Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 October 18

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 17 October	19 October >

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 merge to Vivegam. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:57, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vivegam (soundtrack)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM ~~and WP:GNG~~. Although it has appeared in a film so bullet point 5. in NALBUM applies here, I think it is more appropriate for the album to be included in the film article, like it already is (see Vivegam). Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 07:18, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:20, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Vivegam w/out redirect - the soundtrack is likely best mentioned as a section in the main article. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 16:40, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We can't merge without redirecting because it would break the edit history/attribution. So redirect or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 15:27, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It should not be deleted, as it is completely edited as a soundtrack album, following its guidelines for album notability, and linked with other articles too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.201.153.53 (talk) 14:10, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott Burley (talk) 23:34, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Vivegam as no standalone notability nor enough content to split the pages. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:06, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Vivegam, same as the other soundtrack articles this editor (and their socks) have created. Ravensfire (talk) 16:22, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Vivegam.4meter4 (talk) 18:50, 25 October 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. JGHowes ^talk 02:32, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David Abioye[edit]

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

Asserts no notability, reads like a promotion, at least two sources ( vangaurdgr.com and dailypostng ) appear to be tabloids with vanguardgr.com showing no editorial board whatsoever. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 15:12, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:56, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:57, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:57, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Google search results of him doesn't show him being discussed in reliable sources independent of him. The sources cited in the article are primary sources. @Wekeepwhatwekill: Contrary to what you think, Vanguard is not a tabloid source. It is one of Nigeria's biggest newspapers. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 02:46, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has coverage in reliable sources such as The Vanguard and Daily Post and the precedent is that Wikioedia normally includes Bishops of major denominations and this domination has bases in 65 countries, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 16:51, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: I am of the opinion that all founders of major churches with more than 10k followership and multiple branch locations, is a strong claim of notability, however that is not exactly the case here, Abioye is not the founder of Winners Chapel. However being one of only 3 bishops in the second largest pentecostal church in Nigeria seem like an equal (maybe higher) office to Anglican/Catholic bishops. The fact that newspaper sources also exist covering him make me move from neutral to weak keep. If there was an article on Goshen City (the Christian community where the Abuja church is located) I would have suggested a redirect to it. HandsomeBoy (talk) 11:12, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott Burley (talk) 23:30, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per Atlantic306 and HandsomeBoy.4meter4 (talk) 18:53, 25 October 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. JGHowes ^talk 02:37, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TriFame[edit]

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

Defunct and without references. Created by User:Trifamenz. Rathfelder (talk) 23:01, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 23:01, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot find sources for it with a quick Web search. External links in the article for the mostly local news are dead. Does not meet WP:WEBCRIT based on WP:SIGCOV or on awards received; does not meet WP:NCORP. -Lopifalko (talk) 06:13, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article originally created by a WP:SPA and accepted via AfC. The article content is aspirational. I am finding nothing beyond at-launch publicity to indicate that it ever attained notability, whether by WP:NWEB or WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 08:02, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 01:09, 26 October 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. JGHowes ^talk 02:39, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Academy of Chinese Culture and Health Sciences[edit]

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

Non-notable small educational institute. PepperBeast (talk) 22:55, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject does not meet general notability requirements. Meatsgains^(talk) 23:21, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Barca (talk) 01:20, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable at all. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 10:28, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 01:10, 26 October 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. While some concerns were raised about this being a POVFORK of other topics, there is general consensus that this topic is notable and cannot be fully covered in other places. That is that this is more a split than a POVFORK. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:44, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainian corruption conspiracy theory[edit]

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

This article seems to be an unnecessary duplicate of the "Conspiracy theories" section in Trump–Ukraine scandal. The content should be merged, if anything. bender235 (talk) 21:55, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested by Bender235.--MONGO (talk) 22:19, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I am of the view that the article is, should be, and will continue to become, more comprehensive than the "Conspiracy theories" section, which is part of an already quite large article that should not cover the topic in all its breadth and detail. soibangla (talk) 22:21, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I split this out because I think it's too big to sit in list of conspiracy theories and WP:UNDUE in any depth in Trump–Ukraine_scandal. I think it's a separate topic that deserves deeper coverage than would be appropriate at either of the two places it's currently covered. Guy (help!) 23:12, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the simple reason that not everything that is false is a conspiracy theory. Absolutely no notability for this. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:07, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple cited reliable sources characterize the matters as "conspiracy theories." soibangla (talk) 02:32, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. To say it's not notable enough when it's one of the root cause/motivations of the actions that resulted in impeachment inquiries of Donald Trump is ludicrous. It rises a bit above the other run of the mill batshit nonsense embraced by this US president. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:59, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We don't make articles for a person's motivations. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:41, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, we make them because a subject is notable. Which this clearly is. It is a separate and distinct topic from Trump's Ukraine shakedown - and the actions of Giuliani, Barr et. al. in support of this conspiracy theory may end up in separate indictments. Guy (help!) 08:52, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with Headbomb. Was "merged", but per Soibangla's comment was split-out by JzG. This item is related to the Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump and Trump–Ukraine scandal it is more significant beyond being just being buried in the "List". See RS such as [1][2][3]. X1\ (talk) 20:05, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as POVFORK of Trump-Ukraine scandal. Jdcomix (talk) 15:59, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually this is rather the opposite: the conspiracy theory is a real-world POVFORK by the right. Guy (help!) 10:08, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo! This is a legitimate fork allowing better coverage of this Trump/Russia/GOP/Fringe sources group of conspiracy theories designed to distract from Russia's real election interference, which was welcomed and aided by many members of the Trump campaign. There was massive collusion. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:38, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. RS describe this as a major and growing conspiracy theory. It deserves its own article, with a section in the main article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:02, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Easily meets GNG. Presents the same POV as the main article, so it can't be POVFORK. The subject is too complex to adequately cover in the main article, whose size is already approaching conventional limits.- Mr X 🖋 19:35, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A highly notable/widely published and well-defined subject. My very best wishes (talk) 01:53, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Information about the complex conspiracy theories regarding the server is essential for understanding this story and its relation to the impeachment inquiry. It is not easy to find such information, but the Wikipedia entry presents this information clearly and appears well sourced and unbiased. Claraevallensis (talk) 03:55 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Delete per the concerns given by User:Jdcomix KingofGangsters (talk) 05:45, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to POVFORK as noted by User:Jdcomix and KingofGangsters. Temeku (talk) 06:11, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jdcomix, KingofGangsters and Temeku: Please would you explain how this article contains a POV that is inconsistent with the summaries of the matter in other articles? This article was created simply because the detailed content would be UNDUE in other articles. soibangla (talk) 01:17, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article's information is summarized fine in the main Trump-Ukraine scandal article. The POV of the sources isn't necessarily inconsistent with the POV of the article per se, but the emphasis given to the specific topics mentioned in the article are UNDUE. I wouldn't mind K.E. coffman's proposal to expand the scope if the section gets too long, though. This article still seems redundant, though. Jdcomix (talk) 01:21, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

keep I think it is essential to keep this page up to properly inform people about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.170.146.1 (talk) 17:56, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but expand scope to all conspiracy theories currently listed at Trump–Ukraine scandal#Conspiracy theories. "Ukraine corruption" is discussed in the article on Corruption in Ukraine, which is a real thing. The present title is potentially confusing. Other than that, it's a valid WP:SPLIT from an article that's already overly long. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:59, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, topic is subject of scholarly analysis in reliable secondary sources. Topic is complex and predates the topics which it is an alleged split from. Abductive (reasoning) 08:02, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. soibangla put it best above. It's had lots of reliable source coverage and is clearly impactful. Bondegezou (talk) 15:51, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per soibangla.4meter4 (talk) 01:14, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into CrowdStrike. There is absolutely no basis for an article like this being called "Ukrainian corruption conspiracy theory". This article is primarily about Donald Trump and American politics, not corruption in Ukraine. Searching for Ukraine and corruption doesn't and shouldn't lead to this. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:30, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a different Ukrainian corruption conspiracy theory? This whole thing goes well beyond just CrowdStrike. And you previously voted "Delete." soibangla (talk) 03:01, 26 October 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 Past Progressive (album). Barkeep49 (talk) 04:49, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Body First[edit]

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

I have considerable difficulty in seeing how this article passes WP:NSONG. The Chinese citation consists of a description of the video. All other sources a WP:BEFORE search turned up were lyrics sites or promotional. Redirect to Past Progressive (album) as {{R from song}}, keeping the categories as useful search tools. Narky Blert (talk) 21:44, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Past Progressive (album) as suggested by the nominator. The fact that the song has a video can be mentioned at the album's article. The song has received no reliable notice as an entity in its own right. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:05, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Past Progressive (album) per the above. Aoba47 (talk) 15:47, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Past Progressive (album) per nom with regard to WP:NSONG. -Lopifalko (talk) 18:57, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Past Progressive (album).4meter4 (talk) 01:16, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lourdes 00:16, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Sellery[edit]

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

As written, article fails WP:GNG of WP:Notability. Sources are all WP:Primary and it is written like an advertisement. At the same time, there are no press coverage, beyond brief passing mentions or quoting him in his brief appearances on morning television programs, that exist to meet significant coverage requirements (WP:SIGCOV). As well, I noted remarks in edit history by astute editor User:Ronz who pointed out likely conflict of interest due to edits by User:Moolala and User:Moolala2012 that appear to be sockpuppets. Doug Mehus (talk) 21:43, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 21:43, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 21:43, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Jen30386 (talk · contribs) and Virtualb (talk · contribs) are SPA accounts. Jen30386 wrote the bulk of the article, as well as the bulk of Moolala. --Ronz (talk) 22:34, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I removed this ref because it didn't verify the content and doesn't say anything about Sellery as an individual: Waldie, Paul (December 19, 2014). "Couple spread the love for open adoptions" – via The Globe and Mail. --Ronz (talk) 22:41, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ronz, Thank you! Yes, I wish more Wikipedia editors would realize that sources have to give more than just a mention of the named company's or individual's name. ;) Doug Mehus (talk) 22:43, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ronz, Regarding Jen30386, I noticed on her talk page, Ttonyb1 previously tagged Moolala for speedy deletion. Doug Mehus (talk) 22:46, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:05, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep article about well-known journalist, popular author needs improvement, not deletion. There are sources, such as How TV host, speaker and author Bruce Sellery invests his money [4].Strandvue (talk) 18:43, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's a promotional piece, and an interview. It does not meet WP:BIO criteria. --Ronz (talk) 19:58, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A search yielded no sources of note. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 01:53, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, even if he was 'reared in London'(?!) - ChrisWar666 (talk) 19:35, 26 October 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. JGHowes ^talk 02:46, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of stakeholder and community engagement software[edit]

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

Declined PROD. WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Does not meet WP:GNG with multiple reliable independent in-depth sources focus on the group or anything more specific from WP:LISTN. Based only on primary sources for a list of non-notable companies. WP:ELNO and borderline promo (all references are just external links to company homepages). — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 20:36, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 20:36, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 20:36, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:33, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:NOTDIR. Ajf773 (talk) 09:18, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this indiscriminate directory per WP:NOTDIR. - MrOllie (talk) 15:51, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is exactly a directory. -- Whpq (talk) 13:00, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, also, we're not a list of random things. Sourcing is also poor - mostly directories and bulletin boards. Bearian (talk) 19:25, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.01:54, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ミラ P 21:21, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chalkwell Ward[edit]

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

An election ward of about 10,000 for a borough government. While the Southend-on-Sea government itself is no doubt notable I question whether each of the 15 electoral wards are individually. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:57, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:57, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:57, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep we have plenty of articles about wards. Nothing special about this one. Mccapra (talk) 20:37, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mccapra, that has been pointed out to me and is fair but I couldn't find something that explains why that is and a quick AfD archive search didn't suggest anything recent here on the topic so I thought it worth exploring community consensus. Thanks for your time here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:49, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There was an AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clifton East (ward) that resulted in keep. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:17, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It gives people the chance to further analyse the results of elections and get involved in politics. Its just like parliamentary consitutency pages Fatguyinthedeli —Preceding undated comment added 22:45, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or keep Chalkwell already exists and contains info on the ward already (so its kind of content forking) but then some of Category:Wards of Liverpool have separate articles like Everton, Liverpool and Everton (ward) but either way this doesn't need deleting. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:13, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We have hundreds of articles on local government wards in the UK. The question of their existence is probably best decided at a project-level discussion rather than individual AfDs. Number 5 7 16:53, 24 October 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:48, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jara (given name)[edit]

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

Only one given name article exists, and the derivations are unsourced, so WP:NNAME applies. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:44, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jára Cimrman, the only entry there. ミラ P 04:00, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This page probably combines names pronounced with an initial j as in 'jam' and y as in 'yam'. Pages for both Yara (given name) and Jarrah (name) already exist. (Yara has meanings; Jarrah doesn't.) The Slavic name (meaning and fictional character) could perhaps be merged with Yara (given name), as the letter j in Czech represents the same sound as y in 'yam' in English, so the names are pronounced much the same way. But it would be no great loss to just delete this article - apart from all the meanings being unsourced, there is not one "Australian Aboriginal" language, there are/were over 250, so that's a meaningless definition anyway. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:27, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per RebeccaGreen.4meter4 (talk) 02:16, 26 October 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. There is a consensus that this is an international organization that is influential in its field and which has been covered appropriately by sources to be considered notable. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:54, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

