatively, per WP:EVENT, this spoof has been the subject of sustained coverage in reliable sources (the coverage in "Sousveillance, Media and Strategic Political Communication: Iraq, USA, UK" comes from 2010 - five years after the original coverage in the BBC/Guardian articles). I could also accept merging to (Is This the Way to) Amarillo per WP:COVERSONG ~~but I think it's not needed in this case because of the event-like nature of the subject~~. FOARP (talk) 12:52, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I fail to see any articles. BlueD954 (talk) 14:37, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I linked them in my response - see 1, 2 and 3. FOARP (talk) 16:31, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to (Is This the Way to) Amarillo. This was very big at the time (I remember it well), even if it's since disappeared. No reason for a standalone article, but the info should be preserved. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:04, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just because you remember the song, doesn't mean the spoof with dead links is notable for Wikipedia. BlueD954 (talk) 14:37, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The point is clearly that it was big news at the time in the UK. Given that, I fail to see why you want it deleted instead of being merged. And here it is. Not hard to find. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:57, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:05, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to (Is This the Way to) Amarillo since the sources found by FOARP indicate a limited amount of notability and the information and sources could be moved into the redirect target. Aoba47 (talk) 22:12, 21 November 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 13:47, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Husky beagle[edit]

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

The second source is completely misattributed and a Google search finds nothing attributable. Cavalryman (talk) 11:41, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Two "references" only. The Encyclopedia Britannica reference makes no mention of this dog so it can be discounted. The other reference is supposedly in the dogs of the Iditarod, which is equally doubtful because a search in Google Books on this dog does not furnish this book, nor any book! A Google search brings up four unWP:RELIABLE "my-little-doggie" type websites, which probably gave rise to this article. William Harristalk 12:14, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:15, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The AKC recognizes 193 breeds so I suppose there are about 37,000 theoretical cross-breeds among them (minus chihuahua–great dane, etc. I suppose). Very, very few of them need a separate article beyond a listing at List of dog crossbreeds. Reywas92^Talk 18:07, 21 November 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 18:51, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Roux[edit]

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

He receives passing mention in news articles (because he is serving as a spokesperson) but none of the significant coverage required for WP:BASIC Nblund^talk 00:55, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nblund^talk 00:55, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Nblund^talk 00:55, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Nblund^talk 00:55, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Nblund^talk 00:55, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Comment - Each Wikipedia has its own guidelines, but for context, this article was previously deleted from French Wikipedia: fr:Discussion:Éric Roux/Suppression. It appears both article were created by the same editor, meaning the English language article was created after the French one had already been deleted.

Additionally, there is some odd behavior from a closely-knit group of editors involved in this article, and other CESNUR-related articles, across multiple Wikipedia projects (such as es:Bitter Winter). This raises WP:COI concerns, which I have mentioned on the article's talk page. Hence the !vote template. Grayfell (talk) 02:30, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I don't think the article should be deleted at all. Eric Roux is well known as a religious leader and an activist, at least in Europe. This is backed up by several valid and reliable sources that you can find on Internet (whatever you may think of him or of Scientology). He is described as "unique amongst Church of Scientology representatives" by scholar Donald Westbrook in SAGE Journals, “The Art of PR War: Scientology, the Media, and Legitimation Strategies for the 21st Century” https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0008429818769404. SAGE journal is definitely a well recognized academic source. He also has several pages about him in Journal of CESNUR in an article written by Professor Bernadette Rigall-Cellard. I know you seem to have problems with Journal of CESNUR, but beside the fact that their editorial board is made of well internationally recognized scholars in the field of new religions, Bernadette Rigall-Cellard is Full Professor of North American Studies at Bordeaux Montaigne University in France. She directs the Masters "Religions and Societies" and the Center for Canadian Studies. She is a specialist in contemporary North American religions https://www.u-bordeaux-montaigne.fr/fr/recherche/equipes_de_recherche/climas.html?param=184:81:brigal.

You can also find dozens of newspaper articles and TV interviews featuring Eric Roux in his capacity of spokesperson for the Church of Scientology, but also as a religious freedom activist. He wrote several books and chapters in academic publications that have been reviewed and covered by medias, and just recently, as an example, he appears as one of the authors in the book "religious minorities in France" published by one of the biggest French publishing house FAYARD: See here

Now, even if as said above, he would only be well-known as a spokesperson for the Church of Scientology, this in itself a source of notability which makes it worth to have an article. The significant coverage by independent sources is definitely sufficient.--Le luxembourgeois (talk) 10:20, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:BASIC notability guideline for people states that we need significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Westbrook has a one paragraph mention in a solid source. The CESNUR source is a book review from a person who is already a member of CESNUR's editorial board. I don't think this rises above the level of a WP:SELFPUBLISHED article, and so it really doesn't make a dent in terms of notability. Nblund^talk 16:58, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Setting aside the strange issues above, being "unique amongst Church of Scientology representatives..." is not a clear claim to notability by itself. This uniqueness may be sort of interesting to someone, or not, but it's not a claim to notability. Passing mentions are insufficient. We are interested in reliable, independent sources with at least some depth. Grayfell (talk) 01:55, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The point is not that the text says that he is unique. It is that he is known enough to have a page on him by a scholar in SAGE, and the text on him has definitely some depth. Then as regards CESNUR source, first of all, it is not a "book review". Whilst the book review also exists, I was talking about an article of 100 pages by Bernadette Rigal Cellard called "The Visible Expansion of the Church of Scientology and Its Actors"(https://cesnur.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/tjoc_3_1_2_rigal-cellard.pdf). If you read the article, you find at least three pages at different places describing the work of Eric Roux. I understand you have a problem with CESNUR. But then you must also take into consideration the credentials of the author. Bernadette Rigal Cellard is a Full Professor in a major French University. There, she chairs the Master "Religion and Society". She is well recognized by her pairs. In the article, there is definitely some depth about the way she describes Eric Roux, with many details that also show the notability. It makes it a reliable source. And as regards CESNUR, please let me respectfully notice that the two only persons that have selected the article for deletion and joined in support for deletion, are both engaged in a systematic attack on all articles linked with CESNUR, and the second has been called by the first to intervene... (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Grayfell#CESNUR) That is their right but does not help in terms of neutrality. You think it's not reliable, I think it is, due to the quality of the contributors and their credentials in the field they are touching upon. So we can't reach a consensus. In addition, when you are checking neutrality, you also have to use common sense. Just today, I checked on the web and I found this article published yesterday: https://www.neweurope.eu/article/hijab-controversy-roils-france-again/, in which Eric Roux is interviewed, not as a leader of the Church of Scientology, but as "President of the European Interreligious Forum for Religious Freedom and a well-known activist in the field of freedom of religion or belief" to comment on the French controversy on Muslim veil and the French government comments about it. New Europe is one of the biggest 10 magazines of the Brussels-EU area. That for example tells about notability. Moreover when you add it to the dozens of interviews, mentions, that you can find in national newspapers from various countries, as well as national TV chanels. I hope this helps.--Le luxembourgeois (talk) 08:33, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Unfortunately CESNUR has a negative reputation for making publications that contain bias and/or conflict of interest. Do to that reputation, it doesn't lend any credibility to a notability discussion at AFD. That's not the author's fault, but that is the reality of publishing in a disreputable journal per WP:Verifiability. Regardless, even if we were to include the journal article, there just isn't any references where the author himself is the main subject of the article. Being the public mouth piece of an organization, and occassionally getting quoted because of your PR role doesn't make you notable. There's also not enough citations/critical reviews of his work overall to satisfy WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 15:37, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To generate a clearer consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 16:53, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Le luxembourgeois: I haven't "systematically attacked" anything, and if you would like to discuss questions about user conduct, you should take those concerns to my user page or to a relevant noticeboard. The interview in NewEurope is "supported content" which is paid for by the Faith and Freedom Summit Coalition, which is affiliated with Roux's own group. Content syndication efforts like this exist to make obscure people and events look important, they are little better than advertising, and they really don't carry any meaningful weight because they aren't independent. Nblund^talk 20:26, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I think that keeping it is a question of common sense. Notability can also be regarded as notability in a specific field. If not, you would only have superstars in Wikipedia. WP:BASIC lists the criteria for notability. The basic criteria are "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". For these we have at least two published academic secondary source, one being discussed regarding its reliability (because it is published in the academic Journal of CESNUR, which some consider not reliable, and some reliable). I argue that the one of CESNUR is reliable, also because of the credentials of the author (see above). Is the coverage significant? I think yes, based on the General Notability Guidelines [20]: ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." The two sources meet this definition.

Then you have additional criteria. There is no specific category for religious leaders, but I think we could process by analogy to the category "Politicians and Judges". "The following are presumed to be notable: • Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or sub-national (e.g., province- or state-wide) office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels.[12] This also applies to people who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them. • Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.

Based on this analogy, Eric Roux would meet both of the criteria. As regards his press coverage, you can easily find articles and National TV shows featuring him, whether in France, Belgium or even the US, during more than 10 years. He is the most visible and notable representative of the Church of Scientology in Europe.

In addition, if you go on Google Scholars [21] you find his work but also works from academics mentioning him.

I think that if you compare also to another religion, as Catholicism, you find articles on many of the Apostolic Nuncios. See here for France for example, one of them (the former one) [22] for which references are only coming from the Vatican. No secondary sources at all.