International Council on Large Electric Systems[edit]

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

I cannot find SIGCOV for this organization. Lots of trivial mentions. A recent editor declares COI/Paid editing here. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:35, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:35, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:35, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I hadn't heard of this organization before I read the article. I think that the article provides a useful contribution to the discussion of electricity infrastructure study and discussion. MaynardClark (talk) 20:53, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MaynardClark:Are you saying it's valuable? This is OK but we usually like to have a reason in terms of notability.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:58, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ThatMontrealIP:That needs to be further researched. MaynardClark (talk) 21:09, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "I hadn't heard of this organization" pretty much damns it. Nobody else has either because it hasn't received any media coverage that I can find, so a big WP:ORG fail. WP:ITSUSEFUL isn't a good reason to keep it. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:22, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a major organization in power engineering but non-professionals are unlikely to have heard of such groups. These societies are not covered by the popular media. Look at how the articles about the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, the American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers are referenced and I am assuming you are not proposing these for deletion. CIGRE started in France but now has 59 national organizations as well as individual and corporate members. Among other things it cooperates with the IEEE in creating industry standards. It has an active Women in Engineering group. Coverage will be in industrial publications sucn as INMR and PAC World magazine. For example the quarterly industry publication PACWorld has a CIGRE update section each issue. "One of PAC World's goals is to keep its readers informed on the reports and standards published by leading industry organizations such as IEC (Technical Committees 57 and 95, as well as others when appropriate), CIGRE (Study Committee B5) and IEEE PES (Power Systems Relaying Committee and Substations Committee)." Engineering topics are poorly covered in Wikipedia relative to the sciences but there is no need to perpetuate this. StarryGrandma (talk) 20:40, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. StarryGrandma (talk) 20:40, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If we deleted everything from the Wikipedia that I hadn't heard of, it would fit on a couple of floppy disks. CIGRE is an important organization in electrical engineering for large power systems. I stopped looking for hits on Google Books after the first 50 pages. --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:17, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

the first ten Google books results are all trivial or self-published. Only the tenth gives anything near in-depth coverage:

"The history of CIGRE" (by CIGRE),
"Submarine Power Cables: Design, Installation, Repair..." that says "The Cigré recommendation published in Electra 171 is the only known test standard describing relevant mechanical tests on submarine power cables.",
"Electrical Engineer's Reference Book", with this: "Bibliography CIGRE WORKING GROUP 31-01, Modelling of static shunt var systems (SVS) for system analysis, ELECTRA, 51 (March 1977) "
"Gas Insulated Substations: Gis" with "Surveys conducted by CIGRE [1,2] in recent years have demonstrated that GIS have given highly satisfactory service performance in terms of reliability and availability."
"Overhead Power Lines: Planning, Design, Construction" with "Cigre Report 22-08, 1990 1.23 Bowles, J. P. et al.: AC-DC Economics and alternatives - 1987 Panel session report."
"Transmission and Distribution Electrical Engineering" with "CIGRE WG 22-09, 'International survey of component costs of overhead transmission lines', Electra, No. 137, August 1991."
"Construction, Laying and Installation Techniques for..." published by CIGRE
"CIGRE India Session 2004, 21-23 July, 2004: Proceedings", with "FOREWORD Unlike other professional bodies such as IEEE (USA), IEE (UK), International Council on Large Electric Systems (CIGRE) with its headquarters in Paris is the body of dedicated professional engineers serving in academics". ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:45, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:GNG. Notable organization with plenty of references if one takes the time to look. Here are a few books that can be added to the article to expand content and sourcing: [5], [6], and [7]. For those looking for more sources, the organization is often referred to as CIGRE (an acronym off of it's French language name). In addition my university library contains records of all their international symposiums over many years which should also count for something.4meter4 (talk) 02:27, 26 October 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:54, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Social mobile application[edit]

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

Dictionary article devoid of useful information Rathfelder (talk) 18:57, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:03, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, and WP:OR. Bearian (talk) 19:27, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 02:30, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:56, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Social infrastructure[edit]

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

Essay with no decent references. Misleading, because the term Social infrastructure was established before the internet and has a different meaning, which isnt mentioned. Rathfelder (talk) 18:53, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 18:53, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is a synthesis with unreliable sourcing. Bearian (talk) 19:27, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Bearian.4meter4 (talk) 02:31, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lourdes 00:17, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Wealth Craig[edit]

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

Article doesn't establish notability. The references given are promotional in nature (e.g. The Statesmen article was written by "SNS Web"). Google search brings up 18 results for "Bobby Wealth Craig" and fewer than 100 for "Bobby Wealth", but not significant discussion of the subject in multiple reliable sources. ... discospinster _talk 18:43, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The references given confirms the article's notability, also a newsletter like The Statemen will not put out any false information. GNews gave this information on him --Geezygee (talk) 20:00, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:41, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:41, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:41, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and close - As per nom. Meeanaya (talk) 06:45, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - several sources provide coverage of the subject, but none of said sources lodge a credible claim to encyclopedia significance for the subject, nor are they particularly in-depth. Another major issue is that almost all of the information about Craig is WP:PRIMARY or based on primary information, a concern given WP:SIGCOV requires information to be intellectually independent of the subject to establish notability.--SamHolt6 (talk) 22:52, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as self-promotional. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 02:32, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing to pass WP:GNG here. - ChrisWar666 (talk) 19:58, 26 October 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:47, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Slavefarm[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Mentioned in a couple of references, but no detailed information. Rathfelder (talk) 18:38, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 18:38, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:47, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:48, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nothing other than very little free contents, and no sources for the tall assertions of it. flowing dreams (talk page) 12:32, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 02:35, 26 October 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 Mutant Liberation Front. RL0919 (talk) 17:51, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thumbelina (comics)[edit]

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

Non-notable character TTN (talk) 14:54, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:54, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:54, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to either List of Marvel Comics characters: T or Mutant Liberation Front. BOZ (talk) 15:18, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mutant Liberation Front. Already covered there in sufficient detail. Nothing else worth preserving as unsourced. --Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 15:40, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; recurring X-Men villain. Nyssie (talk) 17:01, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Nyssane: So what? This is not a valid argument in deletion discussion, seems like a fancruft version of WP:ITSIMPORTANT. Try again. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:10, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails NFICTION. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:10, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:54, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mutant Liberation Front per Killer Moff, and keep the categories as useful search tools. We don't need individual articles on every minor comic book character, when there is good information in an existing list article. We do need a way for readers to find out about the character, so deletion would be unhelpful. No prejudice against recreation if independent notability can in future be shown. Narky Blert (talk) 21:56, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mutant Liberation Front where the character is already covered. Aoba47 (talk) 14:45, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mutant Liberation Front, Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:37, 24 October 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. RL0919 (talk) 17:50, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Republika Srpska (1992–1995)[edit]

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

This article essentially covers the Bosnian War-era existence of the autonomous entity in Bosnia and Herzegovina known as Republika Srpska. The claim that today's RS is somehow distinct from the RS of 1993 is completely ahistorical. There is no reason that the entity's entire existence from January 1992 to the present should not be covered by the Republika Srpska article.

Some background: The argument that the wartime RS was somehow distinct from the current RS is often used by Serbian ultra-nationalists to put distance between the RS of today and the war crimes that were committed in its name during the war. They worry that these war crimes could delegitimize the entity in the present day and provide critics with ample ammunition to call for its abolition. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 17:09, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 17:09, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 17:09, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We routinely split histories of states in distinguishable time periods, if there is much to write. The language of the nomination is clearly politicized and nonencyclopedic. For example, we do not merge Nazi Germany with Germany because some want to " put distance between the <...> of today and the war crimes that were committed in its name during the war". Staszek Lem (talk) 18:11, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree if the Germany of today was still called Nazi Germany, but it isn't. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 18:25, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, take Poland (eg Second Polish Republic) or Russia or Soviet Union or Greece (eg, First Hellenic Republic) - all split into pieces. and BTW Germany was not called Nazi Germany by Hitler, it was the same Deutschland even when it was uber alles. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:39, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but there is scholarly consensus across the board that Nazi Germany was a unique state distinct from prior and future Germanies. The same cannot be said here. Moreover, the RS isn't a sovereign state, it's an autonomous entity. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 18:45, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in wikipedia we have our own consensus what to do with our articles. Even if your position is right, i.e., there is a continuity of "statehood", the correct solution would be History of Republika Srpska (1992–1995). Staszek Lem (talk) 18:57, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That could work within the framework of a larger History of Republika Srpska article. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 19:13, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The same name put aside, RS of that time was not an entity established based on an internationally backed agreement. The political context and legal status make a difference. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:37, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Would you argue that the Kosovo of 2008 should have a different article from the Kosovo of 2019 due to the ICJ decision in 2010? Or perhaps we should create a new article after Serbia eventually recognizes Kosovo and it becomes a UN member? After all, legal status makes all the difference. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 18:45, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We are not discussing Kosovo here. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:57, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Amanuensis Balkanicus As I said, the difference is made by the legal status and the political context. The legal status does not merely depend on whether an entity recognizes another. Albania declared independence in 1912, widespread international recognition came a year later. But we do not have two articles named Albania because in both cases Albania considered itself to be a country. On the other hand, the first RS considered itself to be a client state of Serbia/Yugoslavia or another kind of entity within Serbia/Yugoslavia. The second RS considers itself to be an entity within Bosnia and Herzegovina. According to your rationale, the Republic of Kosova article should be merged to Kosovo. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:00, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think Kosovo should cover the geographic region while Republic of Kosovo should cover the self-proclaimed state, but that's a discussion for another time. You're kind of proving my point with the Albania 1912/13 comment. Why should we have an Albania (1912) article and an Albania article, just because the Albania of 1912 wasn't internationally recognized, while the Albania of 1913-present is internationally recognized? The RS of 1993 considered itself an independent state, not a client of Belgrade. In the end, it was the RS's independence-oriented behavior that prompted Belgrade to place an embargo on the RS in 1993 for blocking peace negotiations, effectively cutting the entity off from the outside world and indirectly contributing to the end of the war two years later. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 19:13, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the first RS considered itself to be an independent state or an entity within Serbia/Yugoslavia is not important. The important thing is that it did not consider itself to be part of an independent Bosnia and Herzegovina like the current RS does. The matter of the legal status begins with what status an entity claims for itself. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:51, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:50, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Staszek Lem nailed it Ribbet32 (talk) 21:24, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete as G11 by User:Jimfbleak (non-admin closure) Whpq (talk) 13:07, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Squar Milner LLP[edit]

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

Page is highly promotional and subject doesn't appear to meet general notability requirements. Meatsgains^(talk) 17:39, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:40, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:41, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - I think a couple of the sources (particularly Accounting Today) count as reliable, but they don't have significant coverage (just trivial mergers, interviews, that sort of thing); being listed as a top-whatever company is interesting but doesn't have much coverage beyond an entry on a list. creffett (talk) 21:54, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 17:43, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rivmixx[edit]

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

Unremarkable shortlived music site without decent references Rathfelder (talk) 17:28, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 17:28, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:33, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources. The three sources in the article. (1) is a press release site which is not a reliable source. (2) is a News of the World blog entry which is just a a short blurb only 3 sentences in total which is not substantial coverage. (3) CMU Daily update blurb which is only slightly longer than the previous reference. -- Whpq (talk) 13:17, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is a poorly sourced, largely WP:OR description of a web site that only existed for 1.5 years. Sources are a 404 at PRNewswire, a blog and what appears to be a routine business announcement at a music industry web site. I cannot see any WP:SIGCOV with a few pages worth of Web search. Does not meet WP:NWEB, WP:NCORP, or WP:GNG. -Lopifalko (talk) 12:10, 25 October 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. Current consensus that WP:NAUTHOR isn't satisfied, but is the closest to showing notability in the future, with no demonstration of notability on other grounds. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:34, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

James C. Russell[edit]

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

De-PROD'd on the basis of his being an author and therefore having reviews of his work published in reliable sources. I don't see any. Non-notable author, theologian, and political candidate who fails WP:GNG and all relevant notability guidelines. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:18, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:18, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:20, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:28, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough coverage of his works to pass notability for authors, not significant enough body of work to meet notability for academics, and clearly non-notable as a politician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:17, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do a much better job of demonstrating his notability as a writer than this does. While it is true that the article does cite one review of his written work in a reliable source, it takes more than just one source to make someone notable as a writer — otherwise, his writing is referenced almost entirely to its own publication details as circular verification that it exists, rather than any evidence of independent attention from reliable sources. (Oh, and there's also a blog. Which doesn't change anything.) And when it comes to his political campaign, that's referenced almost entirely to primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, except for a tiny smattering of incident coverage that just makes him a WP:BLP1E. It might be possible to write a better article that more effectively demonstrates his preexisting notability as a writer — I don't have access to the correct sourcing databases needed to answer that question one way or the other myself, but I'm willing to consider that it might be possible — but this article isn't doing that in its current form, and the unsuccessful political campaign is contributing no additional notability points over and above the writing itself. Bearcat (talk) 15:48, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - either blow it up or fix it up as a perennial candidate. Bearian (talk)

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

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

The result was Partial merge. of this article to St John Ambulance Australia#Ranks in St. John. To be clear this means that the entire gallery should not be merged. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:57, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

St John Ambulance Australia ranks and insignia[edit]

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

Unencyclopedic trivial, subject does not meet GNG, not webhost, not gallery, etc. MB 02:10, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to St_John_Ambulance_Australia#Ranks_in_St._John with a very thorough trim. It's not trivia and it's not inherently 'unencyclopedic', but it is unduly detailed and referenced exclusively to primary sources. So, while I don't believe a standalone page is appropriate, it could offer a lot of value to improve the main SJA Australia page with some good illustrations and additional detail. Hug^syrup 12:28, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:28, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:28, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the organisation has a long history and the insignia would have been covered in reliable sources (maybe not all online). The claim that it is trivia is nonsense. This is no different from military or police insignia which are covered in their own articles throughout Wikipedia. At worst the page should be merged back to the Ranks section of St John Ambulance, but I note the section is long and it would make the main page quite lengthy. Bookscale (talk) 11:32, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: See discussion on my talk page
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:39, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It doesn't pass WP:GNG as it stands, and there are a number of other problems with the article, specifically the "Wikipedia is not a gallery." I'm not sure a merge is entirely proper, either, as there's a lot of cruft here, but there may be some parts of the page salvageable on the main St John Ambulance page. SportingFlyer T·C 13:08, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - how else are the insignia supposed to be displayed, they are a visual symbol of ranks, similar to the military ones (which Wikipedia has no concerns about)? St John's Ambulance has a long history and the insignia are a part of it. I agree it does not need its own page, but to just delete it is not the right answer. It is not cruft or trivia, and arguments like this are just inconsistent. Bookscale (talk) 09:41, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - See WP:NOTGALLERY. We are not a collection of image files, and the article only includes primary sources. SportingFlyer T·C 10:18, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge It does seem to me that this is a topic that is useful in an encyclopaedia, and there appear to be sources which are not yet in the article, for example there is information about insignia in First to Care: 125 Years of the Order of St John New Zealand, 1885-2010 [8]. I have only done a quick google search so far, not yet in other databases - and there may well be older sources that are not online. I think that the article could be shortened by explaining how the ranks and categories of officers are indicated by combinations of symbols and colours, rather than showing every possible combination. If it is not kept as a separate article, it should be merged into the St John Ambulance Australia article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:48, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, it's very unclear whether that book is truly independent of the subject, and regardless that book is on the order in New Zealand, whereas this topic is specifically on Australia. I think there's room in the encyclopaedia to discuss the insignia, but there's still no independent sources found on the topic, and no one has addressed WP:NOTGALLERY. SportingFlyer T·C 10:24, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, it's NZ. Also, doing more searches for ranks and insignia, I think what the sources that talk about them are referring to are the orders and awards, rather than the serving ranks and epaulettes (which is what this article shows). So - there are histories of St John Ambulance in various states of Australia, probably published by St John, so not independent (eg [9]). There is even St John History: The journal of the St John Ambulance Historical Society of Australia, in one issue of which is an article about the history of uniforms (possibly including insignia on epaulettes etc?) - but again, that's published by the society. I'll maybe see what I can find in libraries. It seems the kind of topic that there would be sources about, though I have to admit that I haven't yet found them. As for the gallery aspect - you may perhaps not have taken in that I said I thought an explanation of the symbols, colours and combinations would be better than showing every possible insignia. (Or perhaps not every possible insignia - the ones in this news item [10] are not easily readable from this article. What's the semicircle under the crown and two diamonds? Why 3 straight stripes, not 3 v-shaped stripes? Perhaps the insignia are different in every state and territory - but that suggests that the article would have to be even bigger to include all relevant information .....) RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:43, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think the format of the appendix in the source you found would be a good way to present the information in the main St John Ambulance Australia article. I don't have any problem with including this content somewhere, my problems just stem from the fact it's presented in a format which violates WP:NOT, the topic as a whole isn't notable enough for a stand-alone article, and I'm not really sure what's there to merge. SportingFlyer T·C 09:21, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge to St_John_Ambulance_Australia#Ranks_in_St._John per Hugsyrup, unless secondary or tertiary sources can be provided to satisfy WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 02:38, 26 October 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 Maude (TV series). RL0919 (talk) 17:45, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And Then There's Maude[edit]

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

TV theme song fails WP:GNG and lyrics are WP:COPYVIO. Also fails WP:LYRICS ("To be included, works ought to fit into the framework of notability"). Remainder of article listing fails WP:IPC. AldezD (talk) 16:34, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:36, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Maude (TV series) as it is a viable search term from a notable television program. The song is already mentioned in the article. Aoba47 (talk) 14:38, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Maude (TV series), per Aoba47. There isn't anything in terms of reliably sourced material here to merge, so a simple redirect should suffice. Rorshacma (talk) 15:55, 25 October 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 Mutant Liberation Front. Tone 15:22, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Burner (comics)[edit]

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

Non-notable character TTN (talk) 18:03, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:03, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:03, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to either List of Marvel Comics characters: B or Brotherhood of Mutants. BOZ (talk) 20:31, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Resistants. --Rtkat3 (talk) 02:59, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No independent sources means there really isn't anything to merge. Will change my mind if somebody puts forth some sources, but I am confident that such do not exist. Rockphed (talk) 17:43, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rockphed. There is nothing to actually merge here._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:45, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep/merge or delete? It's very divided.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ミラ P 14:43, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mutant Liberation Front, already covered there in sufficient detail. Nothing here worth preserving. --Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 10:44, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per above. Zero real world notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:50, 24 October 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. Lourdes 00:18, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Red, White and Zero[edit]

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

Fails GNG. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 13:43, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Fails WP:FILM. Andrew Base (talk) 14:04, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:27, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems nom hasn't done the necessary WP:BEFORE. Easily meets WP:GNG per the following news items and reviews of the recent BFI Blu-ray release [11][12][13][14][15][16][17] etc, etc, etc... 212.135.65.247 (talk) 14:42, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IP:212.135.65.247 - I actually did do the necessary WP:BEFORE, and I question if it "Easily meets WP:GNG". WP:N provides Examples of coverage insufficient to fully establish notability include newspaper listings of screening times and venues, "capsule reviews", plot summaries without critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides such as Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide, Time Out Film Guide, or the Internet Movie Database. The sources you listed are not exactly mainstream. For example, psychotroniccinema.com ranks 9,731,400 at Alexa. The Digital Fix doesn't rank very high, either. I'd say the DVD is questionable at best, and focuses on a niche market, which is why I brought it here rather than prod it. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:29, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG aside, it certainly meets the criteria for WP:NFO. 212.135.65.247 (talk) 11:19, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Revert to Redirect (if significant RS coverage cannot be established) - Thanks for your invitation to participate here Atsme. I assume that I was contacted because I was the original creator of the article (i.e. a redirect I created back in 2011). Ignoring the question of the article-worthiness of the topic (which I haven't yet looked into), I do think that full deletion is inappropriate when it actually serves a good purpose as a redirect. The image shown in the infobox of The White Bus is only one version of the film. Others such as this show clearly that Red, White and Zero is a valid search term for this film. If this was an WP:RFD proceeding I wouldn't hesitate to argue that WP:R#KEEP #3, 5, and 7 all apply. Again I haven't looked whether the topic meets GNG, but full deletion makes little sense to me when simple reversion (which maintains attribution) is available. ~~I'll finalize my vote after I get a chance to consider the topic properly.~~ -Thibbs (talk) 00:35, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, it's not really a big deal or anything but you might consider swapping from Template:RFDNote-NPF to Template:RFDNote in cases like this in the future as it brings to mind WP:DTTR... I haven't been given a "Welcome to Wikipedia!" message in over a decade, so I was rather confused at first... :) -Thibbs (talk) 00:35, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to meet your acquaintance, Thibbs, I will keep your suggestion in mind and thank you. 😊 ^Atsme _Talk 📧 02:03, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise! :) -Thibbs (talk) 18:22, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with redirecting to The White Bus is that Ride of the Valkyrie (1967 film) is also part of this portmanteau film. 212.135.65.247 (talk) 08:23, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I hadn't thought of that. If Red, White and Zero is also an alternate title for Ride of the Valkyrie then we'd need a disambiguation page rather than a redirect. Sorry I have been slow to respond. I can find several RSes that mention Red, White and Zero, but it's not obvious that a full article is yet merited. I'll correct my !vote unless anything new comes up. -Thibbs (talk) 18:22, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On further examination I can't find any examples of Ride of the Valkyrie being referred to as Red, White and Zero, so I'll keep my call for Revert to Redirect. I'll try to keep an eye on things as new evidence develops. -Thibbs (talk) 18:38, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The White Bus is incorrectly referred to as Red, White and Zero. The "Red" in the title refers to Red and Blue and the "Zero" in the title refers to Zero Mostel, who was only in Ride of the Valkyrie. Only the "White" part of the title refers to the The White Bus. See this from 2013, and some of the Google scholar links for clarification. 212.135.65.247 (talk) 09:17, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The usefulness of a redirect doesn't depend on its correctness. If people refer to The White Bus as Red, White and Zero and if there are insufficient sources to support Red, White and Zero as a stand-alone article, then the redirect should be used to direct readers to The White Bus. The correctness of the title can be explained within the body of the The White Bus article if RSes cover it. I'm not saying that the topic of Red, White and Zero as a stand-alone topic is definitely inappropriate, but you probably have to put more effort into sourcing (paying close attention to both WP:RS and WP:N/WP:GNG) in order to safeguard against reversion/deletion. What I'm suggesting at this point is to at least preserve the redirect (regardless of its correctness) until someone has the inclination to dig up sufficient sourcing to develop the article. -Thibbs (talk) 13:35, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But there are not insufficient sources to support Red, White and Zero as a stand-alone article and a stub is a perfectly reasonable starting point. It could certainly be improved, but it is most definitely notable, especially considering the recent release and the fact the the British Film Institute refer to it as "a major rediscovery". A redirect to just one of its three components is misleading. 212.135.65.247 (talk) 14:04, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If that's how The White Bus is known (rightly or wrongly - it doesn't matter) then the redirect would serve a useful purpose. Better to retain the redirect in my view than to delete it entirely along with the stub. Expressed idiomatically: Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. As far as the stub is concerned, someone has questioned the notability of the topic. From my own brief examination of the sources, I believe the central issue is the "significant coverage" clause of WP:GNG. If it's most definitely notable then presumably it should be easy to quickly come up with the significant coverage required. I'm not arguing either way. All I'm asking for is a safety net for the redirect in case the required coverage is considered less than significant. -Thibbs (talk) 18:01, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV and WP:NFILM. WP:BEFORE clearly was not followed. Here is the review of the film in The New York Times during its initial release (and if the nyt reviewed this British film you can guarantee the major UK and other international papers did as well) . I even found one substantial review from when the film was recently released on DVD this year. I have access through my university on ProQuest. "Red, White and Zero.(Staff Recommendations: Cineaste Editors Tout Favorite Recent DVD & Blu-ray Releases)"; Porton, Richard; Cineaste, 2019, Vol.44(3), p.67(1) The film was also discussed in these books: [18], [19],[20].4meter4 (talk) 02:58, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the multiple reliable sources identified above which show that the film passes WP:GNG including a review in The New York Times, Cineaste, and book sources, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 14:47, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems like there's enough here to pass GNG per 4meter4 and the IP at the top. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:53, 26 October 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 15:23, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fatima al-Samarqandi[edit]

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

Fails GNG on several counts. Also, the article promotes the books authored by her father and husband. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 13:28, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: appears to be thoroughly notable, the subject of several scholarly works - and "promotional" hardly applies to 12th-century publications. PamD 11:52, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I meant it in that there was more about those books than about anything that promoted or contributed to her meeting GNG. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 13:26, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep though without knowing any Arabic or Persian I can't do a proper search. Her name seems to be expressed in several ways and she is also known by some epithets (such as Musnida Isfahan). She was clearly very important and, even if the references I have found are rather passing in nature, they do allude to her considerable significance. I did find https://www.islamreligion.com/articles/11336/women-scholars-in-islam-part-2-of-2/ however. I can't help but feel she should pass WP:PROF even if not according the (rather shamefully Western-recentist) specific notes given there. Sadly, she does not appear to have taken part in a football match in a fully professional league. Thincat (talk) 12:19, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: a reasonable article on a historical figure. The encyclopedia would not be improved by removing this article. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:30, 22 October 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. There is evident growing consensus of keeping the article after sources have been exhibited by cunard. keeping this for now. Lourdes 00:21, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First Nations Bank of Canada[edit]

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

As written, fails WP:NCORP. Cited references are all primary sources. A Google quotation mark-enclosed phrase search for "First Nations Bank of Canada" reveals little, if any, press coverage—all of it related to trivial matters such as new branch office openings, revised branch hours, marketing partnerships, and routine operations. As such, lacks WP:CORPDEPTH and fails WP:SIGCOV. Doug Mehus (talk) 21:40, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 21:40, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 21:40, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 21:40, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NCORP; the only information online is either from their website or from directories. Press coverage is little to non-existent. Luke ^Talk 00:42, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