For me, there is no doubt that the notability is established beyond question.--Le luxembourgeois (talk) 19:10, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are only repeated yourself Le luxembourgeois. The RS just is simply not there for the subject to meet WP:GNG and the CESNUR source does not meet wikipedia's requirements at WP:Verifiability no matter how you try to spin it. His academic hits at Google Scholar are relatively very small (FYI that link you shared is not specific enough for all the hits to be related to Eric Roux, and looking through those sources which do cite them, many of the sources in the search are questionable publications). There's just nothing here that is convincing.4meter4 (talk) 16:20, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm basically giving arguments and reasonings. It's too easy to just say: "this is not reliable, period", "this is questionnable, period".But it's not an argument. You deny CESNUR as a source but can't argue with the author of the source, and I gave the reasons why this should be also taken into consideration. In addition, I gave other reasons for which I think notability is established. You mention WP:Verifiability, and actually the page gives you what is not a reliable source: "poor reputation checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest.[9] Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional, or that rely heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor or personal opinion." This is not the case of CESNUR (whether we like CESNUR or not), this is not the case of the author of the article cited and this is not the case of the article itself. Same for the article in SAGE. Not speaking about the mainstream medias featuring him. You say that his academy hits at Google Scholar are relatively small. Fine. But if you add academic secondary sources, mainstream national and international medias, the analogy to the category "Politicians and Judges", the hits on google scholars, the comparison I made with Catholic nuncios, etc., and a bit of common sense, I guess you can find out that there is notability here per WP:GNG. --Le luxembourgeois (talk) 08:39, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Le luxembourgeois, I would argue that CESNUR does lack meaningful editorial oversite because of the conflict of interest problems with the publication as stated above. Constantly repeating yourself, talking in circles, and claiming things aren't problems when they are doesn't solve the issues. This is a very cut and dry case, no matter how much you are trying to deny that it isn't. The google scholar hits are either only tangential/passing mentions of quotes by Eric Roux, or are in questionable publications that lack meaningful editorial oversite. There are no sources where he is the main subject. There is no good RS here.4meter4 (talk) 19:01, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the problem is that I'm sorry to say, but it seems you don't read what I wrote. Example, as regards you saying "no source where he is the main subject", I already answered to this by quoting General Notability Guidelines [23]: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." For the rest I let you re-read what I wrote and all the arguments that have not been answered.--Le luxembourgeois (talk) 09:54, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have read what you have written and I have read the sources. I disagree with your assessment that they constitute significant coverage. We are not of the same opinion. It's that simple.4meter4 (talk) 10:19, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that. We are not of the same opinion. It's that simple.--Le luxembourgeois (talk) 10:37, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Leaning to delete; concern that the RS quoted does no meet GNG (and particularly CESNUR); try one last re-list
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 21:06, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per 4meter4, fails WP:SIGCOV, there's just not enough sourcing to do justice to a bio. Additionally, CESNUR is usually not a RS. Feoffer (talk) 22:56, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Other evidences of notability and some remarks on CESNUR:

• CESNUR has an editorial board which is composed of renowned scholars. Even if some of them are deemed "controversial", they are not so in the academic world. Even Massimo Introvigne is recognized as one of the best scholars in the field of new religions. He has been occupying the function of Representative of the OSCE on Combating Racism, Xenophobia and Discrimination, was appointed chairperson of the Observatory of Religious Liberty of the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, etc. Antoine Faivre is one of most renowned scholar on esoterism in France. Etc.

• Sources include an article in SAGE journal, which has not been contested at all (even if removed from the article with no reason) https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0008429818769404.

• Other example, one academic source in the website of the Lund University: http://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?func=downloadFile&recordOId=8875480&fileOId=8875481, one page on Eric Roux.

• Mainstream Media coverage: In France, dozens of articles, for example: https://www.la-croix.com/Monde/Europe/L-Eglise-scientologie-rehabilitee-justice-belge-2016-04-28-1200756546. In Belgium, dozens of articles, TV shows: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6iGSM9Pu64, on the official account of the French Parliament (2 hours interview): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzUOIl3PMFA, on M6: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16fOe-jji04, in Belgium on the RTBF: https://www.rtbf.be/tv/article/detail_devoir-d-enquete-sur-l-eglise-de-scientologie?id=9106539, etc., you can find dozens of others by yourself. I know these medias are not making him the subject of their report per se, but invite him as an official of the CoS, but this shows his notability, as I said above, he is the most well-known and notable Church of Scientology's official in Europe. --Le luxembourgeois (talk) 10:36, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

— Duplicate vote: Le luxembourgeois (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.[reply]

Comment. SAGE is not a journal but a publishing company that produces a large body of different academic publications. For those wanting to review the article Le luxembourgeois is referring to see: "The Art of PR War: Scientology, the Media, and Legitimation Strategies for the 21st Century" from the journal Studies in Religion / Sciences Religieuses, 2018, Vol. 47(3) 373–395. I will be providing my own analysis shortly.4meter4 (talk) 15:46, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I have struck my delete vote above. The article from Studies in Religion / Sciences Religieuses is a better reference (I have access through my university library). It's author is a leading researcher on Scientology with a prominent book publication on the religion by Oxford University Press. Roux is the center of a case study in the article. That in conjunction with the other media sources just provided by Le luxembourgeois just barely squeaks by WP:SIGCOV. I was initially inclined to change to weak delete but in reality that opinion would be WP:IDONTLIKEIT out of my own bias. The coverage does in the end meet the standard of GNG. @Le luxembourgeois: I strongly urge you to strike your double vote and not repeat yourself in AFDs. Such behavior often causes other reviewers to vote against you rather than for you because it is considered bad etiquette. It only weakens your argument. You may add new evidence to discussions with the word "comment". The added evidence did persuade me to change my vote. This is the best way to conduct yourself in AFDs. Let the evidence speak for itself.4meter4 (talk) 16:14, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice @4meter4:. I had not realized it would be a double vote. I changed it to "comment" and made some changes.--Le luxembourgeois (talk) 18:20, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per 4meter4. I don't seem to have access to the article ("The Art of PR War: Scientology, the Media, and Legitimation Strategies for the 21st Century"), but being the centre of a case study in combination with the other mentions makes me think this is a notable subject. /Julle (talk) 23:50, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist before action is taken
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 11:29, 21 November 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 18:50, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Avital Inbar[edit]

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

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

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

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

Not seeing any notability. Slatersteven (talk) 14:00, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:32, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:32, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Slatersteven does not see any "notability", perhaps because he is not familiar with the person: With 186,000 google search results, 192 books he wrote or translated, dozens of articles in leading newspapers and magazines, he is a household name in Israel. A few months ago, he received an honorary French citizenship for gis contribution to French culture. Perhaps user Slatersteven could provide a more concrete reason with his request to remove this article? --רמי נוידרפר (talk) 18:19, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

— רמי נוידרפר (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and this XFD page. There's an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rami Neudorfer. Cabayi (talk) 11:01, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Full Disclosure: I have been using Inbar's travel books for years in my travels to France. They are read like novels. Some of his translations, such as that to "Les Miserables" by Hugo are masterpieces.

Then it should not be hard to provide two RS that give in depth coverage of him.Slatersteven (talk) 18:20, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "two RS:? There is the Hebrew Wikipedia, which I did not write, and many other sources look at the list of publications in NLI, the interview in Haaretz and more --רמי נוידרפר (talk) 19:18, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikis are not RS, please read wp:rs.Slatersteven (talk) 09:58, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Added an English reference for this very prolific French/Hebrew author and translator. Added link to Hebrew article. There are many sources for him in Israeli media which could be added to this article. Havradim (talk) 01:03, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a prolific written and translator with many of the titles appearing in mainstream publishers (as opposed to obscure ones or self published), even ignoring French Government awards that should be enough for notability. DGtal (talk) 06:22, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then how about some sources?Slatersteven (talk) 09:58, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

192 books written or translated by him in Israeli national Library is not a source for you? Dozens of articles about him are not enough? 92 Mentions in Google books in English don't count? 120 mentions in Google books in Hebrew? look at this [24] --רמי נוידרפר (talk) 11:08, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Read wp:n, we need RS noting him, not me.Slatersteven (talk) 11:14, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link to Avital Inbar Articles in Travel Journal in Israel called 'Masa Aher': [25] it shows Avital Inbar's broad influence on global culinary knowledge and its exposure to the public in Israel can be seen, and thus its impact on Israeli food culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlnoa (talk • contribs) 15:35, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

— Rlnoa (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and this XFD page. There's an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rami Neudorfer. Cabayi (talk) 11:01, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To generate more engagement in AfD
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 17:37, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please review references added next to the awards in the Awards section. Two of the awards have corresponding pages on Wikipedia, however I am unclear at this time as to how to update those with reliable sources and if these uploaded references suffice. David Hary (talk) 22:00, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

— Davidhary (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and this XFD page. There's an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rami Neudorfer. Cabayi (talk) 11:01, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, David Hary has contributed to this article and no other. I replied to Cabayi assertion that I might be doing so in collusion with another editor. Indeed, it seems that that User:Rami Neudorfer has a second account under his Hebrew name. While potentially an issue, could this be investigated separately of this particular topic? Specifically what additional material could be provided to ascertain the notability of Mr. Inbar. Obviously, I am not sure if my editing help solidify the case for notability and would welcome any assistance Cabayi, Slatersteven or other could offer. Obviously, too, our time is precious--we can spend so much time on this. Thank you. David —Preceding undated comment added 17:25, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