* ~~merge~~ trivial coverage that do not count toward meeting the significant coverage requirement --Dreerwin (talk) 01:22, 14 October 2019 (UTC) Struck per WP:SOCKSTRIKE ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 21:01, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dreerwin, There's nothing to merge it with, though. If you decide to change your vote, you can either edit your post or surround merg with quotation marks and preceded, within the quotation marks, with "strike" Doug Mehus (talk) 01:26, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Thanks for the clarification :) I changed my vote --Dreerwin (talk) 01:37, 14 October 2019 (UTC)Struck per WP:SOCKSTRIKE.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 21:01, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given sock activity was tempted to just delete but given age of article would prefer a stronger consensus be established before closing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 12:20, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

Marks, Don (2013-04-25). "What are they smoking at First Nations Bank?". Winnipeg Free Press.
Dickason, Olive Patricia (1997). Canada's First Nations: A History of Founding Peoples from Earliest Times (2 ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 407–408. ISBN 978-0-19-541227-7. Retrieved 2019-10-21.
Cash, Martin (1996-12-12). "First Nations bank is good for Canada". Winnipeg Free Press.
Anderson, Robert Brent (1999). Economic Development Among the Aboriginal Peoples of Canada: The Hope for the Future. Concord, Ontario: Captus Press. p. 186. ISBN 1-896691-56-0. Retrieved 2019-10-21.
OECD Reviews on Local Job Creation Indigenous Employment and Skills Strategies in Canada. Paris: OECD. 2018. p. 73. ISBN 978-92-64-30046-0. Retrieved 2019-10-21.
Ibbitson, John (1996-12-10). "TD helps launch native bank: First Nations Bank of Canada to boost aboriginal autonomy". Waterloo Region Record. Archived from the original on 2019-10-21. Retrieved 2019-10-21.
"First Nations Bank of Canada moves a step closer to being independent". Waterloo Region Record. 2007-11-07. Archived from the original on 2019-10-21. Retrieved 2019-10-21.
Crary, David (1996-12-10). "Indians open national bank in Canada". Houston Chronicle. Archived from the original on 2019-10-21. Retrieved 2019-10-21.
Williamson, Margaret (1997-01-20). "First nations, TD prepare to do business". Computing Canada. 23 (2): 12.
Platiel, Rudy (1996-12-10). "First native bank to open next year: Will serve both aboriginal and non-aboriginal clients at new branch in Saskatoon". The Globe and Mail.
Partridge, John (1996-09-18). "First Nations Bank aiming for full aboriginal control". The Globe and Mail.
Schuettler, Darren (1996-09-16). "Canada consortium plans first native-owned bank". Reuters.
Chamberlain, Art (1996-09-17). "TD backs bank of First Nations Accounts of new company can use TD machines". Toronto Star.
Blackwell, Richard (1996-12-10). "First aboriginal-controlled bank gets official kickoff". Financial Post.

Sources with quotes

Marks, Don (2013-04-25). "What are they smoking at First Nations Bank?". Winnipeg Free Press.
The article notes:
The First Nations Bank was established to loan money to First Nations people, mostly commercial investments, but also mortgages and other loans as banks do. The bank has just completed its 12th straight year of profitable operations and now has assets of $300 million (audited financial statements are published annually).
You don't have that kind of success rate unless you are dealing with corporations that are managed competently by hard-working people who are marketing goods and services to ready markets that are expanding.
The First Nations Bank is primarily owned and operated by First Nations people. This could be one of the major factors in their success.
The article includes a quote from speakers affiliated with First Nations Bank at Aboriginal Chamber of Commerce luncheon.
Dickason, Olive Patricia (1997). Canada's First Nations: A History of Founding Peoples from Earliest Times (2 ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 407–408. ISBN 978-0-19-541227-7. Retrieved 2019-10-21.
The book notes:
First Nations Bank of Canada

Within three weeks of the RCAP report, one of its recommendations was realized when Canada's first Aboriginal bank was ceremonially launched in Toronto by Prime Minister Jean Chretien and Native leaders. Using Toronto-Dominion Bank facilities to provide services to both Native and non-Native customers, the First Nations Bank of Canada will begin operations in Saskatoon in 1997. The Toronto-Dominion Bank is providing $8 million in start-up capital, while the Saskatchewan Federation of Indians is investing $2 million through the Saskatchewan Indian Equity Foundation. Toronto-Dominion will receive 25 per cent of the profits until its investment is repaid and the bank goes on its own; however, the majority of the profits will go to Indian shareholders, to be reinvested in the bank. The hope is that it will attract the investment of some of the moneys expected to be paid to Indian bands in land claim settlements across the country.
Noting that the bank 'will be a piece of Canadian history' that was nearly four years in the Saskatchewan Federation chief Blaine Favel observed:
The road to political self-determination, the road to self-government, is directly linked to the role of economic development. If we are to have strong self-government, if we are to have a strong political direction, we have to have a strong economic base.
The book notes:
Image caption: Amerindians in ceremonial dress took part in the opening ritual that launched the First Nations Bank, 1996. The ceremony was held in Toronto, but the first branch to go into operation was in Saskatoon. The Toronto-Dominion Bank is helping the all-Native financial institutions get started. (Andy Clark; Reuters).
The book has additional text in the section that is under Google snippets view.
Cash, Martin (1996-12-12). "First Nations bank is good for Canada". Winnipeg Free Press.
The article notes:
THE CREATION of the First Nations Bank of Canada is both an historic event and business as usual.<p That there will be a national chartered bank in Canada that is 100 per cent owned (in 10 years) by aboriginal shareholders cannot help but be a good thing for Canada's First Nations peoples and for the larger Canadian community.
That the First Nations Bank is launched with the Toronto-Dominion Bank as its majority owner, benefactor and landlord, is also noteworthy . There's no other arrangement like this in the country, said Brenda Bracken-Warwick , the regional director of the Canadian Bankers Association. "It is unprecedented."
The driving force behind the bank has come from the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations and $2 million worth of equity from the Saskatchewan Indian Equity Foundation. (The other $8 million is being staked by the T-D Bank.) Some think this bank will not make a difference when it comes to the level of poverty and general economic mobility of the greater aboriginal community. There's no way, with a large number of our people poor, that they have a hope in hell of getting ahead with the (current) banks, said George Munroe , executive director of the Ma Mawi Wi Chi Itata Centre Inc. in Winnipeg and the vice-president of the Aboriginal Council of Winnipeg. As far as I'm concerned, if this is just an extension of the banking system then it will not make one bit of difference to aboriginal people. "I've been arguing with the banks for years, saying what they have to do is change the relationship, change the rules on how they offer credit (and other financial services to individuals), otherwise we won't get anywhere," he said.
Anderson, Robert Brent (1999). Economic Development Among the Aboriginal Peoples of Canada: The Hope for the Future. Concord, Ontario: Captus Press. p. 186. ISBN 1-896691-56-0. Retrieved 2019-10-21.
The book notes:
The First Nations Bank of Canada will accept deposits from all sources but will target Aboriginal customers. Of particular interest, are (i) current First Nations institutions and governments and their existing and emerging activities and programs, (ii) First Nations businesses, (iii) the large and growing pool of capital from treaty land entitlement and other settlements, and (iv) non-First Nations companies doing significant business in "Indian Country." The third item is particularly significant. The recently concluded Treaty Land Entitlement process in Saskatchewan will make $522-million available to 27 First Nationals over the next 12 years. The land claims process is not unique to the TLE First Nations in Saskatchewan. Other First Nations in Saskatchewan are pursuing specific claims. Elsewhere in the country there are numerous land claims under negotiation, with those in British Columbia being particularly noteworthy.
Deposits raised from such sourcs will provide the bank with the capital necessary to make loans to existing and new Aboriginal businesses across Canada. The bank's marketing projections for deposits and resulting loands are confidential but conversative expectations suggest a many-fold increase in the dollars available for loands to Aboriginal customers in Saskatchewan and elsewhere in Canada. The FSIN/Toronto Dominion Bank initiative has not escaped the notice of the other chartered banks. They are not prepared to yield the lucrative First Nation market to the First Nations Bank of Canada by default.
OECD Reviews on Local Job Creation Indigenous Employment and Skills Strategies in Canada. Paris: OECD. 2018. p. 73. ISBN 978-92-64-30046-0. Retrieved 2019-10-21.
The book notes:
First Nations Bank of Canada

The First Nations Bank of Canada is the first Canadian chartered bank to be independently controlled by Indigenous shareholders. The First Nations Bank of Canada provides financial services to Indigenous People and is an advocate for the growth of the Indigenous economy and the economic well-being of Indigenous People. The Bank aims to increase shareholder value by participating in and promoting the development of the Indigenous economy.
The Bank was conceived and developed by Indigenous People, for Indigenous People and regards itself as an important step towards Indigenous economic self-sufficiency. The strategic directive of the founding shareholders was to grow the Bank and increase Indigenous ownership to the point that the Bank would be controlled by a widely held group of Indigenous shareholders. The Bank is over 80% owned and controlled by Indigenous shareholders from Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Yukon, Northwest Territoris, Nunavut and Quebec (First Nations Bank of Canada, 2018).
Ibbitson, John (1996-12-10). "TD helps launch native bank: First Nations Bank of Canada to boost aboriginal autonomy". Waterloo Region Record. Archived from the original on 2019-10-21. Retrieved 2019-10-21.
The article notes:
A new bank has arrived in Canada, dedicated to economic and political independence for Indians.
Prime Minister Jean Chretien, native leaders and officials of the Toronto Dominion Bank came together on Bay Street Monday for the ceremonial launch of the First Nations Bank of Canada.
...
The bank is backed by a $2 million investment from the Saskatchewan Indian Equity Foundation, which is owned by a federation of that province's first nations, and by an$8 million investment from the Toronto Dominion Bank.
"First Nations Bank of Canada moves a step closer to being independent". Waterloo Region Record. 2007-11-07. Archived from the original on 2019-10-21. Retrieved 2019-10-21.
The article notes:
First Nations Bank of Canada has moved one step closer to becoming an independent bank, completing a private placement with investors in an effort to boost its growth.
The bank, partly owned by TD Bank Financial Group, said the move dilutes TD's ownership from approximately 89 per cent of voting shares to nine per cent of voting shares.
Crary, David (1996-12-10). "Indians open national bank in Canada". Houston Chronicle. Archived from the original on 2019-10-21. Retrieved 2019-10-21.
The article notes:
Prime Minister Jean Chretien and several prominent chiefs were on hand Monday to sign the charter establishing the First Nations Bank of Canada at a ceremony in Toronto's financial district.
The new bank starts off as a partnership between Toronto Dominion, Canada's fifth-biggest bank, and the federation of Saskatchewan Indian chiefs. Toronto Dominion is investing $6 million and the federation $1.5 million, but 75 percent of the profits will go to the Indians.
The long-term plan is for the Indians to buy out Toronto Dominion's stake within 10 years, selling shares to aboriginals across Canada and opening branches in native communities nationwide.
The bank's inauguration comes at a sensitive time for Indian leaders and federal officials.
...
First Nations Bank, based in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, is the kind of initiative that Chretien's government supports - it will not require new federal spending and will give aboriginals a chance to succeed or fail on their own, without a major government role.
Williamson, Margaret (1997-01-20). "First nations, TD prepare to do business". Computing Canada. 23 (2): 12.
From the abstract:
Newly formed First Nations Bank of Canada (FNBC) will concentrate on providing Canada's aboriginal citizens with banking services, hoping to capitalize on the billions of dollars in industry that aboriginal people create each year. Toronto Dominion Bank is FNBC's primary investor, and FNBC customers will have complete access to the ATM, on-line and 24-hour banking services provided by Toronto Dominion's 949 Canadian branches. The cost for FNBC to establish services without leveraging Toronto Dominion's existing assets is estimated at $100 million, and many FNBC customers are already accustomed to using Toronto Dominion's services. Analysts suggest that FNBC must integrate innovative technologies and establish a presence with which customers are comfortable in order to be successful.
Platiel, Rudy (1996-12-10). "First native bank to open next year: Will serve both aboriginal and non-aboriginal clients at new branch in Saskatoon". The Globe and Mail.
The article notes:
Canada's first aboriginal bank will open its doors early next year in Saskatoon, using the Toronto-Dominion Bank's access and branch system to provide services to both native and non-native customers.
The First Nations Bank of Canada will be "a piece of Canadian history," Chief Blaine Favel of the Saskatchewan Federation of Indian Nations said at the announcement ceremony yesterday.
Through its financial corporation, the federation is investing $2-million in the new bank, which has received both letters patent and approval by the Canada Deposit Insurance Corp. As well, the TD is providing $8-million in start-up capital.
...
Correction: The newly announced First Nations Bank of Canada is not the first native financial institution. That distinction belongs to Peace Hills Trust, which was established in the early 1980s by Samson First Nation in Alberta.
Partridge, John (1996-09-18). "First Nations Bank aiming for full aboriginal control". The Globe and Mail.
The article notes:
First Nations Bank of Canada, which is being launched by aboriginal organizations in Saskatchewan with financial and other backing from Toronto-Dominion Bank, expects to be fully aboriginally controlled within 10 years.
...
First Nations, which will be based in Saskatoon, is in the final stages of receiving federal regulatory approval.
The new bank will be tiny. It will have a lending-to-capital multiple of 15, meaning that to start with it can lend up to a total of only $150-million.
Schuettler, Darren (1996-09-16). "Canada consortium plans first native-owned bank". Reuters.
The article notes:
A Canadian bank and a regional Indian group said on Monday they planned to form the country's first native-owned bank to help Canada's aboriginal people become more financially self-sufficient.
The First Nations Bank of Canada is expected to begin operating in Saskatchewan in late 1996 -- pending approval from federal regulators.
...
The idea for the First Nations Bank was born in the early 1980s when the SIEF was formed as Canada's first aboriginal capital corporation.
Chamberlain, Art (1996-09-17). "TD backs bank of First Nations Accounts of new company can use TD machines". Toronto Star.
The article notes:
Toronto Dominion Bank is backing a competitor, but believes the deal will generate new customers for it.
TD announced yesterday it will invest $8 million in start- up capital for First Nations Bank of Canada.
The new chartered bank, subject to regulatory approval, will have its head office in Saskatoon and eventually branches across the country.
Blackwell, Richard (1996-12-10). "First aboriginal-controlled bank gets official kickoff". Financial Post.
The article notes:
Canada's first aboriginal-controlled bank could eventually be partly owned by rich U.S. native bands that have made money from running casinos.
First Nations Bank of Canada was officially launched yesterday in a ceremony at the head office of Toronto Dominion Bank, after it received letters patent and approval to join the Canada Deposit Insurance Corp.
...
The launch was attended by Prime Minister Jean Chretien, who was formerly a TD director and was once minister of Indian Affairs.