We need multiple RS talking about him in some depth..Slatersteven (talk) 17:30, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have to ask do any editors here have any connection to or know Mr Inbar?Slatersteven (talk) 17:33, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have known Mr. Inbar for over 40 years. I have read and my library included many of his books. I read and included reviews of his work as links, lists, and references. Not all reviews are available on line but once the case is settled it would be a good time to clean the topic to its essence. I added the couple of Citations as Slatersteven requested. That said, I have little vested interested in this topic other than hoping justice is done in Mr. Inbar's case. Obviously, his contributions, as important as they are to me, may not rise to the level deemed important by Wikipedia. This is for the process to determine. On my end, I spend quite a bit of time on this and am prepared to put in a bit more if this might help. Slatersteven let me know. Clearly I appreciate the time editors take to review and make informed decisions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidhary (talk • contribs) 19:06, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:39, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A WP:BEFORE doesn’t establish notability for the author. Fails WP:GNG no in-depth significant coverage of the author or his work in WP:RS. Celestina007 (talk) 15:36, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Most quality RS appears to be in French and not English. This says he was awarded the Ordre des Arts et des Lettres which is a major achievement. Any WP:BEFORE done only in English is not convincing, and likely the best RS on this subject is in French or maybe even Hebrew.4meter4 (talk) 02:14, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The last resist before action is taken
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 11:26, 21 November 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 18:45, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stini[edit]

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

Non-notable band. No coverage, no fans. Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 09:22, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:29, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:29, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Er, @Scope creep:, Stini is not a band. She's a female singer. And I don't understand what you mean by "no fans". How did you come to this conclusion, and why is it relevant? Ss112 10:11, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The artist has no coverage on Instagram, Spotify, Youtube, Twitter, Soundcloud or Google generally. Some minor coverage relating to her first release but nothing else that can be called in-depth and intellectually independent. scope_creep^Talk 10:26, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - On the basis of WP:GNG. Two major sources in the article from AllHipHop, a news release with details about Stini and an interview with her. There's also a short but non-trivial source from The Source, here, which discusses Stini's recent single release. I have also found this interview with Iggy Azalea - admittedly only a couple of brief comments but more than a passing mention. It's not loads but I think sufficient to establish notability. WJ94 (talk) 10:38, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We are not on the basis of WP:GNG. We are using the notability criteria WP:MUSICBIO and WP:SIGCOV which is a higher standard of notability. The first is not in-depth, merely a name drop. The third one is an interview with Iggy Azalea that mentions Stini a couple of times and her plans to work with her. The second one is not much better. scope_creep^Talk 10:58, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ShelbyMarion: Can you give me your views on this Afd please. I notice the singer is also using the Empire service. Thanks. scope_creep^Talk 11:11, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response Scope Creep; however, I disagree. Firstly, WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG are the same thing, so my !vote on the basis of GNG is a direct response to your claim regarding SIGCOV. Second, point 1 of WP:MUSICBIO is "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself." This is basically a restatement of GNG (which implies that any music article which meets GNG automatically meets MUSICBIO too), and therefore my !vote implicitly responded to your point about MUSICBIO. WJ94 (talk) 11:41, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I would kindly ask that your refrain from editing my comments, as you did here. You are welcome to disagree with me but please do not alter my comments. WJ94 (talk) 11:45, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Finally (sorry for the multiple posts), to respond to your evaluation of the sources I presented. The first is more than a name drop, and offers a number of details about Stini across two paragraphs. The second is a full length interview with an important music website. The third is admittedly smaller but I contend non-trivial news release from another important music website. And the fourth (the interview with Iggy Azalea) does only mention Stini a couple of times (on its own it wouldn't achieve GNG) but there are some comments about Stini that go beyond a passing mention (see the question "Aside from yourself, who are some females killing it in music?"). WJ94 (talk) 11:52, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WJ94, I never altered your comments. I would never alter anybodies comment, ever. scope_creep^Talk 12:56, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WJ94, Sorry about that. I think I must have meant to copy it, instead it's cut it. scope_creep^Talk 13:00, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The three supposed references are trivial and are indicative of a fail in WP:SIGCOV. The last is an announcement and is not worth talking about as its non-rs. The whole lot adds up to about 2-3 lines of A4. Hardly the in-depth required of a BLP. scope_creep^Talk 03:01, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To get a clearer consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 17:01, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is still not a whisper of coverage on this band in the almost three weeks it has been opened. On Youtube, she has "Stini 758 subscribers" for her song Proud. Nothing on any other social media channel. She is signed to Bad Dreams Records which is off of Empire Distribution which is a self-distributor. So Bad Dreams Records is her own label, so she is not even signed. All indicative of a new singer with no coverage, no fans and not notable. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. scope_creep^Talk 11:36, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:SIGCOV. This is a case of WP:TOOSOON.4meter4 (talk) 02:04, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 11:25, 21 November 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. No objection to draftifying on on request. MBisanz ^talk 13:53, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nathoo Khan[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO. Störm (talk) 12:13, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:03, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:03, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify I would like to work on all 4 sarangi players' articles listed here. See my earlier comment above. Thanks Ngrewal1 (talk) 19:31, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. Article creator wants to keep working on collecting RS before moving into mainspace. I see no reason to discourage Ngrewal1 from such work.4meter4 (talk) 01:44, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the author is Dommiraubi... now that you're been pinged, can you say if you want to make this a draft? UnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 02:38, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 11:25, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO. If anyone would like to expand it, do it in your sandbox. The article is too short to be called stub and for someone who do not know what "Sarangi" is, the article raises more question than serving the purpose as an encyclopedia - Jay (talk) 08:40, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 14:47, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nabi Bakhsh Khan[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 12:13, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:04, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:04, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move it to draft space Please see my earlier comment here. Thanks Ngrewal1 (talk) 19:39, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. Article creator want to keep trying to collect RS in draft space. I see no reason to discourage Ngrewal1 from such a pursuit.4meter4 (talk) 01:45, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 11:25, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable source here. Searches do not find any RSs. Very little point in moving to draft if there are no sources to be found. Author could easily copy it back to his own device and restart it if and when multiple reliable sources appear. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 11:27, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Fails WP:GNG.--S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 19:20, 27 November 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. (non-admin closure) ∯WBG^converse 15:41, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ustad Ghulam Mohammed Khan[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 12:09, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regretful delete - This man appears to have been most notable as the teacher of Noor Jehan, however, none of the sources give anything more than a fleeting reference. FOARP (talk) 12:54, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:04, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:04, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable identity? Is the above article really about the music teacher of notable Pakistani singer Noor Jehan or about the noted sarangi player Ghulam Muhammad? For example shown here on this Independent Reliable Music Source - sarangi.info - North Indian Classical Music Archive Ghulam Muhammad (sarangi player). Appears to me this article creator has been lately creating several NEW articles about notable sarangi players without first adequately giving enough information about his subject person (no mention of Noor Jehan in his created article) or using References that are considered Unreliable by this Discussion Forum's nominator. So they end up here for Deletion. Are we going round and round in circles? Create and Delete...Create more and Delete even more? Is that the story of Wikipedia now? Frankly, I am hoping for someone from Wikipedia staff to step in and clarify this, please. I mean it sincerely and I don't mean to blame the Article Creator here or the Deletion Nominator. To FOARP above, I totally agree with your above comment "Regretful delete", if it's Noor Jehan's music teacher indeed. I would like to ask you maybe you saw something in your GoogleSearch that I did not see to make the Noor Jehan connection. Please feel free to leave a link here or on my Talk page, I am willing and find it worth my time to spend some time on Noor Jehan's music teacher's article.

By the way, I did run into this Pakistani newspaper The Friday Times article where Noor Jehan talks about her music teacher Ghulam Muhammad in a newspaper interview...(Noor Jehan) Malika-e-Tarannum speaks...Ngrewal1 (talk) 01:11, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dommiraubi As a fellow Pakistani music enthusiast, I do fully appreciate you creating these NEW articles for very notable sarangi players of Pakistan. I would love to contribute to them, if they survive on this Discussion Forum!!! There, now I have shown my true feelings about it. Ngrewal1 (talk) 01:45, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I assume they are the same person as they use the same full name in the article. As I said my delete is regretful - I think it entirely possible that there is Pakistani newspaper coverage from the 50's, 60's, and 70's that might help, but this is not accessible online. FOARP (talk) 08:32, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that online news coverage is not accessible going back to the 1950s and 1960s. Only the CREATOR of the above original article knows who he/she wrote this article for. Really it's their choice to step forward and say something to remove the confusion. It's awkward for me to be guessing back and forth here. He/she can also choose to include some more info in their created article even now. Ngrewal1 (talk) 18:05, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since nobody is stepping forward to provide more info, I would like to ask here to Move it to draft space . I would like to have some time to work on it. In 2018, I was able to significantly improve two other sarangi players' articles - Allah Rakha (sarangi) and Bundu Khan. In the past, I only know how to create new articles and move them directly onto Wikipedia main space. I have never first worked from the Draft space. If I am allowed to work on this article, I ask that someone leave some helpful links on my Talk page so I can access this article and then work on it. Ngrewal1 (talk) 19:21, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify, per Ngrewal1. No reason not to let someone keep working on it if they volunteer, even if it can't stay in the article space. /Julle (talk) 23:56, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify, per Ngrewal1.4meter4 (talk) 01:41, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 11:24, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as i have added the references now. Memon KutianaWala (talk) 12:11, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks so much Memon KutianaWala for adding the references. it's refreshing to finally see someone make an effort. In next few days, I'll try to add more info to the article without disturbing your references.Ngrewal1 (talk) 20:56, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sources are still bad, mentioning subject in passing. Pendragon0 (talk) 13:42, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per policy; as noted, offline sources are likley to exist, and so per WP:OFFLINE, we see no distinction between using online versus offline sources. Likewise, WP:OSO notes that placing the onus of notability onto online sources only is very much an argument to avoid. While the former is a supplement to one policy, and the latter an essay on another, these are useful guides in our negotiation of borderline, pre-http// topics. If the new references are deemed of sufficient quality then the closer can consider my !vote shifted to keep. ——SN 54129 13:58, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - FOARP, Ngrewal1, Serial Number 54129, Memon KutianaWala I reviewed my nomination and accordinglu rewritten the article. Memon KutianaWala, please add the Urdu sources (you said you have 5-10 sources in Urdu language) below as Ngrewal may review them for inclusion in the article.