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow First Nations Bank of Canada to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

Cunard (talk) 05:25, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cunard, Incorrect. None of those sources qualify as WP:SIGCOV, though. At the same time, WP:CORPDEPTH needs to be considered as none of those sources can provide sufficient coverage to write more than a stub-class article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmehus (talk • contribs) 04:30, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Thanks to User:Cunard for the sources. I really don't understand the claim that none of the sources are significant coverage. For example, both the Waterloo Record article and the Houston Chronicle article feature the bank as the primary subject and are substantial articles that go beyond just a one or two line blurb. Furthermore, the Houston Chronicle out of Texas in the United States thought it notable enough to write about this bank in Canada. -- Whpq (talk) 13:35, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, there has to be enough WP:RS to provide WP:CORPDEPTH and write more than a perpetual stub-class or start-class article. Of the sources Cunard quoted, most were from the bank's launch 25 years ago. If you refer to my original AfD, I reviewed all available Google web and news source, none of which met the criteria for WP:SIGCOV. This suggests to me the bank generated some one-time and, perhaps, even occasional press coverage, but nothing recent. In order to write an article more than stub-class, we would have to rely entirely on primary sources and I'd note that banks and credit unions larger than First Nations Bank of Canada were recently deleted (Central 1 Credit Union, Concentra Financial, and Bridgewater Bank). As well, Bridgewater's parent Alberta Motor Association resulted in a merge with Canadian Automobile Association because it lacked standalone notability. I'm tagging User:Barkeep49 and User:Piotrus here because they commented on some of the article pages mentioned here. Doug Mehus (talk) 23:27, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My activity here was in my role as a sysop to judge consensus and apply policy which in this case was to relist. After I relist an AfD I will take no further action with it and so I have no comment on any sources presented by Cunard or indeed any discussion that has taken place after my relist. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:49, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: Oh, my apologies, I see that you relisted this article so are already an involved administrator who cannot participate in the discussion on source quality or !vote even though we notionally do not "vote". I shouldn't have tagged you. Again, my apologies.--Doug Mehus (talk) 16:23, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dmehus: You state that "Of the sources Cunard quoted, most were from the bank's launch 25 years ago." which of course means some of the sources are subsequent to the launch as Curnard points out below. This means there has been coverage just beyond the initial launch. Requiring that there be recent coverage is actually contrary to our notability guidelines. See WP:NOTTEMPORARY where it explicitly states that "it does not need to have ongoing coverage". You also state "refer to my original AfD", There has been no prior AFD for this article. I assume you mean your nominating statement. If so, Cunard has provided the significant coverage. These sources are independent of the bank and the case of the newspaper articles, the bank is the primary subject of the article. You also refer to the size of this bank relative to other financial institutions which have had articles deleted. WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST applies in this case. Those other article were deleted because there was no significant coverage in reliable sources. There are for this company. There is no bank specific notability criteria for the "size" of the bank whatever that means (you did not state what metric is used for size measurement). -- Whpq (talk) 13:49, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Cunard shows the bank got decent coverage for its launch, but in the end it's all a variation of WP:ONEEVENT. And said launch coverage doesn't rise much above the level or rewritten press releases. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:26, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The bank was founded in 1997. This article published in 2013 and this book published in 2018 discuss the bank outside the context of the 1997 launch so WP:ONEEVENT does not apply:
1. Marks, Don (2013-04-25). "What are they smoking at First Nations Bank?". Winnipeg Free Press.
2. OECD Reviews on Local Job Creation Indigenous Employment and Skills Strategies in Canada. Paris: OECD. 2018. p. 73. ISBN 978-92-64-30046-0. Retrieved 2019-10-21.
Cunard (talk) 06:32, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cunard, The OECD article is a passing mention and does not count. Winnipeg Free Press article is not an article but an editorial, an opinion column, or a letter to the editor and may not qualify. The books appear to provide only passing, or short, mentions of this non-notable bank, so they, too, don't qualify.Doug Mehus (talk) 16:21, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The AfD nominator approach an editor on their talk page to criticize the sources I posted at this AfD and to ask the editor to participate in this AfD, that editor declined to participate in this AfD, and then the AfD nominator pinged Piotrus "because they commented on some of the article pages mentioned here" despite Piotrus having no prior involvement with the article.
This is canvassing.
Cunard (talk) 06:32, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Cunard, With respect, User:Piotrus has commented on similar articles, which I AfD'ed at the same time and asked to be pinged with respect to new developments in said articles. It seemed only fitting that he should be able to address this article he might've otherwise missed and would've preferred to comment on. As for commenting on HighKing's userpage, HighKing informed me how that could be construed as "canvassing" which is sometimes "frowned upon," so, presumably, he has declined to participate on that basis. More troubling, though, Cunard are your continuing to ref spam quoted sources which do not substantiate WP:SIGCOV.Doug Mehus (talk) 16:15, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard. Satisfies WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 03:16, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong, @4meter4:. I don't think you quite understand what constitutes significant coverage and what constitutes passing mentions. --Doug Mehus (talk) 04:52, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Whpq's comments above. I am of the same opinion. Best.4meter4 (talk) 10:49, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply, @4meter4:, but for one thing, the links that Whpg posted don't even load so we cannot assess whether the articles meet the criteria for significant coverage. I have my doubts that they do—newspaper articles often do not establish this as they usually relate to routine coverage or regular business operations, products and services, branch openings and closures, executive appointments, charitable donations by organizations, annual financial results announcements, business partnerships, mergers and amalgamations, and the like—none of which counts as WP:SIGCOV. Moreover, one also needs to consider each of WP:ONEEVENT here (for the initial press coverage Cunard posted at launch, some of which doesn't count as significant anyway), WP:ORGCRIT, and WP:CORPDEPTH. Based on the sources listed here, after trimming out the puffery in this article, there's simply not enough significant coverage to write an article of significant corporate depth to write more than a permastub. Contrary to popular belief, Wikipedia was never intended to be an exhaustive database of companies and other topics and, I'd add, it's not a directory. Doug Mehus (talk) 15:12, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your reasoning is flawed because you are failing to follow policy at WP:Offline sources and WP:AGF. I've noticed you have a tendency to challenge offline references which you have obviously not read, and that just simply is not a policy based way of approaching discussions where other editors are using offline references which they have read. I have access to ProQuest and other databases through my university library. If you haven't actually read a source yourself, you shouldn't be offering judgements on whether it meets significant coverage or not,4meter4 (talk) 15:42, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@4meter4: I always assume good faith and your thinking that I am failing to assume good faith seems to, in fact, not be assuming good faith. The articles you referenced from Whpg's comment are not offline sources, but online ones that are not available. As well, re: WP:OFFLINE, it is not enough to just say the sources exist or probably exist. We actually have to read them, which you say you have in terms of the articles you mentioned in Canada Computers, but for everyone's benefit, you should summarize the articles themselves.Doug Mehus (talk) 15:53, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Online sources behind paywalls are usually from print sources as well, so effectively WP:Offline sources is applicable. I am not particularly interested in being more explicit than I have been because of your tendency to argue in circles no matter what sort of evidence (substantial or not) is presented. In other words, you like to always be right even when then the evidence states otherwise, and I don't want to waist my time in a back and forth with you that I personally find overly stressful.4meter4 (talk) 16:09, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to argue for the sake of arguing, but I just want you, @4meter4:, to substantiate how you feel those sources quoted provide significant coverage? You haven't done that. That's all. Doug Mehus (talk) 16:13, 26 October 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. RL0919 (talk) 13:02, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AirHelp[edit]

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

Non-notable company, lacks in-depth WP:RS. Meeanaya (talk) 08:09, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 08:09, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and thank you for your attention. I was aware of the debate on the previous version of the deleted article, and I noticed that it was highly promotional and thus unsuitable for Wikipedia. I also noticed however that AirHelp was available in a number of other Wikipedias so I decided to boldly go ahead and write it. On Greek Wikipedia - which I edit - the article is not satisfactory at all (i.e. a translation was definitely not worth the effort), so I wrote a new neutral, well-referenced (IMHO) article in English which includes exactly the points it is being debated for in the first place, i.e. lack of reliable sources. The AirHelp ranking scores are used extensively by a great number of reliable media outlets in their articles; I have included but a few in the AirHelp article (additionally, each of the three outlets I used has its own article on Wikipedia). I am fully aware that the article needs improvement, but I do not think it should be deleted. Thanks again for your time, all the best Saintfevrier (talk) 08:27, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but provide reliable secondary sources. It's a notable claims management company for air travellers as reported by forbes [[21]] and Washington Post [[22]] and as cited from this book [[23]]--Wakowako (talk) 08:26, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:07, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:12, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

Locker, Melissa (2019-02-05). "AirHelp AI gets compensation for delayed & canceled flights". Fast Company. Archived from the original on 2019-10-20. Retrieved 2019-10-20.
Tims, Anna (2018-10-28). "Beware firms trying to take a cut of your flight delay claim … you can do it for free: Travel agent Expedia is now partner to one of a myriad of companies offering to 'help'". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2019-10-20. Retrieved 2019-10-20.
Singh, Manish (2019-02-05). "AirHelp's new bots collect airline compensation for passengers". VentureBeat. Archived from the original on 2019-10-20. Retrieved 2019-10-20.
O'Brien, Sara Ashley (2015-07-02). "Airlines owe fliers $10 billion". CNN. Archived from the original on 2019-10-20. Retrieved 2019-10-20.
Roof, Katie (2016-08-03). "AirHelp raises $12 million to deal with airline customer service for you". TechCrunch. Archived from the original on 2019-10-20. Retrieved 2019-10-20.
Lapowsky, Issie (2014-05-06). "Bumped From a Flight? This Startup Wants to Get You Paid". Wired. Archived from the original on 2019-10-20. Retrieved 2019-10-20.
Loten, Angus (2019-02-21). "AirHelp Adds Bots to Help Handle Airline Passenger Claims for Compensation". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2019-10-20. Retrieved 2019-10-20.
Gardner, Terry (2018-04-30). "When bad things happen to good European Union-protected travelers, AirHelp may lend a hand". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2019-10-20. Retrieved 2019-10-20.
Calder, Simon (2018-12-12). "What's the best way to claim compensation for my delayed flight?". The Independent. Archived from the original on 2019-10-20. Retrieved 2019-10-20.
Chang, Lulu (2018-01-17). "See if airlines owe you money from up to 3 years ago with AirHelp's new tool". Digital Trends. Archived from the original on 2019-10-20. Retrieved 2019-10-20.
Henry, Alan (2014-03-07). "AirHelp Gets You Real Money Back for a Cancelled or Delayed Flight". Lifehacker. Archived from the original on 2019-10-20. Retrieved 2019-10-20.
Newenham, Pamela (2014-11-06). "Start-up AirHelp putting fear into airlines: Danish firm fights for airline passengers across Europe for compensation over flight delays, cancellations and overbookings". The Irish Times. Archived from the original on 2019-10-20. Retrieved 2019-10-20.
Patterson, Brandon (2018-03-09). "AirHelp app helps compensate travelers for late, canceled flights". Detroit Free Press. Archived from the original on 2019-10-20. Retrieved 2019-10-20.
Blum, Sam (2017-06-02). "This App Can Help You Get Money When an Airline Screws Up". Thrillist. Archived from the original on 2019-10-20. Retrieved 2019-10-20.
Ekstein, Nikki (2017-05-30). "Flight Delay? Get Reimbursed With This Clever App. "It's like AAA for air passengers."". Bloomberg News. Archived from the original on 2019-10-20. Retrieved 2019-10-20.

Sources with quotes

Locker, Melissa (2019-02-05). "AirHelp AI gets compensation for delayed & canceled flights". Fast Company. Archived from the original on 2019-10-20. Retrieved 2019-10-20.
The article notes:
There are few things in life more frustrating than when you actually decide to take your vacation days, get to the airport, battle your way through security, and then your flight is canceled or delayed to the point that your vacation is decimated. Now, AirHelp and its team of AI lawyers and helpful bots can help you fight for your right to monetary compensation for your summer bummer (or spring break heartache or vacation mayhem).
As you may know, the EU is very consumer-conscious, so there is a law that says airlines must compensate passengers flying to or from the EU on EU carriers up to $700 for lengthy delay, canceled flights, or denied boarding, unless the disruptions were caused by extraordinary circumstances out of the airline’s control (bad weather, political unrest, force majeure). If a trip qualifies, AirHelp and its army of AIs and bots can help passengers exact their lawful revenge on the airlines, even up to three years after their flight was originally disrupted. (You can check eligibility here.)
AirHelp has a group of virtual lawyers and AI bots helping out in the fight for flight compensation, including its first AI lawyer, Herman, who reviews travel claims that enter the legal stage, and Lara, who can process more complex cases. Lara makes legal recommendations with a 96% accuracy rate, which AirHelp says is higher than the success rate for human employees. Now they have added two now AI-fueled compensation agents to the company: AgA, and Docky, a mini-bot who helps with customer service and automatic claims assessment.
Tims, Anna (2018-10-28). "Beware firms trying to take a cut of your flight delay claim … you can do it for free: Travel agent Expedia is now partner to one of a myriad of companies offering to 'help'". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2019-10-20. Retrieved 2019-10-20.
The article notes:
What the email failed to mention was that he would have to hand over €100 (£88) to AirHelp for the favour and that Expedia would receive a cut.
...
AirHelp is one of a myriad claims management companies (CMCs)that take advantage of the large payouts that passengers, whose flights are cancelled, delayed or denied, can claim under EC Regulation 261/2004. The rule entitles passengers to up to €600 if a flight is delayed by more than three hours, unless the reason for the delay is an “extraordinary circumstance” outside the airlines’ control.
...
In a deal signed with AirHelp, Expedia receives a commission for every customer it refers if the compensation claim is successful.
AirHelp makes no secret of the fact that it’s milking a cash cow. “A partnership with AirHelp can turn flight disruptions into opportunities” its website tells potential business partners, adding that it gives their customers “someone to turn to”.
Singh, Manish (2019-02-05). "AirHelp's new bots collect airline compensation for passengers". VentureBeat. Archived from the original on 2019-10-20. Retrieved 2019-10-20.
The article notes:
Hundreds of thousands of travelers each year deal with flights that are delayed, canceled, or overbooked — or have their baggage misplaced. But passengers may not know that they can be compensated for these inconveniences. AirHelp, a Europe-based company that assists people in pursuing such claims, today announced two new bots to further automate its operations and sift through the monumental number of requests it receives.
AirHelp provides a free website people can use to determine if they are eligible for a refund from their airline. Founded in 2013 as a Y Combinator-backed startup, AirHelp claims to have aided more than 7 million people in processing airline compensation worth almost $930 million in total. The company, which operates in 30 countries, including the U.S., only takes a cut when a customer has been successfully reimbursed by the airline.
AirHelp’s new bots underscore its growing reliance on AI, which is increasingly being used by businesses — often with few resources — to automate some of their work. It also fits into a trend of consumer advocacy bots. Joshua Browder, a British-American entrepreneur, single-handedly built a bot called DoNotPay to help challenge traffic tickets in 2015 and later expanded the service to the U.K. and U.S. Within months of DoNotPay’s launch, it had successfully beaten 160,000 traffic tickets.
O'Brien, Sara Ashley (2015-07-02). "Airlines owe fliers $10 billion". CNN. Archived from the original on 2019-10-20. Retrieved 2019-10-20.
The article notes:
A penny, or $450, for your troubles? That's the business of AirHelp: getting fliers money for airline woes.
...
AirHelp has a fully automated system that deciphers the validity of a claim based on everything from flight info to air traffic control data.
By entering basic flight information on AirHelp's app or website, passengers can find out if they're eligible for compensation within minutes. (Or, there's an option to link an email account and AirHelp will keep constant tabs on whether you're owed money from a flight.)
AirHelp launched in Copenhagen in 2013 but now operates in 17 countries. On average, customers get $450 per claim. AirHelp gets a 25% cut of the payout -- it only makes money when its passengers do.
...
That's why AirHelp, an alum of Y Combinator, has 15 lawyers on its 70-person team.
Roof, Katie (2016-08-03). "AirHelp raises $12 million to deal with airline customer service for you". TechCrunch. Archived from the original on 2019-10-20. Retrieved 2019-10-20.
The article notes:
For hassle-free travel, AirHelp is raising $12 million in Series A funding from a group of investors, including Khosla Ventures and Evan Williams.
AirHelp promises to get you money from airlines when you deserve it. And they’ve helped 900,000 customers so far — sometimes even filing lawsuits on their behalf.
AirHelp wants to “take all that hassle and paperwork away from people,” co-founder and CEO Henrik Zillmer tells TechCrunch. We “saw an opportunity in automating the process so we could handle thousands of claims and not necessarily have to do it manually.”
...
But don’t expect to get all your money back. AirHelp takes a 25 percent cut for its efforts. There is also a $20 annual membership for which AirHelp monitors all your flights and seeks delay claims automatically.
The company has 230 employees and is headquartered in New York.
Lapowsky, Issie (2014-05-06). "Bumped From a Flight? This Startup Wants to Get You Paid". Wired. Archived from the original on 2019-10-20. Retrieved 2019-10-20.
The article notes:
WHEN AN AIRLINE bumps us from a flight or delays us for hours on end, most of us accept our meager meal vouchers and swallow our pride. A bold few might actually file a claim for compensation, but when an airline either fails to answer the claim or rejects it outright, those passengers usually give up, too.
Not Henrik Zillmer. When Zillmer had airline trouble a few years back, he "didn't take no for an answer." Instead, he pored over national and international flight regulations and scoured legal judgments against the airlines. What he found was that, in most cases, passengers who take their meal vouchers and walk away may actually be legally entitled to hundreds of dollars in compensation from the airlines. He crunched publicly available data on the number of delayed flights and the number of passengers per flight, and discovered that airlines collectively owe compensation to some 26 million passengers every year. The problem is that they're only paying about 0.06 percent of what they owe.
Zillmer, a serial entrepreneur, didn't just go after his own compensation. He set out to help all 26 million of those passengers. In 2013, along with Nicolas Michaelsen and Greg Roodt, he founded AirHelp, a company that helps anyone get paid when airlines mess up. The company now has 20,000 customers and counting, and it has won them millions in compensation in just a year of operations. When customers get paid, AirHelp takes a 25 percent cut. It's a business model that Zillmer calls "justice as a service."
Loten, Angus (2019-02-21). "AirHelp Adds Bots to Help Handle Airline Passenger Claims for Compensation". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2019-10-20. Retrieved 2019-10-20.
The article notes:
AirHelp Ltd., which runs a travel technology service, is adding a pair of bots to its automated legal-claims team that is designed to assist airline passengers seeking compensation from carriers for delayed, cancelled or overbooked flights.
The two new AI tools, launched this month, will enable the company to automate the initial manual review process its staff uses to decide which claims the company should handle and which it should reject. AirHelp currently uses artificial intelligence to assist its lawyers on claims it is handling that are ignored or denied by the airlines to determine which course of action its legal team should take, if any.
...
The company’s first automated legal tool, unveiled in 2016 and dubbed “Herman,” takes the uploaded data, which identifies operating airlines, departure airports, arrival airports and passenger country of origin, and generates a recommended legal action. That includes suing the airline for compensation on behalf of the passenger, or simply dropping the claim.
To calibrate the tool, AirHelp initially fed it data from 35,000 claims obtained from public records on court proceedings in compensation cases, as well as its own internal data, according to the company.
A second bot, Lara, which was added a year later, compares the claims identified by the first bot as worth pursuing with thousands of successful cases across more than 30 countries to gauge the likelihood of a successful outcome for passengers. The company says this second tool has achieved a 96% accuracy rate, compared with 91% by its human lawyers, Mr. Quach said.
Gardner, Terry (2018-04-30). "When bad things happen to good European Union-protected travelers, AirHelp may lend a hand". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2019-10-20. Retrieved 2019-10-20.
The article notes:
Enter AirHelp, which assists travelers, covered under EU rules, in claiming compensation.
...
AirHelp makes it easy to find out whether you’re eligible for a piece of that pie. Those travelers covered by EU rules can check to see whether they have a claim at AirHelp.com or by using its free iOS or Android app.
...
If AirHelp collects nothing, you owe nothing. If it collects on a claim, which may include taking a carrier to court, AirHelp takes a fixed fee, which is usually about 25%.
I put it to the test. After downloading the iOS app, I set up my AirHelp account with my Gmail address. It immediately went to work finding all my flight itineraries from the last few years.
Calder, Simon (2018-12-12). "What's the best way to claim compensation for my delayed flight?". The Independent. Archived from the original on 2019-10-20. Retrieved 2019-10-20.
The article notes:
AirHelp has expanded aggressively in the past few years and has tackled many cases successfully. But it is based in Hong Kong and therefore a claim may prove more complicated than with a firm whose headquarters are in the UK.
Chang, Lulu (2018-01-17). "See if airlines owe you money from up to 3 years ago with AirHelp's new tool". Digital Trends. Archived from the original on 2019-10-20. Retrieved 2019-10-20.
The article notes:
It’s hard enough getting airlines to reimburse you for that hellish trip you had to endure last night, much less last year. But now, one app is helping you set wrongs right, even if those wrongs occurred in the not-so-recent past. AirHelp, which last year announced a boarding pass scanner to give real-time information about delayed flight compensation, is now launching a new tool that will help you travel back in time — that is, with regard to airline payback.
Available on both the web and on your mobile device, AirHelp’s newest tool connects to your email address, scanning for all flights you’ve taken in the last three years, and importing that information into the AirHelp database. From there, the tool will be able to check your eligibility for compensation for flights that were delayed or canceled. Moreover, the feature allows you to visually map all the journeys you’ve taken in recent memory, so you can see what a globetrotter you really are. You can also check out how much money you’ve spent on flight tickets (yikes).
Henry, Alan (2014-03-07). "AirHelp Gets You Real Money Back for a Cancelled or Delayed Flight". Lifehacker. Archived from the original on 2019-10-20. Retrieved 2019-10-20.
The article notes:
AirHelp launched this week in the United States, but it's been working on behalf of travelers in Europe for some time now. All you have to do is fill out the site's five-question survey to see if your situation is eligible for actual compensation. If it is, AirHelp will do the heavy lifting for you, petitioning the airline and following up on your behalf. In return, they get 25% of the compensation, including taxes. If it's not, no harm no foul, and you're out nothing but the time you spent filling out the form.
Newenham, Pamela (2014-11-06). "Start-up AirHelp putting fear into airlines: Danish firm fights for airline passengers across Europe for compensation over flight delays, cancellations and overbookings". The Irish Times. Archived from the original on 2019-10-20. Retrieved 2019-10-20.
The article notes:
It fights the airlines on behalf of travellers who are unsure of their rights under EU or international law, or who lack the time, confidence or expertise to make a claim.
AirHelp handles every step of the process, including going to court if necessary. It takes 25 per cent commission on successful claims.
Users answer five questions on the AirHelp website or mobile app. They are then told whether their flight is eligible for compensation. For a delayed, cancelled or overbooked flight in Europe, passengers can get up to €600 per flight.
...
Passengers have been very happy with the app, but some aviation authorities warn it will lead to fare increases.
Patterson, Brandon (2018-03-09). "AirHelp app helps compensate travelers for late, canceled flights". Detroit Free Press. Archived from the original on 2019-10-20. Retrieved 2019-10-20.
The article notes:
The free AirHelp app, available for IOS and android smartphones and tablets, is able to analyze whether a flight problem qualifies for compensation. It will then register a claim within a few seconds.
...
The app also features a boarding pass scanner that updates travelers on immediate compensation claim decisions on delayed and canceled flights straight from their smartphones.
Blum, Sam (2017-06-02). "This App Can Help You Get Money When an Airline Screws Up". Thrillist. Archived from the original on 2019-10-20. Retrieved 2019-10-20.
The article notes:
While you can’t claim compensation for a domestic flight delay in the US, there’s still a bunch of reasons that you might be eligible to receive payment for an airline’s blunder. Wading through customer service bureaucracy, however, is something you probably want to avoid at all costs. Luckily, though, there’s an app for that, and it’ll streamline the process of filing a claim when an airline might owe you money. AirHelp scans your boarding pass, detects whether or not your flight has been cancelled or delayed, and then gives you a quote detailing how much compensation you can claim from the airline. Miraculously, the process only takes about three minutes, the company notes.
...
The majority of the company’s success has been achieved in Europe, as regulations permit customers to receive reimbursement for regular flight delays. In the US, though, lost and delayed luggage, in addition to involuntary boarding denials and tarmac delays, afford you the opportunity to file a claim. If the airline loses your bags, AirHelp requires you to display receipts for your lost items -- which seems like a pittance, really, especially when a third party is handling all the arbitration. For its trouble, AirHelp takes 25% of the claim, and 50% if it turns into a legal dispute.
Ekstein, Nikki (2017-05-30). "Flight Delay? Get Reimbursed With This Clever App. "It's like AAA for air passengers."". Bloomberg News. Archived from the original on 2019-10-20. Retrieved 2019-10-20.
The article notes:
When it launched in 2013, AirHelp made a simple promise: Report your flight disasters to the company’s customer service agents, and they’ll litigate against airlines on your behalf. You don’t have to pay a penny—unless they manage to get you a settlement. And when they do, the service takes a 25 percent cut. Simple.
On Tuesday, the three-year-old company is taking its next step toward seamless airline compensation with an expansion of its namesake app. Offered free on the iTunes and Android Play stores, the app used to require that travelers fill out a short survey and provide a description of their issue to initiate a claim; now, travelers can simply scan an image of their boarding pass and let AirHelp take care of the rest. With the information from your boarding pass stored in the AirHelp system, the company can track your flight for delays, cancelations, and overbooking so claims can get rolling before you pick up the phone.
...
To date, AirHelp has processed claims for 2 million air passengers for a total compensation of $195 million. (Zillmer said the average payout runs from $500 to $600, often divided among multiple family members flying together and filing a joint claim.) The boarding pass scanner, he said, will make it easier to help more people more efficiently.