I am still not convinced that he is notable as sources refer to many Ustad Ghulam Mohammad Khan, so whom we consider notable? One who invented surbahar and was from 19th-century, or one who was from Gaya, India, see Ustad Ghulam of Gaya. I was very confused but still tried to prove his notability. I don't know User_talk:Dommiraubi created this article for which Ustad Gulam Mohammad.

I found a new reference of Jang which I used to expand the article. But, still, this Ustad Gulam fails WP:NMUSICIAN, WP:SIGCOV. I think we should draftify this article for future development until it is ready for publication. Störm (talk) 12:04, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also they look different, see in this directory, and in this video (1:13) probably near 2000.

Comment Thanks Störm for spending some time on helping figure things out for all of us since the article creator did not remove the confusion to help us. I have read all the existing references at the article after you finished editing it. Seems to me, after watching the above given video added by you, that we need to obviously focus on one Ghulam Mohammed at a time. Anyone interested can easily create other Ghulam Mohammed articles later. So my best guess and thought is …. let's make this article about the sarangi player Ghulam Mohammed that the newspapers The Express Tribune, The News International or Daily Jang are talking about whose grandson is currently a sarangi player in Karachi. Then we need to forget about the connection to the music teacher of Noor Jehan who used to live and teach Noor Jehan in Lahore. Besides that Ghulam Mohammed was a vocalist musician teaching vocal singing to Noor Jehan. If you agree, then we might need to change the death date to an earlier time than 2000? Please let me know --Thanks Ngrewal1 (talk) 18:02, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will be happy if you make any helpful. This article will be drafted after which you are free to build it. Störm (talk) 18:24, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify I got a couple of passing hits, but this may be a case of Wikipedia's English language bias. So I will go for draft rather than delete.Slatersteven (talk) 12:15, 26 November 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. Article has been developed since nomination, with several reliable sources added. As noted in discussion, the article should be moved to MB-Lab, under which name the company is better known, and for which sources are easier to find. Discussion has moved to keep since article was rewritten and sources added. SilkTork (talk) 18:22, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ManuelbastioniLAB[edit]

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

Does not seem to meet WP:GNG, most sources I found in a quick google search are the creator of said software or users of it; additionally, the project is now defunct. Kb03 (talk) 01:16, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Kb03 (talk) 01:16, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:02, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:02, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment: Temporary strike of !vote due to large number of malware attacks from MB-Lab search links *Keep or Speedy keep: (and rename MB-Lab) The project is now defunct seems a complete untruth as has community continued under MB-Lab to which name the page should be updated. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:27, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: (See !re-vote below)*Keep or Speedy keep:(and rename MB-Lab). The project is not defunct as the nom claims however the main man withdrew his support and the community have taken over. @inbook{inbook, author = {Covre, Nicola and Nunnari, Fabrizio and Fornaser, Alberto and Cecco, Mariolino}, year = {2019}, month = {07}, pages = {23-42}, title = {Generation of Action Recognition Training Data Through Rotoscoping and Augmentation of Synthetic Animations}, isbn = {978-3-030-25998-3}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-030-25999-0_3} } is an additional reference not in the article. Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:36, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete That's really poor sourcing - those that aren't dead (and apparently originally in-house) are little press-release type blurbs. That's not in-depth coverage, nor is it critical. The above book reference appears to be the result of a blind Google Book search - care to demonstrate where in the text the program is even mentioned, outside of one reference link? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:00, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Given RL current family issues I'm not going to respond to the blind allegation but the article has been enhanced since the last comment to address concerns. The initial nomination had serious issues claiming the project was defunct which while arguably strictly accurate was for practical purposes incorrect, and the fact something no longer exists is not in itself a reason for a nomination. Strictly speaking something does not actually need to be mentioned in the text if it is referenced, but it relies on context. Given I currently have only paid access to Covre et. al. and I am not paying for it. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:32, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To get a clearer consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 16:55, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Not sure why people, who want to delete it, take their time to write reasons of lack of coverage, when they could have found articles like this one in a few seconds: https://www.digitalproduction.com/2019/07/24/open-source-character-creation-mit-mb-lab/

Secondly: Not sure why you people always want to delete stuff with a few thousand users, but never delete articles about e.g. plane designs, which had been manufactured only once (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown-Young_BY-1). That's pointless arbitrariness at best and repression of open source alternatives to paid software at worst. --82.206.28.66 (talk) 23:59, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Back on 25 October 2019 improving the article my adding sources rather than accusing the PRODer of vandalism would likely have been a more productive pathway. As your editing appears only in connection with this subject can you please confirm whether or not you have a WP:COI. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 02:58, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have no conflict of interest. Just a user of MB-Lab, who wanted to read more about it. In my opinion trying to delete this article is vandalism as it tries to remove valid knowledge for no good reason. To me it is a far greater indicator for conflict of interest to delete it than to keep it as there is proprietary, paid software, which obviously has a benefit in removing potential competitors from wikipedia.

Regarding my revert: You are right, I could have added my sources to Wikipedia, but I don't want to be part of this toxic, bureaucratic 'community' again in which adding knowledge (even when sourced and relevant) gets reverted and you'll find yourself ganged up by a bunch of opinionated people, who vote each other into positions of power and then bully people with arbitrary application of rules, when the new information doesn't 100% agree with their worldview. Even now I regret that I have even tried to prevent someone from expunging information he or she does not want to be visible here. --82.206.28.66 (talk) 04:03, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral: I have decided to withdraw my keep !vote and leave the fate here to others. Feel free to back out my attempts to improve the article which may have made things worse.Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:51, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If my comment changed your mind, I'm sorry. I'm only lamenting the pointless destruction of knowledge, which feels like book burning to me, while I respect the effort of adding and improving information and adding sources as you did. It's all subjective capriciousness around here and people keep e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Diplomacy just because some random editor likes it, while deleting (imho more relevant) articles like MB-Lab, just because someone wants to feel the dopamine rush of power and love to destroy the work of others to alleviate their boredom. --82.206.28.74 (talk) 13:57, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. The 'book burning' comparison might sound exaggerated, but I want you to look at the article contributions of the editor, who started this deletion:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=&limit=500&target=Kb03&namespace=0&tagfilter=&start=&end=

It's just rollbacks. Sometimes the user even rollbacks their own rollbacks. One might argue this is necessary, but please look at e.g. the 126 rollbacks on just 15 October 2019 or the 356 (!!!) rollbacks on 17 September 2019

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?target=Kb03&namespace=0&tagfilter=&start=2019-09-17&end=2019-09-17&limit=500&title=Special%3AContributions

To me this does not seem like constructive behavior. The 356 rollbacks on 17 September 2019 occurred in a span of 3 hours and 36 minutes. Even if we add another 3 hours of work before that we get one rollback every 71 seconds. It find it quite unbelievable that someone can read, evaluate and rollback (sourced) changes so quickly... and to me this seems like a user, who just loves destroying other people's work. I think it would be more productive to investigate this user instead of allowing him to continue their obsessive vandalism. But I'm not sure how to raise attention on Wikipedia to this nowadays and honestly I don't want to contribute to Wikipedia anymore because of users like Kb03. --82.206.28.74 (talk) 14:38, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 20:01, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom and Elmidae as failing WP:GNG. The behavior shown by the IP editor here is WP:NOTHERE style behavior. Crying WP:IQUIT does not accomplish anything, reading the rules and making a coherent argument does._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 09:25, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The argument was "topic was covered by a major industry site"

The only "not reading the rules" was me writing "vandalism" in the revert reason instead of reverting without reason and writing "vandalism" on the editor's talk page as Kb03 does all the time.

It's completely ridiculous to label my actions as WP:NOTHERE, when I was trying to prevent a topic from being deleted by someone who seems to be obsessed with destroying other people's work (prime example: Kb03's hundreds of rollbacks in one day). Even his reasoning is faulty:

Not only does Kb03 admit that he did only a quick google search, he even saw the relevant articles (why else would he write 'most sources' instead of 'all sources') and failed to communicate (I believe deliberately) that the project is NOT defunct as two of the top 10 google results mention the continuation of the project by the community.

Best case scenario: Kb03 is reckless. Worst case scenario: Kb03 is deliberately destructive.