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow AirHelp to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

Cunard (talk) 23:15, 20 October 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. RL0919 (talk) 13:05, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pakistan Test wicket-keepers[edit]

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

There is no precedent in other sports for having such lists, such as, no article on association football goalkeeper. It is a mirror of statsguru, and also falls under WP:NOTSTATS. If people agree with me, then we should enlist other similar articles too. Störm (talk) 11:04, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:08, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:08, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:08, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:10, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:11, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:11, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are 30 other similar lists on the same topic. Are these to be bundled here, or is this a test case? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:08, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lugnuts, Test case. If it results in delete then we may consider other for deletion. Störm (talk) 19:57, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've dropped a note at WT:CRIC to get more input. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 05:25, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom/WP:NOTSTATS. This is just a list of stats with no prose giving any context. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:51, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We either help users find articles they want by categories or by list articles. The Cats have all been deleted as per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_January_10#Category:Wicket-keepers. And making this a test article is a bad idea, because you'll avoid notifying interested editors who haven't edited this particular one, like Spike 'em, who has plenty of edits to List of England Test wicket-keepers. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 00:02, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dweller, Lugnuts has dropped a note at WT:CRIC. I think it is enough to attract interested people. Störm (talk) 09:42, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also, see related AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of World XI wicket-keepers which resulted in delete. Störm (talk) 09:45, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think if you are to use a test case to set a precedence, you should use one of the better examples of such lists rather than one of the worst. As mentioned by Dweller, I've edited the England list in the past, which has a reasonable amount of prose in the lead. It would be straightforward to add similar to any other list of keepers. Spike 'em (talk) 15:39, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I also see some merit in what Dweller says about aiding navigation. Football may not have lists of players by position, but they certainly have a set of categories to do so. Looking back through the CfD above, the cricket versions of these were deleted many years ago mainly to stop people arguing about whether a given player is an all-rounder or not. Spike 'em (talk) 15:43, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion Re the comment in the nom, most other sports use the categories to navigate positions, but the cricket cats were deleted. It is clearly a notable intersection (spend a minute googling), but I think this is all the wrong way round. Can I suggest we close this, all support an overturn of the category deletions and then return here? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:50, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dweller I concur with the suggestion. The navigation by category is a better way to go. Most of the stats in these lists are already covered by main lists such as, in this example, List of Pakistan Test cricketers. I see no use of such lists, and continously updating them is also a hassle. OK, I am withdrawing my nomination. Störm (talk) 11:18, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw my nomination and close this AfD. Störm (talk) 11:18, 23 October 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 15:23, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sri Lanka Test cricket five-wicket haul wicket takers[edit]

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

As per WP:NOTMIRROR, WP:LISTCRUFT. Fails WP:NLIST. Störm (talk) 10:42, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:13, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:14, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:15, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:15, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:15, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:17, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom/WP:NOTSTATS. This is just a list of stats with no prose giving any context. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:52, 19 October 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 15:23, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sri Lanka ODI cricket five-wicket haul wicket takers[edit]

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

As per WP:NOTMIRROR, WP:LISTCRUFT. Fails WP:NLIST. Störm (talk) 10:42, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:18, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:19, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:19, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:20, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:20, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:22, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom/WP:NOTSTATS. This is just a list of stats with no prose giving any context. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:52, 19 October 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 15:23, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sri Lanka T20I cricket five-wicket haul wicket takers[edit]

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

Already covered under List of five-wicket hauls in Twenty20 International cricket. No need to split when there are only three entries. Störm (talk) 10:40, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:24, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:24, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:24, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:24, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:25, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:25, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom/WP:NOTSTATS. This is just a list of stats with no prose giving any context. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:52, 19 October 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 speedily deleted (CSD A10) along with Cambridge Capital (CSD A7) by Bbb23. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge capital[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. scope_creep^Talk 10:35, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:30, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:31, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:31, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lourdes 00:22, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vision Air International[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 10:12, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep any airline that actually operated a commercial service is of note and should be kept. The article could do with more references but that is not a reason to delete a noteworthy subject. MilborneOne (talk) 10:31, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you think this article should be kept then provide reliable sources in depth. Otherwise, this comes under circular reasoning. Störm (talk) 07:31, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG is only a guide, the thing to look out for with these small airlines is that they actually got as far as operating a scheduled service, an issue of a ICAO code and callsign is also a good sign. So clearly not a failed startup it operates Boeing 737 cargo flights. Original research indicates 737 AP-BMU flew Karachi to Lahore and return today on VIS1105/1106. The fact that we cant find that many references in English is not a reason to delete if the airline is clearly of note. MilborneOne (talk) 15:21, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:05, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:05, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:05, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:05, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I spent some time looking for references on this airline and came up with only a couple of cursory mentions. The EnWiki article on Jinnah International Airport states that the airline offers cargo services to Lahore, but I am not able to find any mention of the airline on either of those airport websites. In addition, the Urdu Wiki does not mention the airline either, either as a standalone article, in mentions of those airports, or on the list of Pakistani airlines page. I believe that the company exists, but I can't find enough reliable sources to support the claim of being Pakistan's largest cargo carrier, and not enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. RecycledPixels (talk) 19:19, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. No prejudice against recreation if sourcing issues can be addressed.4meter4 (talk) 03:19, 26 October 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 List of Battlestar Galactica characters. Tone 15:24, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Count Iblis[edit]

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

No indication this fictional character passes WP:NFICTION or WP:GNG. Contains in-universe biography (that probably can be referenced with WP:PRIMARY). No indication of real world significance, no section on reception, reviews, scholarly studies, etc. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:05, 18 October 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} 10:05, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge Seems to have been a significant character – see An Analytical Guide ..., for example. We should hear from user:Count Iblis, who may know more. Andrew D. (talk) 10:22, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge with List of Battlestar Galactica characters as not independently notable per nom._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:21, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 01:31, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 01:31, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 01:31, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge to List of Battlestar Galactica characters. Insufficient real-world interest to satisfy the GNG. While the Iaccino book's coverage is non-trivial, that itself is largely plot summary. Not enough by itself. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Count Iblis' real world significance is similar to that of Donald Trump. Count Iblis (talk) 17:37, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter is not a metric of real world significance in the slightest. One can purchase as many Twitter followers as they have the money to afford. I am also pretty sure fictional characters cannot run Twitter accounts._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:38, 21 October 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:45, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Princely Jets[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 10:04, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:33, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:34, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:34, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:35, 18 October 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:46, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Star Air Aviation[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 10:02, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:37, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:38, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:38, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:38, 18 October 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 15:25, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft Sales and Services Limited[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 10:00, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:40, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:40, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:40, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:40, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see anything that would make this company notable. It has three small aircraft. All references are to their own website. Concur with nom. MB 04:41, 21 October 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 05:01, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paramount Publishing Enterprise[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 09:57, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:42, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:42, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:42, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:43, 18 October 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.

Mathias Serin[edit]

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) SportingFlyer T·C 12:08, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Despite possibly have numerous references, playing for a single minute in a WP:FPL eligible league seems to be pushing it to the limit of being eligible under that. HawkAussie (talk) 06:38, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 06:38, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 06:38, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 06:38, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:26, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL and likely meets WP:GNG from a very quick Google News search. Has nominator (again) even bothered with WP:BEFORE??? GiantSnowman 08:29, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Again yes I did but it was all for lower level, nothing from the top level so that is why I am asking the question. HawkAussie (talk) 10:31, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - It doesn't matter what the articles are for, does it? It all counts towards GNG. R96Skinner (talk) 11:01, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NFOOTY and has had a long career at the lower level.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:27, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - NFOOTY passed, career ongoing. Plus GNG potential, e.g. [24] (an example, not limited to), as noted above. R96Skinner (talk) 11:01, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Although Serin has primarily been a semi-pro or amateur footballer, there is significant coverage in French-language sources (La Voix du Nord and Ouest-France both have a series of articles on him). I've added 3 to the article, and think it passes WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 16:25, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:NFOOTY - lots of media coverage. Massive before failure ... again. WP:CIR? Nfitz (talk) 00:51, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jogurney's expansion and sources. I wish editors would lay off noms; everybody noms an article that ends up kept now and again. – Levivich 03:39, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn HawkAussie (talk) 07:43, 21 October 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 the argument for keeping this, but I don't think that with Wikipedia's current philosophy regarding guidelines a "keep" close would be considered correct w/o a change in the inclusion criteria beforehand. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:04, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tamatha Paul[edit]

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

Subject is a president of student union on Victoria University and a City council of a population of around 200K, thus fails WP:NPOL notability requirements. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:34, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:34, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:34, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:47, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wellington is not large enough to hand its city councillors an free "inherently notable" pass over NPOL #2 just because they exist, but three of the four references here are primary sources (her own self-published website about herself, and two raw tables of election results) which are not support for notability at all, and the one that actually represents media coverage is not enough all by itself to get her over the bar. GNG does not just automatically cover off every single person who's ever gotten their name into any newspaper once — it tests for volume and depth and range and context, not just for n>=1, so making a city councillor notable enough for an article requires a lot more than this. And being president of a university student union has exactly nothing to do with any of our notability criteria at all, so that doesn't automatically make her any more notable than other city councillors either. Bearcat (talk) 18:00, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It often makes my blood boil that people who're otherwise apparently rational can decide that Wikipedia's inclusion criteria ---- rules, let's remind ourselves, which require us to retain the list of crayola crayon colours, more than 50kb of content on sexuality in Star Trek, that article about the psychic octopus, and smoot ---- also somehow require us to delete the biographies of intelligent and accomplished people on the pretext those people aren't "notable". It is utterly ridiculous that our rules say this. I am therefore adopting the position that the sources I've found (1, 2, 3) collectively amount to a good case for this lady's "notability."—S Marshall T/C 19:13, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If all you had to do to make a person notable enough for a Wikipedia article is claim that they were intelligent and accomplished enough to be fundamentally more notable than a list of crayon colours, then everybody would always claim that, nobody would ever be non-notable anymore, and then we'd just be LinkedIn. Every city councillor in every city can always show three local sources and therefore claim to be more notable than smoot, which is precisely why that isn't enough to make every city councillor on earth permanently notable. Bearcat (talk) 02:34, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I do understand how Wikipedia works. She would be worthy of an article if she was a footballer who'd played at an international level for seven minutes, or a cat that uses the bus, or an individual episode of the Twilight Zone, but since she's merely a person who's achieved something worthwhile, we need to hurry up and delete her article. If a non-Wikipedian asked me to explain that logically, I couldn't do it without making our encyclopaedia sound really badly thought out. Could you?—S Marshall T/C 16:29, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges. The only thing that's relevant here is whether or not she clears the notability standard that we apply to city councillors, and that notability standard is that she has to be significantly more notable than most other city councillors. Whether or not she's more notable than a cat has nothing to do with it — because, again, every single city councillor can always claim to be more notable than a cat, so if that were the bar that a city councillor had to clear we would always have to keep an article about every single city councillor on the planet. But we have an established consensus that city councillors are not all inherently notable, and are accepted only if they can be shown to be significantly more nationally or internationally notable than most other city councillors. Bearcat (talk) 23:52, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. It's a stupid consensus, though. Encyclopaedists are fundamentally educators. We should be more respectful and inclusive towards academics (and particularly academics who aren't male, stale and pale); and we should be focusing our deletion efforts on trivia, marketing and spam. I've been on a Wikibreak recently so I'm temporarily seeing things as the non-Wikipedian sees them, and wow, our rules are really peculiar and we've got our priorities badly wrong.—S Marshall T/C 01:03, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in the article, or any of your sources, suggests that she's an academic. Are you misinterpreting what it means to be president of a student union? Because that doesn't make a person an academic — it makes her a student. Bearcat (talk) 17:36, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