So please address the points instead of claiming the argument does not exist. --82.206.30.76 (talk) 16:17, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Borderline case; try one last re-list
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 11:15, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As relisted 3rd time without guidance no little sensible comment can be made by me. Experienced admin will likely wade through this lot and article changes and just possibly go non-consensus keep so there can be a breather and a re-list at AfD in a couple of months. Delete will likely possibly result in WP:DRV by me. I can't be 100% sure relister isn't trying to get me to canvas me into going for a keep !vote .... I can get very unstable on 3rd relists ..... see relister talk if necessary and have requested they stay clear of AfD's in which I'm involved. Messy.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:48, 23 November 2019 (UTC) Actually adding the !votes methinks we currently have a delete. at a push soft.Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:30, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The fact that it might be defunct does not make this topic worthy of deletion. Seems like it generated a minor amount of buzz. Certainly more notable than the BY-1 plane that the other user pointed out. How about we delete that article instead? Bluedude588 (talk) 20:22, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

**Yeah, yeah! If this is deleted, this needs to be deleted too! JohaNepomuk (talk) 21:51, 25 November 2019 (UTC) Comment was made by sockpuppet. Bluedude588 (talk) 03:40, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant non-trivial mentions in multiple reliable sources: [26] [27] [28] Samboy (talk) 15:30, 29 November 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. Article has been developed since nomination, and new sources found. There is ongoing discussion about the merits of some of the sources, though several users have indicated various reliable sources do write significantly about @HopeMob even though some of these sources, and the information they contain, have not yet been incorporated into the article. SilkTork (talk) 18:04, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@HopeMob[edit]

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

WP should be selective, it is not WP:YELLOWPAGES. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Störm (talk) 12:17, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:23, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article is written like advertising copy, but I think that this is fixable. Potentially consider redirecting the article to Shaun King if the decision is made that it is not notable enough to merit a standalone article. 38.142.216.106 (talk) 13:30, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's clearly not notable based on lack of deep coverage in reliable secondary sources. I think this is an nonredeemable mess, but your opinion may differ. A redirect to its founder would not be helpful, since our readers would not know to use the at sign first to search for it. Bearian (talk) 15:11, 8 November 2019 (UTC) P.S. My stance is not a dis on the worthiness of the cause. Bearian (talk) 15:12, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bearian - That's a good point. Wouldn't anyone who was looking for this organization already know its name? It doesn't seem notable enough to be a standalone article but it does seem relevant to Shaun King, and indeed it is mentioned in his page under the section internet campaigns In 2012, King and web designer Chad Kellough founded HopeMob.org,[27] a charity site that used voting to select a particular person's story and then raise money for that story until its goal was met. The money went to an organization which provided for the person's needs, not to the person individually. After one goal was met, the next story in line would then get funds raised.[28] HopeMob initially raised funds to build their platform in January 2012 on the crowdfunding site Kickstarter. Their campaign raised about $125,000.[29]. Maybe a redirect is a bad option, but I think anyone searching for information on this project would benefit from reading the Shaun King page if this one is deleted. 38.142.216.106 (talk) 14:01, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, a redirect would be acceptable. Bearian (talk) 14:04, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment I went through and reworked most of the article to remove the most egregious promotional content. I didn't do a check to see if the organization is notable, but the article has been substantially edited (mostly through removal of junk content).Hog Farm (talk) 22:16, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I did find some good RS. See:

Bennett, Lucy ; Chin, Bertha ; Jones, Bethan ; Bennett, Lucy (Editor) ; Chin, Bertha (Editor) ; Jones, Bethan (Editor) (February 2015). Crowdfunding: A New Media & Society special issue. Vol. 17(2). p. 141-148. {{cite book}}: |author= has generic name (help); |work= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) (peer reviewed)
Moulton, Cyrus (February 8, 2017). Black activist bemoans 'dip' in humanity. p. A.3. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)

Hope this helps.4meter4 (talk) 02:55, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 11:13, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment First of all, 4meter4's sources are terrible (sorry!). Crowdfunding: A New Media & Society article at [29] has just this: "What are the benefits and disadvantages of using crowdfunding platforms such as HopeMob" and Telegram source at [30] is "and co-founded the crowdfunding platform @HopeMob, which is dedicated to giving resources to leaders and communities of color". However, I found a lot of non-trivial coverage in reliable sources like [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37], with some bits at [38] [39] [40]. There is even a coverage in a book [41]. Meets WP:GNG easily, which requires multiple significant coverage in reliable sources. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:45, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Huffpost, Forbes, The Social Church (Wise), and The Daily Beast citations are good ... not totally flattering though, but that's what we want, right? I would change my !vote if those four references were added, with text of course, to the article, per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 20:05, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough good refs have been added to demonstrate significant, reliable coverage. The article still needs work, but enough here to work with. Hog Farm (talk) 23:55, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/meet-the-hopemob_b_1265288 From a contributing writer and it looks like a testimonial.

https://techcrunch.com/2012/07/26/finding-inspiration-in-the-aurora-tragedy-by-helping-victims-through-hopemob/ This one is from a contributing writer.

The sources aren't as strong as they could be given that it's a company/organization/startup type page which is a category that is prone to promotional :articles. Graywalls (talk) 09:02, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked the list at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. It is possible for sources to be very detailed and long but possible for them to have very little effect in the establishment of notability. There are contributors who almost specialize in writing a long winded pieces about rather obscure companies too. The Perennial Sources page says "TechCrunch may be useful for satisfying verifiability, but may be less useful for purpose of determining notability." regarging TechCrunch. Regarding Huffpost it says "HuffPost's syndicated content should be evaluated by the reliability of its original publisher." Graywalls (talk) 23:58, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Non-trivial coverage in reliable sources: [42] (Fast Company), [43] (The Christian Post), [44] (Mashable), among many others. I can list more, but three articles about the subject from sources reliable enough to have their own Wikipedia article is more than enough to establish notability, as long as they are not press releases being copied or user-generated content on the sites in question, neither of which appears to be an issue with the above three sources. Samboy (talk) 15:44, 29 November 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 18:43, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Umrao Bundu Khan[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 12:08, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:05, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:05, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move it to draft space Please see my earlier comment below. Ngrewal1 (talk) 19:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dommiraubi Description of Sarangi (musical instrument) on Encyclopedia Britannica...hopefully you'll consider using this as an external link on your (4) created sarangi players' articles above...Ngrewal1 (talk) 02:16, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. My university music library contains recordings by him in its ethnomusicology section. A library holding at a university may not be RS, but it does indicate to me that his music has interest to ethnomusicologists and that RS, particularly foreign language RS, may exist. I suggest relisting and seeing if any wikipedians who speak Urdu can help. I left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pakistan to see if anyone can help locating potential foreign language RS. 4meter4 (talk) 01:35, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 10:55, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete does not appear notable. Graywalls (talk) 09:05, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG.--S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 19:17, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:49, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky Murdock[edit]

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

No notable wrestler. Only wrestled on a regional level, no third party sources about him, just mentions in events and championships history. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:47, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 11:13, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 11:13, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:16, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All sources I am finding are WP:ROUTINE. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 12:39, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Abishe (talk) 05:09, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:ROUTINE, Per Nom.-Nahal^(T) 09:46, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:50, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Emraanakbar Enamdar[edit]

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

not enough established filmmaker, I didn't found reliable source Fail WP:RS, he just make 5 short film , those are non-notable film, this article written he got award but google search Nothing shown. fail WP:BLP also don't know what is the award name and I think this is the Baseless win of the award, fail WP:GNG. -Nahal^(T) 09:10, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -Nahal^(T) 09:10, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -Nahal^(T) 09:10, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -Nahal^(T) 09:10, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TOOSOON; fails WP:GNG. Jmertel23 (talk) 13:08, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage about article’s subject in reliable sources. Celestina007 (talk) 15:28, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:50, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adult Industry Awards Database[edit]

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

Fails WP:NWEB, WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 08:59, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 11:17, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:13, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:16, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:16, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks coverage by independent reliable sources to satisfy WP:NWEB. Porn trade references are reworked press releases. Remaining sources are the website itself, an unreliable porn source and a self-published site not about the subject. An independent search for reliable sources came up with nothing. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:NORG. --K.e.coffman (talk) 15:51, 27 November 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. SilkTork (talk) 10:39, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution Erotica[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 08:51, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:12, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:12, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:13, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:15, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:15, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NORG / WP:ORGDEPTH. --K.e.coffman (talk) 15:50, 27 November 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. Mjroots (talk) 08:57, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MS Tor Hollandia[edit]

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

~~Non notable ship. Written like an advertisement. The article solely depends on a single source. Abishe (talk) 07:52, 21 November 2019 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 07:52, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Vorbee (talk) 11:50, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomKeep as article has now been fixed up and is worthy of inclusion as a stub. Bookscale (talk) 12:02, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I see newspaper coverage here, although it is in Dutch so I'm not sure what it says (it appears to be about the opening of a new line in Saudi Arabia). I also see this reference in Dock and Harbour Authority, though it can only be seen in snippet. I don't thin we should delete without having a bit more in the way of checking, and my preference would be for a Redirect to Tor Line if WP:GNG is failed. FOARP (talk) 13:23, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because nom does not support deletion. It asserts advertising, but it is nonsense that there is anything advertising-like about the article. (Or was bad stuff added then removed? If so, article was fixed and we can close AFD). Nom also notes there is only one source, but that is not a reason for deletion either (you could tag, or expand the article yourself). Nom asserts non-notable, begging question: why do you think the _topic_ is non-notable? So we are left with "i don't like it"? No assertion wp:BEFORE is met, no mention by anyone of having attempted to find sources. To delete voters above, what about nom carries any weight, for you ("per nom" meaning what in the nom, at all)? —Doncram (talk) 16:15, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are postcards and "covers"(?) about this. E.g. postcards in Ebay. I am not sure, but i don't think that non-notable ships get postcards about them. --Doncram (talk) 16:32, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - I've changed my !vote and agree the article should be kept. Bookscale (talk) 23:12, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Just by looking at books I found potentially useful references, plus one by Marine Matters. [45], [46], [47]. No postcards are not an indication of notability as tons of ships of every size, shape, and make sold novelty items. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:50, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I want to add that I improved the article and found that the ship had 4 different names. More needed to be added, but WP:N is met in my opinion . - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:39, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets the WP:SHIPS criterion in that it's over 100 tons. Ok its a car crash of an article but that can be rectified Lyndaship (talk) 18:40, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's a stub that needs expansion, compare to how it looks now to when the AfD was placed. [48]. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:36, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Recently-created stub which is already on the way towards a more satisfactory article. Cannot see that it ever looked like an advertisement. Davidships (talk) 02:06, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looks like I am on the mood of withdrawing this nomination. But I proposed Afd by looking at this revision. Now the article is very much improved and that's why most of them are saying to keep the article. I understand and I can opt out of this Afd. Abishe (talk) 01:43, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Abishe - I you confirm you wish to withdraw this nomination, ping me and I'll do the honours. Mjroots (talk) 07:26, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mjroots: Ok. I confirm that I have decided to withdraw from the nomination. Now the article has been expanded so I honour the responses from other users. Abishe (talk) 08:53, 24 November 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. Aside from the question of whether Wikipedia:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability needs to be updated, the consensus is that a) it is not currently satisfied. Also, I see that that page is not actually a guideline at all, and people have called for deletion on the basis of WP:GNG which is actually a guideline as well. So delete this is. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:20, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Meng Bo[edit]