She graduated in December, actually, according to her website. I agree that she's an academic politician and not a political academic.—S Marshall T/C 21:31, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with our notability standard for academics. A person has to be a faculty member, not a student body politician, to be considered an "academic" for the purposes of passing WP:NACADEMICS. Bearcat (talk) 22:54, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. That alphabet soup is why we need to delete this lady's article, and there's other alphabet soup about why we need to keep this article about the basketball team's mascot, this article about the bloke with a really long name, this article about a doll's jobs, and this article about which way round to hang your toilet paper. I agree that throughout this discussion, you've correctly stated the rules. My point is that in cases like this, the rules lead to silly outcomes.—S Marshall T/C 10:47, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing remotely silly about the idea that city councillors aren't inherently notable, and no reason why this one is somehow uniquely more notable than others. Bearcat (talk) 20:40, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. WP:INTELLIGENTANDACCOMPLISHED is not a valid justification. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obviously does not meet notability qualifications. Kiwichris (talk) 01:11, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly does not meet our notability gudieline for politicians. As I have said on many occasions, I think our current notability guidelines on footballers are an aberation. By a similar guidelines we would hold every holder of a tenure track university professorship, or maybe everyone who ever was a teacher of record of even one university course, to be notable. I have to admit since I agree with John McAdams view on how we should consider and treat graduate students who are the teacher of record on a course and use that postion to attack the intellectual freedom of their students, I can see some validity there, but I also understand why we do not do that. Which is why we should get rid of the aberation of 7 minutes play in one game making someone notable as a footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:50, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that GNG is met, if only just. Fenix down (talk) 15:58, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David Serrano[edit]

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

Despite passing WP:NFOOTY as he played for 70 minutes in the Greek Second Division + 14 minutes in Segunda Division, a search on Google gives barely any results for the player in question. HawkAussie (talk) 06:33, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 06:33, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 06:33, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 06:33, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A sole Google search is not a functional WP:BEFORE search. Articles on Serrano [25] [26] (and a list of all articles where he's mentioned in that publication here - don't think he was the perp, though) [27] [28]. Other articles as well which probably aren't primary/independent, and I didn't search in Greek. SportingFlyer T·C 08:15, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:27, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL and likely meets WP:GNG from a very quick Google News search. Has nominator (again) even bothered with WP:BEFORE??? Giant Snowman 08:29, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NFOOTY and subject is only 24 years and is currently playing.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:31, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - NFOOTY passed, career ongoing. Plus GNG potential as noted above. R96Skinner (talk) 11:01, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Keep - Article about professional footballer who has made 5 substitutes appearances (totaling less than 100 minutes of play) in fully-pro leagues. All of the online Spanish- and Greek-language coverage I can find is passing mentions (e.g., he was injured, he scored a goal, he signed a contract) or database entries. The Greek-language coverage is typical (dozens of brief mentions of his signing, but nothing coverage his play for the club - which consisted of a few second half cameos). ~~Moreover, I have no clue where he is playing now, if at all. I don't think NFOOTBALL's presumption of notability should hold here.~~ Updated due to SportingFlyer's note below about L'Esportiu. I hadn't searched Catalan-language sources other than the ones identified above (oops!), and this newspaper has a few articles (e.g., [29] and [30], ) that go into enough depth to get us to GNG-compliance. Jogurney (talk) 16:50, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, according to Soccerway he is back in Spain with fourth-tier Sant Andreu. I've updated the infobox. Jogurney (talk) 16:53, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I agree with Jogurney. This is a game report that discusses Serrano scoring a goal; it's not WP:SIGCOV of Serrano as a player or as a person; there's more information about the goal and the game than there is about Serrano. This is about the team struggling with injuries, in which Serrano's injury is mentioned; also not SIGCOV of Serrano. This is a two-paragraph signing announcement. Plenty of brief mentions like [31] but I'm not finding any GNG sources. – Levivich 03:40, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree with the delete !voters on the sigcov - more than enough sources to write an article on him. There's more out there as well - found [32] very quickly. SportingFlyer T·C 08:15, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless I'm mistaken, the entirety of that article translates to: Chosen last Saturday to complete the call against Oviedo, David Serrano returns to work with the first team in Girona, as he did last season, when he made his debut in the second A before being transferred to Badalona. "I'm very happy because I wanted to go back to the first team. Working with humility is how things come about," said Serrano. "It's a second chance. Now is my time and I have to take it as much as I can." With a profile that adapts well to the lane, Serrano admits that the transfer to Badalona was not entirely productive (371 minutes in seven games) and is very pleased with Peralada's performance: "The team is very good and we are all surprised at the work of the team and the technical body. We're really looking forward to continuing on top." Serrano participated in yesterday's training along with Marc Carbó. Two sentences in the journalist's own voice (the first and the last); six sentences that are quotes from the article subject; one sentence that is a statement attributed to the article subject. l can't see that as SIGCOV. – Levivich 18:20, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - We clearly focus on different things when assessing WP:SIGCOV. This article lends notability since what seems to be a decent news rag is writing an article specifically on him, and can be used to flesh out the Wikipedia article. It's not really an interview-style article in the "let's profile this random athlete." Plus, it's not as if it's the only article we're using to establish notability. SportingFlyer T·C 04:12, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 13:26, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bhavesh Kumar[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. GSS ^💬 06:31, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 06:31, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 06:31, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect (to P Se Pyaar F Se Faraar) fails WP:NACTOR and WP:ANYBIO. Seems like a budding actor with an upcoming film. Needs to give atleast 2 successful movies with a lead role to have his own article. So far nothing notable has been done by the subject that merits an article. --DBig Xrayᗙ 07:32, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed from delete to Delete and redirect based on the comment by Nosebagbear--DBig Xrayᗙ 12:53, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect (to P Se Pyaar F Se Faraar) - he's not notable as per NFILM. The content would need to be nuked and re-written even were he notable (I've just scrapped a bunch of unsupported/unsupportable promo content), so I think a D&R is appropriate, as there is a film article and people might well search for him. He doesn't actually need to be in films that are successful. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:24, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:49, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:04, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:TOOSOON with only one significant role, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:32, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. as main issue WP:BLP1E and WP:TOOSOON.-Nahal^(T) 11:15, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lourdes 00:23, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vijay Nehra[edit]

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

Not meeting WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. I am not able to find any significant coverage on the subject. Being a government officer is not enough to demonstrate notability as per Wikipedia standards. Presented sources are routine coverage of local happenings where the subject is involved with passing mentions. Hitro talk 06:03, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 06:03, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 06:03, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources provided include coverage in the national press of which Nehra and his colleagues are clearly the main topic, as well as plenty of other more local coverage. This is sustained over a period of five years. The subject’s role as municipal commissioner is not enough in itself to demonstrate notability, but with this level of coverage, that isn’t a problem. Mccapra (talk) 06:12, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Passes WP:GNG and has recieved multiple covergaes in the independent sources. Article requires cleanup though. -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 13:07, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the references seem promotional notices. There is no reason to expect otherwise, as his political career to this point is quite modest. DGG ( talk ) 08:57, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 16:55, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG and 4meter4, and as a very ordinary civil servant. Bearian (talk) 19:33, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as he doesn't seem to have much WP:SIGCOV for himself, just his position, and as part of Modi's team. - ChrisWar666 (talk) 21:30, 26 October 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. RL0919 (talk) 13:29, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Infidel Inc.[edit]

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

I don’t see coverage of this band in reliable independent sources (one source is provided in the article). Does not pass WP:BAND. Mccapra (talk) 05:28, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:28, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:28, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:28, 18 October 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. RL0919 (talk) 13:32, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IPdrum[edit]

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

Mccapra (talk) 05:03, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:03, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:03, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:03, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I accidentally posted this before including my rationale. Firstly the company only existed for three years. The sources indicate that its Skype product may have been notable, but the refs are all about the product, not the company. Nothing suggests the company itself is notable. Mccapra (talk) 05:05, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 13:33, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Ivers[edit]

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

I PRODed this bio stub. Another editor deprodded it after adding a reference. However the ref added only includes a passing mention of the subject, and the biographical details in the article remain unsourced. The subject was the author of multiple books but I don’t see that he is clearly notable. Mccapra (talk) 04:51, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 04:51, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 04:51, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 04:51, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unable to find any indication of notability. Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, WP:AUTHOR, WP:NHORSERACING, and WP:NEQUESTRIAN. Steve Quinn (talk) 06:34, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails as per nom. Barca (talk) 01:32, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Horse racing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete his contributions to horse training may be notable, but we lack the sourcing to show that. Wikipedia is built on verifiability and we lack verrification here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:53, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete failure to show WP:SIGCOV.Strandvue (talk) 00:56, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 13:34, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kenni Aggerholm[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP tagged as needing citations since 2012. No reliable sources are available. Google hits are Linkedin, Twitter, and some other weird kind of user generated pages. The India times google hit says they have photos and videos, but I didn't see them, and this would not be significant coverage in multiples of reliable sources. No google news coverage available. Fails NSPORTS and GNG. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:37, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 06:18, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:50, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:51, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete Competed in one motorcycle GP race in 2006 where he finished 19th out of 19 finishers. I don't think that's enough to show notability, although it may be enough to technically meet WP:NMOTORSPORT. The lack of significant coverage shows he fails to meet the GNG and that's more important than perhaps meeting an SNG.Sandals1 (talk) 13:03, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 13:36, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

San Felipe F.C.[edit]

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

The team fails WP:NFOOTY as they haven't played in the national cup which is what is needed for it be to eligible. HawkAussie (talk) 04:15, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 04:15, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 04:15, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of El Salvador-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 04:15, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete cannot even verify them. SportingFlyer T·C 04:50, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with nom. Fails NFOOTY. Also fails GNG per WP:V. Steve Quinn (talk) 06:17, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:27, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 08:29, 18 October 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 15:25, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Franse[edit]

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

No evidence in the article that this person is notable Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 03:13, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:52, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:55, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:55, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:56, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:44, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Genovese crime family members tend to keep low profiles, and this associate does not appear to be an exception. Franse's death gets a one-paragraph write-up on TruTV and assorted brief RS mentions. Aside from that, there's only blog-based folklore. Not enough to satisfy WP:BASIC or WP:PERP. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 18 October 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. Will also EC-protect due to paid recreation after previous AFD. RL0919 (talk) 13:41, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Leupp[edit]

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. No secondary in-depth sources that are independent. scope_creep^Talk 01:46, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 02:53, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 02:53, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree wholeheartedly with the nominator. This was deleted last year, and none of the sources provided amount to WP:SIGCOV. The usual internet searches do not turn up anything either. Delete and salt. Edwardx (talk) 09:41, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable source. Barca (talk) 01:36, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lourdes 00:23, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Matt McCann[edit]

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

Subject lacks significant coverage in reliable sources, page's current references are poor, and the page is promotional. Meatsgains^(talk) 01:01, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Subject does have national press such as this

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 02:55, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:00, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to be mostly WP:SELFPUB, WP:PROMO (The florida newswire article above is from 'send2press newswire', which doesn't seem independent) - ChrisWar666 (talk) 04:41, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacking independent coverage, so it fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 13:51, 26 October 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. RL0919 (talk) 13:32, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Inez Ortiz[edit]

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

I'm having trouble determining the demonstrated notability of this artist. I gather there are biographical sketches in these two sources [33][34], but they would seem to be in the nature of exhibition catalogues - not independent. The other material provided is of the same type: mentions and exhibition bio bits. Overall, I don't believe WP:NARTIST is satisfied. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 00:12, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 02:56, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 02:56, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:57, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think that proposing that Ortiz is not notable because these two collections of biographies are not independent would be taking Wikipedia:Identifying and using independent sources beyond where it was intended to go. These are not press releases or sales catalogues. One might argue that the Schaaf, the director of the Center For Indigenous Arts & Cultures is a self-published author, because CIAF is the the publisher. But the book contains 2,000 biographies, and unless the subjects paid Schaaf to be included, I don't think its neutrality has been compromised. Schaaf's work is scholarly, not promotional. As for Fourteen families in Pueblo pottery, its author, Rick Dillingham doesn't seem to have a CoI with Inez Ortiz. I think it would be most unfortunate if we decided that we can't use museum catalogues as sources on artists because they're published by the University of New Mexico Press, which is connected to the Maxwell Museum of Anthropology. I don't think that creates a problem with regards to neutrality towards the subject, which I see as the main concern for the explanatory supplement on independent sources. Vexations (talk) 13:05, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article definitely could use some reworking and is not in a very good condition as of now, but the subject I believe fulfills our notability guideline even just limited to the sources presented in the article. 107.77.203.224 (talk) 19:22, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I cleaned up the references and found that her work in the collection of the Birmingham Museum of Art. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:25, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Megalibrarygirl: Not that I doubt you, but is that the correct ref? Can't find any mention of her there. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:54, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Elmidae: The ref is funny. There's a slideshow that shows the work in the collection. As the slideshow is going through slides, you can see that one of them is Ortiz. It would probably be better to go to the museum catalog, but I didn't have the time and when I found that, I was pretty happy and wanted to add it and share. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:54, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work guys, those museum holdings ought to do it. (Still can't see the one at Birmingham though) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:16, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. Museum holdings means she meets the criteria at WP:NARTIST.4meter4 (talk) 04:43, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She is a well known Cochiti Pueblo (Northern New Mexico) potter. She is also known by the name Juanita Inez Ortiz, and comes from a long lineage of Native American potters and artists. Her work is in the Smithsonian Museum collection, and the Spencer Muswum of Art. She clearly meets our criteria for WP:ARTIST. Netherzone (talk) 13:20, 25 October 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.