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

Subject is a mixed martial arts fighter. Fails WP:MMABIO and WP:GNG . Subject has yet to fight in any top tier promotion, no major achievements of any other martial arts discipline and sources primary are routine sport report. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:20, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:20, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:20, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:20, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:20, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Subject has yet to fight in any top tier promotion" We keep coming back to this argument, haha, and there is no other objective way anyone can look at ONE Championship and say it isn't a top tier organization. The MMA notability guidelines need to be seriously updated in this regard as some of the criteria are woefully, extremely outdated. I respect all the Wikipedia editors, but it's clear there is a lack of expert knowledge on this subject and it's hurting the worldwide scope of the sport. Meng Bo is also the only fighter to defeat current UFC champion Weili Zhang. Readers are going to be curious about who beat her, and they can (as of now) click and learn about Meng Bo - someone who is currently actively competing for another top tier martial arts organization - by virtue of Wikipedia. To me, that seems like it fits the goal of what Wikipedia is about. Meng Bo also has several bouts in China's Glory of Heroes promotion which has a Wiki page touting its place in the MMA-sphere. This attempt at exclusion does nothing to enhance potential visitor's experience on Wikipedia, it only hurts it by sticking to extremely outdated criteria that has been argued against repeatedly with no motion forward. We all have the same goal of improving Wikipedia, and that is very difficult to do when there is not an attempt to revise criteria for a worldwide sport and its athletes that compete across the globe. ACCBiggz (talk) 07:32, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: ACCBiggz. Greetings. ONE Championship has never been a top tier promoter - pls see WP:MMANOT and the WP:MMABIO - MMA fighter notability guidelines. Be be a top tier promoter, at least 3 fighters of the organisation is on top 10 of their respective weight class worldwide for at least one year and if the requirements if the promoter will drop back to teir 2 if such such requirements are not fulfilled. Bo/subject is ranked #85 for strawweight - see [HERE. A MMA fighter needs to have at least 3 fights under top tier promotion such as UFC to meet WP:MMABIO. I encourage you to read all the info and sub pages of WP:MMA to familiar with the MMA notability in Wikipedia. The win over Zhang was Zhang first lost and only lost on their MMA fight back in 2013 which is 6 years ago where the fight was on a local promotion circuit- that definitely does not qualify of the subject qualify any notability requirements in Wikipedia just as Igor Egorov won the fight against Zabit Magomedsharipov, the only lost of Magomedsharipov at ProFC 47 a local Russain event, does not make Egorov notable in Wikipedia. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:51, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Subject of the articles fails WP:GNG and WP:MMABIO NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 07:54, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: And we keep coming back to the blatant fact that you are utilizing extremely outdated definitions for what makes a top tier promotion. This is something that I have brought up on the Wikiproject page suggesting we eliminate these rankings. I understand that you are following them to a tee, but that's the issue. When you blindly follow such clearly out-dated guidelines you do nothing but hurt the end product. If you wanted to classify ONE Championship as a top tier promoter (which it undoubtedly is in the eyes of anyone with knowledge of the sport outside of using these nonsensical guidelines that are rooted in non-expert and/or biased voting sites) and say that Meng needs two more bouts in the company... I'd cede and wait. But Wiki shows Glory of Heroes where she has extensive experience and ONE Championship, where she currently fights. There should be nothing holding her back from getting a page on Wikipedia. Stringent guidelines are great... except when they are extremely outdated and have little to no relevance in today's sport. ACCBiggz (talk) 08:01, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: ACCBiggz, We, the Wikipedia MMA regular editors, do understand and follow MMA sport. I have been a follower of the sport for more than 10 years, practice some Muay Thai and BJJ and had the pleasure of watching ONE championship event live 2 times. Glory of Heroes is not only not a top tier promotion but not even a second tier promoter. Not only a fighter needs to fight at least 3 fights in top tier promotion such as UFC to meet the MMABIO notability guidelines for if they only have one or two fights under UFC, they will not consider meeting the requirements needed. ONE championship has not been a top tier promoter so even even if Bo have 10 fights under the ONE Championship, she will not be considered notable in Wikipedia. You might want to publish Bo info in other media/outlets. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:22, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete as per WP:GNG in-depth significant coverage of the subject is required Celestina007 (talk) 14:58, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 07:53, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brands impact[edit]

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

Only one notable source, the other (Economic Times) carries only a listing of the company. No other notable searches available online, doesn't meet WP:CORP TheOneWorkingAccount (talk) 07:16, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not agree. i can clearly see other reliable & independent resources. like: ANI News, Business Standard and http://pratigya.info SR4381 (talk) 07:32, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I also added more references that are trusted and liable. Please consider these: Mid-Day, Daily Hunt, and ANI News. SR4381 (talk) 08:06, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:27, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:27, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:27, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the references are minor announcement of the promotional awards that the firm produces. . The awards are apparently not considered significant, because a notable company in this field would have very much more coverage of them. DGG ( talk ) 18:26, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 07:53, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chamuco[edit]

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

None of the sources are remotely reliable, Google search shows absolutely nothing that is dog related. Cavalryman (talk) 04:13, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. (Are you saying that the Spanish-language website "Gossip World" is not the least bit reliable?) We have 4 website references, all unWP:RELIABLE. Delete. William Harristalk 04:51, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:29, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:29, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, searching (for chamuco + perro) turns up no reliable source at all for any of this content; a couple of dogs have apparently been named Chamuco, which seems to be some kind of mythical imp or devil. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:52, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 07:54, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mastinaro[edit]

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

No sources at all, Google searches reveal nothing attributable. Cavalryman (talk) 04:13, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Two "references"; one is a dead link with no further information such as author or date, the other is an unWP:RELIABLE website that tells us little more than a "mastinaro" wrangles a "mastino" (mastiff) but without support of the content in the current article. Delete. William Harristalk 05:05, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The word is correctly formed (compare, e.g., with mularo, someone who raises/keeps/deals with mules, from mulo; or pecoraro for a shepherd, from pecora), but I can find not one source to confirm that it has ever been used. It is not in either of my Italian dictionaries (Collins-Sansoni, Hoare), nor is it in the online version of Treccani (but then neither are the two similarly-formed examples I've given here, though those are verifiably in use). Nor is there any reason to keep this unsourced content under any other title. The Tuscan breeder Mario Querci, however, is almost certainly notable by our standards – see, e.g., this excessively flowery article. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:42, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:24, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:24, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:24, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 07:54, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seburo[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Quite simply a non-notable article about a fictional company that fails WP:GNG. Can merit a mention in Masamune Shirow, but definitely doesn't seem like it requires its own article. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:11, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:11, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:11, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – fancruft that does not pass WP:GNG. UnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 01:09, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails NFICTION. Not even worth to redirect to anything, since it is an unlikely search term. No loss of content, everything should be already covered better at https://ghostintheshell.fandom.com/wiki/Seburo . --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:03, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:46, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No indication of outside notability, I wouldn't be opposed to this being copied over to Wikia. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:47, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't have that lasting notability as with Recurring elements in the Final Fantasy series. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:03, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 07:54, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kyla Brettle[edit]

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

Non-notable journalist/documentary maker. Page is promotional and falls foul of WP:NOTLINKEDIN. I could find no WP:IRS via an internet search nor via a ProQuest database news search for offline articles from Australia and New Zealand news sources. She fails WP:DIRECTOR and WP:JOURNALIST. Cabrils (talk) 03:21, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:31, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:31, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:31, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:31, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:32, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:32, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Since producers are run of mill, we tend to delete their articles absent very clear evidence by way of significant coverage about them, not just their films. Bearian (talk) 17:11, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 07:55, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zara Stone[edit]

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

The subject does not appear to meet the general notability guideline (WP:SIGCOV) because of a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. While the article contains references, rather than sources about the subject, they are either links to the subject's works or links to works that reference the subject's works. Bsherr (talk) 02:36, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bsherr (talk) 02:36, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Bsherr (talk) 02:36, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear at this point. The article is certainly problematic, reliant almost entirely on primary sources, but she has an awful lot of credits in high-profile publications. Will have to dig a bit... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:01, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:33, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:33, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:33, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete subject possesses very little notability that does not qualify per WP:GNG . Celestina007 (talk) 18:38, 21 November 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. Seems like the notability-based keep arguments are both substantial with sources and whatnot and widely shared with only weak rebuttals. And there is no consensus that something being trivia justifies deletion when it satisfies notability criteria. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:22, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ælfwine of England[edit]

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

This is a character who only appeared in early drafts of JRR Tolkien's work and who was later abandoned. This is trivia. Jack Upland (talk) 01:00, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Thomas Honegger begs to differ, since he wrote up a significant chunk of prose on the character. BTW this is hardly an in-universe fan book; Michael D. C. Drout is legit. Also of note is this, some discussion of the character by Jane Chance--another more than legitimate scholar of Old English language and culture (everyone should read her Woman as Hero in Old English Literature). This is really cool--no, it's fascinating (an article that discusses the character extensively, in relation to Tolkien as well, in an edited collection published by D.S. Brewer). There's more, but that's enough Tolkiening for me. Not trivia. Keep--and someone please rewrite that article, someone who actually uses secondary sources and who understands what scholarship means, and let's also move this article to a better title--"of England"?. Drmies (talk) 01:18, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this article has been tagged for more references for a decade, so I don't think it's going to be improved any time soon. I don't think it's surprising that the J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia has entry on this, but Wikipedia is not a Tolkien encyclopedia. Chance only seems to mention him in passing. The scholarly interest is in Tolkien's development of his fictional world and its connection with his academic interests. This issue is already covered in Tolkien's legendarium and The Book of Lost Tales. This is not a fully formed character. I don't think this is merely a case of producing a couple of sources. This is a derivative article. To have their own articles, fictional characters are supposed to have independent notability, like Ebenezer Scrooge and Sherlock Holmes. This character doesn't come anywhere close to that.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:50, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This unfully formed character is written up in three academic publications. There's a million others that easily fit your description of articles that should be deleted; this is not one of them. Drmies (talk) 13:01, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:34, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:34, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:49, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I did my own search and came with similar results to Drmies. Honegger's article on the topic in the J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia is excellent - it doesn't get any better than this. See WP:BEFORE, WP:IMPERFECT and WP:NEXIST. Andrew D. (talk) 22:24, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"It doesn't get any better than this". So you're saying that you wouldn't be able to find more sources on Sherlock Holmes?--Jack Upland (talk) 01:47, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It does get better. Another encyclopedia is a WP:TETRIARY. We prefer SECONDARY sources coverage. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:50, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No. Secondary sources are usually preferred when one is writing an article but that's not what we're doing here. Here, we are considering the feasibility of having an encyclopedia article about the topic. The existence of an article in another respectable encyclopedia is the best evidence that this is possible because it demonstrates that it has already been done. Andrew D. (talk) 10:53, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The entries in the Tolkien Encyclopedia range from crap to excellent. This one seems pretty solid, so it qualifies for my test of 'is this discussed in another encyclopedia' (with the qualifier that said discussion has to go beyond PLOT summary). This one goes beyond. So, yes, it's not like I want to see all fiction-related topics important, only the ones that don't go beyond plot summary plus occasional trivia. This one is, IMHO, covered in scholarship beyond that and can be kept (even if the current sourcing in the article is mostly worthless). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:49, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Scholarly RS (e.g.[49]) covers this as significant in the genesis of Tolkien's world. Alexbrn (talk) 08:51, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a lack of secondary sourcing showing notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What about the secondary literature referred to in the responses above? And there is more, for example Fimi, Dimitra. "Mad" Elves and "elusive Beauty": Some Celtic Strands of Tolkien's Mythology. Folklore 117.2 (2006): 156-170, in which Ælfwine is described as being a key character in the establishment on non-Celtic faerie mythology? Alexbrn (talk) 22:25, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - I don't really see the merit in the above sources in relation to the character. It feels like anything relevant would best be covered elsewhere, general discussion of the mythology or the works in which the character is mentioned. If kept, it feels like one of those articles that will never amount to anything. TTN (talk) 22:58, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the condition the sources being identified here are added to the article... A further reading section is fine. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:00, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 07:57, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Terry de la Mesa Allen Jr.[edit]

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

Colonel who led his men into an ambush and got himself (and most of his men) killed. Was posthumously awarded the Distinguished Service Cross for this. Father was a famous general, and notable, but not seeing Junior's claim to fame, as notability is not inherited. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:04, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:53, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:53, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:53, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unnecessary fork from Battle of Ong Thanh and fails WP:SOLDIER Mztourist (talk) 08:36, 26 November 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 00:53, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Fran[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article is self promotional. Wikipedia is not a self promotional medium. I came across this article by chance while googling a podcast was surprised to find this person had a dedicated Wikipedia article. On reading it I felt it should be deleted before noticing it had already been nominated. It is no coincidence that other editors felt the same.

A developing media career with a few mentions in domestic media and a nomination for an award does not constitute notability.

Note the final sentence in the article "She has also challenged the different ways in which the perpetrators of the Christchurch mosque shootings and the Orlando nightclub shooting were described and presented by the media.[11]". The author is stretched for references to justify notability - that reads like filler text in a essay which hasn't quite achieved the word count requirement. That reference in particular is an obscure website featuring a short article with a video of the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Austroplatypus (talk • contribs) 06:30, October 5, 2019 (UTC)

Keep To me the article is not self-promotional, and I find her far more notable than the myriad of sports people who are kept. As a notable person, it is helpful to have her story on wikipedia. MargaretRDonald (talk) 22:09, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article could use a bit of cleanup I suppose, but she's definitely notable enough. She hosted a daily news show on SBS for years and has subsequently made appearances on The Project, Hack and Q&A - surely that gives her enough reason to be on here?Prawn Skewers (talk) 00:56, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with the above comment. I came to Wikipedia specifically to find out more about Jan Fran. That makes her notable enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.109.132 (talk) 06:54, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Of course she's notable and I came here to find out more about her. The delete proponent may well have an interest in suppressing socially progressive views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kilimaniau (talk • contribs) 21:17, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This discussion page was created without the {{afd2}} template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have no opinion of my own on the nomination at this time. @Austroplatypus: If you with to nominate other articles for deletion in the future, please fully follow the procedures at WP:AFDHOWTO. Thanks. --Finngall ^talk 00:56, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The first AfD was closed as a "no consensus" as recently as 4 September. Reopening the debate now seems iffy procedure to me, particularly since the actual nomination was made barely a month later. XOR'easter (talk) 01:48, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 01:53, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 01:53, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 01:55, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: based on references that are already in the article, the subject passes WP:GNG. Since the article is not egregious NPOV/promotion, we should keep and tag for NPOV since deletion is not cleanup for all purposes or all problems. UnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 02:30, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - she meets notability as per Prawn Skewers, and also procedurally on the basis that this is too soon after the original AfD. Bookscale (talk) 12:00, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First, on procedural grounds, it's just too soon since the last deletion debate. Second, the sourcing in the article is already enough to support at least a decent case for wiki-notability. Third, when it comes to media figures, it's true that it can be hard to sift out the sources about them from those by them, but we serve the public by explaining who they are. Finally, I'd say that despite the nomination's assertion, the article is not written with a promotional tone, nor can I find any indication that it has been used for self-promotion. XOR'easter (talk) 15:08, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:BASIC, these three references listed in the article - "Why we need to start calling out sexual harassment", "Double standards of Western media outlets criticized after Christchurch terror attack", "'You have to see it to be it': Meet three women who are changing the face of Australian TV" are enough for notability, others ice the cake. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:59, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - yet another article in today's news about her. Bookscale (talk) 10:42, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks; added to the article now. XOR'easter (talk) 18:46, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I came here to read about this person. Why would this be deleted? The argument that a wikipedia page is going to sway anyone to her legitimacy while I'm watching her on primetime TV right now is a bit unfeasible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.143.0.233 (talk • contribs)
Keep. I think the sources in the article are more than sufficient to establish notability per WP:BIO. Edgeweyes (talk) 15:07, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:54, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Few Model Management[edit]

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

This page looks entirely like advertising copy and I am not convinced that it has a serious prospect of meeting the notability requirements for inclusion. I cannot rescue it via a copy-edit; I suggest it is removed. Perry Pat Etic Poleaxe (talk) 14:08, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:14, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the article passes WP:GNG, but may need to be better worded, edits and improvements have already been done by several editors and I think it's best to allow corrections to continue.Onyeuwaoma2000 (talk) 03:55, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content. Fails GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:57, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This discussion page was created without the {{afd2}} template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have no opinion of my own on the nomination at this time. @Perry Pat Etic Poleaxe: If you with to nominate other articles for deletion in the future, please fully follow the procedures at WP:AFDHOWTO. Thanks. --Finngall ^talk 00:57, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per rationale provided by @HighKing: & furthermore The article is a promotional piece that discusses a non notable organization that fails WP:NCORP. Probably the work of an editor who may have a financial stake in creating this article. Celestina007 (talk) 17:59, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:19, 22 November 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. Opinions seem to be pretty much split 50:50 between keeping and deleting. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:22, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Protests of 2019[edit]

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

Contentless duplicate of previously deleted page (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2019_Year_of_Protests) Kingsif (talk) 00:00, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this is a page that leaves links for other protest lists and I think that it doesn't need deletion. Just consider renaming it as List of Protests in 2019 by Country and put all countries' names in it.WikiAviator (talk) 00:36, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a regular article, not a list article. This is not a duplicate, since this version is mostly written by me (89% of text right now), though I started off with the five references of the article when I found it, and I have no access to the deleted article for comparison to test the moot point of whether the present version is a duplicate of the deleted article. Boud (talk) 02:21, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not a moot point when being a dupe is grounds for speedy delete, though. If you bother to read the previous deletion discussion, there was clear consensus against even the topic of such an article. Kingsif (talk) 03:03, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as zero evidence in RS of protests on large scale being related - listing all together is WP:OR. Since this article has been recreated (it counts as a duplicate if it is using the same sources to convey the same information, no matter who wrote it), I would also suggest create-locking it at both titles and anything similar. List of protests in the 21st century exists, we don't even need a plainlist for this one specific year. Kingsif (talk) 03:03, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging contributors to the last AfD: @DGG, Reywas92, Vorbee, and Trillfendi: for input. Kingsif (talk) 03:04, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/merge per Kingsif and previous AFD. List of protests in the 21st century is more than welcome to include a lead with analysis and further details about the protests beyond the wikilinks, but there's no need to have a separate article for this year in particular with little evidence these are interconnected. The Causes section reads like a horoscope: "economic inequality, corruption, the desire for political freedom from governmental political repression" have been the causes of virtually every significant protest in history (yes climate is relatively new but doesn't require this article to state). The effects are also specific to protests without anything unifying or distinguishing in 2019. Reywas92^Talk 05:04, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Refs.2, 3, & 4 (BBC, The Independent, The Guardian) all talk specifically about he connections between the protests. That's enough evidence for a genuine topic--3 of the most reliable int'l news sources. DGG ( talk ) 06:03, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I read these sources and they are telling me that they aren't connected to each other, unless your definition of "connected" is "Is protesting the same broad topics people have always protested". While Arab Spring protests are said to have inspired each other, the same is not true here, each with completely independent nucleation points. Saying the "themes that connect them" are "Inequality...Income inequality...Corruption...Political freedom...Climate change" (BBC) just shows how vapid this supposed connection is since these are the themes that have inspired every nearly protest on the main list (That line is preceded by "All are different - with distinct causes, methods and goals"). The other two also look very broadly at the protests and describe them separately without any relationship between them drawn. If anything, it's just Protests in 2019 not Protests of 2019; this is coincidence of timing in the news, not a specific phenomenon. Reywas92^Talk 08:21, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - A newspaper article is, by definition, normally about a single overall subject - a phenomenon, even if the phenomenon is itself a cluster of things. Whether or not the protests are causally connected to each other, the author(s) of any of these overview sources (e.g. BBC) saw enough commonality among the protests to group them together in an article. And then proceeded to discussing both commonalities and differences. Making sure that the article is NPOV by listing differences would of course be useful (I haven't added these, because I don't WP:OWN the article and I've already spent a long time editing it; a table to contrast the sourced causes, both common and different, would be a useful addition, for example.) Boud (talk) 02:08, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - None of the references discussed above is actually treating the various protests during 2019 as a single phenomenon or might have a contested existence. The BBC article is titled "Do today's global protests have anything in common?", the Guardian article discusses the differences and similarities between them, The Independent article discusses solely the HK protests. Nothing indicates that these are being treated by reliable sources as a single phenomenon with notability independent of the individual protests. Notability is not WP:INHERITED. FOARP (talk) 13:59, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't like these, because we need to add Second Cold War in the 2010s as usual! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.68.139.138 (talk) 23:27, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Fake news!--Jack Upland (talk) 01:37, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to List of protests in the 21st century. The protests are more likely to be coincidences rather than a series of connected events. The only "connections" I see is the Hong Kong protests/Catalan protests, and to an extent, the Chilean protest, but I don't think the weak connections between the three are enough to justify a full article. OceanHok (talk) 04:28, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:34, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:34, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think renaming this to be List of protests of 2019 it'd be better off. Links to all the articles about protests this year and provides useful information about it. And if reliable sources talk about them together in a single article, mentioning similarities and differences, as others have said in this AFD, then that aids to the notability of them being listed together here. Dream Focus 16:57, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a WP:FORK of several articles coalesced into one mass. Secondly, the treatment of these distinct protests as a single entity has no basis in RS (which at most provide a comparative analysis of distinct subjects) and is therefore WP:OR. The article, thirdly, contains WP:SYNTHESIS. It starts, for example, already at the very first sentence through linking a cited characteristic of the HK protests to a uncited claim about other protests. --Cold Season (talk) 22:05, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- So the judgment of a senior Washington Post editor, other authors of articles in major newspapers and numerous academics at well-recognised universities all count as the opinions of Wikipedians? It might happen that all of them are Wikipedians, but they have published their opinions regarding the existence of a major global wave of protests in 2019 under their non-Wikipedian roles. Regarding your specific claim, the lack of 100% completeness in inline referencing is not an argument for deleting a new article. Boud (talk) 22:32, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - The view of the protests under a single phenomenon does not fall in their judgement. Feel free to "complete" the references, but it would not change the fact that it is a synthesis to reach the uncited conclusion that they are under a single phenomenon. --Cold Season (talk) 22:49, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - So let's look at wikt:phenomenon:
    5. A fact or event considered very unusual, curious, or astonishing by those who witness it. Jackson Diehl and the other authors of the syntheses-by-notable-non-Wikipedians consider this event as unusual, curious or astonishing enough to write a whole article about it;
    
    7. An experienced object whose constitution reflects the order and conceptual structure imposed upon it by the human mind (especially by the powers of perception and understanding) This meaning gets closer to what we're worried about in WP:SYNTHESIS - is it Wikipedian human minds that impose the order and conceptual structure or is it notable external human minds? Here we have sources to external human minds, including academics at universities who study sociopolitical phenomena, who impose order and conceptual structure (which includes both common and differing characteristics of the subelements of the event).
    
    Even the Wall Street Journal in a subscription-only article gives the title "Global Wave of Protests Rattles Governments", about what it sees as the phenomenon of a 2019 global wave of protests. Are the governments rattled by a list, a synthesis, or a phenomenon? Boud (talk) 23:29, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - I get the impression that the problem is not the lack of sources saying that the 2019 protest wave is a phenomenon worth publishing an article about, but rather that the sources have not agreed with each other on a common name, such as 2019 world on fire (Global Insider) vs the 2019 global protests (BBC) vs the 2019 world rage of protests (Guardian) vs the 2019 protests that rocked countries around the world (Wash Post) vs 2019 global wave of protests (WSJ). I agree that under WP:TITLE, any of these names would be premature. But that's only a question of retaining a descriptive title for the moment, and leaving a common name to evolve from future usage. It's not a question of whether the sources agree that this is an important WP:NOTABLE topic/phenomenon. Boud (talk) 23:43, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:Cold Season. Having such an article may tend to suggest a geopolitical reason (such as the US or Russia destabilisation) when there is no proven link between any of the protests to each other nor to the existence of any prevailing foreign influence, when in fact they all seem to be the result of local factors. There is no need even for a list of protests as readers looking for an article on such and such protest would go to the relevant category. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 09:44, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- First argument: The title of the article and its existence say nothing about a single dominating geopolitical factor (US "color revolutions", Russia destabilising "the West", PRC seeking dominance). If there is one, then that will have to be decided by external sources. Jackson Diehl and Julie Norman state their assessments of the dominating factors - their reasons cited in the lead are not e.g. US/Russia/PRC geopolitical factors. So no, the article does not suggest anything that's not written in it. Please look at what the sources say and are cited for, instead of factors that the sources might say, but didn't, and aren't cited for.
- Second argument: it would be better if readers wondering whether or not there is a global wave of protests this year and what the analyses are by reliable sources can come to this article and see the arguments by Jackson Diehl and Julie Norman and others, WP-notable people or academics at WP-notable universities, who claim that this phenomenon exists, and then decide for themselves based on the Wikipedia entry and the sources. Boud (talk) 20:25, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just a quick re. the second (and a bit the first) argument: readers could instead use the sources to decide if it exists. We don't create WP articles to collate sources on different topics in order for people to judge whether the topic of the article itself actually exists based on reading arguments laid out from all the sources and SYNTHesizing the info. Kingsif (talk) 21:19, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Synthesis by the readers in this case is not needed: the multiple notable sources make the claim of existence. Boud (talk) 01:37, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Should have been deleted under WP:G4. - STSC (talk) 20:30, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Many of the arguments above are out of date with respect to the sources in the present version of the article. Please see this version as of around 21:54, 27 November 2019 (UTC). I think that that WP:OR/WP:SYNTH argument should be reworded as: How many journalists and university academics need to assert the nature of the 2019 wave of protests as a significant wave of protests with common causes in order to override the WP:OR of Wikipedians claiming that the protests are happening together just by coincidence? Historian Larrère specifically argues that focussing on the varying nature of the triggers is misleading, and claims that these protests are not just happening at the same time by coincidence. Doesn't she have a better claim to this than we do? Boud (talk) 21:54, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- A historian's opinion that the protests don't need to be connected as justification for no RS connecting them is still not viable with Wikipedia policy when you're writing an article connecting them. That's the problem. Kingsif (talk) 22:00, 27 November 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.

^ https://twitchtracker.com/imrosen/statistics
^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Basic_criteria

[Spitzer_5-11-19-1] Barnett, Erica C. (April 11, 2018). "A journalist gets sober, then hits the bars". Sound Effect (Interview). Interviewed by Gabriel Spitzer. KNKX. Archived from the original on October 26, 2019. Retrieved October 23, 2019.

[2] "Erica C. Barnett (and her Mad List of Sources) Joins PubliCola Staff". Seattle Met.

[SeattleMag2011-3] "Seattle's Most Influential People of 2011". Seattle Magazine. October 17, 2011.

[4] "2007 Civic Awards Recipients — Port of Seattle Press Release". web.archive.org. July 21, 2011.

[5] "Seattle journalist Erica C. Barnett is hard at work on a memoir, by Paul Constant". www.seattlereviewofbooks.com. 2017-06-29. Retrieved 2019-09-15.

[6] ttps://twitchtracker.com/imrosen/statistics

[7] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Basic_criteria

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[1]

[2]