Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 October 30

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 29 October	31 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 keep. Clear keep consensus post RS from Cbl62 - no need to prolong. (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 23:25, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1973 San Diego Toreros football team

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

The page possibly fails WP:GNG and a check on Google sees only results for the San Diego State and not the San Diego Toreros. HawkAussie (talk) 23:07, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 23:07, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 23:07, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 23:07, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unremarkable Division III team's season. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:16, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeing similar coverage for the 1973 Sweetwater High School football team in the San Diego area (including this and this among others), so if you guys want to create a page for a similar level of football feel free. As SportingFlyer said, it is pretty common for low-level (and not notable) sports clubs to receive significant local coverage (per WP:ROUTINE and WP:GEOSCOPE) and I can't support the inclusion of a non-notable Division III football team season. San Diego may very well be Division I now, but it wasn't at the time and notability is not inherited. Eagles 24/7 (C) 13:28, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:ROUTINE and WP:GEOSCOPE are a part of Wikipedia:Notability (events). The article in question is about a team. Additionally, the coverage cited includes feature articles which is far surpasses the routine guideline. And since the team competed nationally at their level, that also places it far outside the "geoscope" guideline.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:50, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They may have competed nationally, albeit at the lowest possible level governed by the NCAA, but there is no coverage of the team outside of the southern California region. As the coverage is mostly related to routine events the team participated in, those guidelines still apply here. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:00, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Eagles247: I agree with you that unremarkable D3 seasons don't warrant stand-alone articles and that we need standards to limit the proliferation of such articles (otherwise we could eventually be faced with 50,000 sub-stubs on D2, D3, and NAIA football seasons). Compare Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 Olivet Comets football team. However, the 1973 Toreros are not in that unremarkable category. Further, two game stories in the local small-town Chula Vista newspaper is not remotely comparable to the statewide coverage received by the 1973 Toreros, including articles in the Los Angeles Times and San Francisco Examiner. Cbl62 (talk) 16:03, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Those are fair points. How about the 1973 Temple City High School football team? Here, here, here, here, etc. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:12, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think we've yet to allow a season article for a high school football team, but a winning streak from 1969 to 1973 ... that's worthy of coverage somewhere, maybe at Temple City High School#Athletics. My view is that the football projects should make the editorial judgment that we aren't going to have season articles on high school football teams. And college seasons below Division I should be limited to something extraordinary ... like a national championship or perhaps (as in this case) a final four appearance. I do not want to see us opening the flood gates to tens of thousands of stubs on ordinary D2, D3 and NAIA seasons (like 2018 Olivet) that have minimal content and that cannot be effectively monitored by our volunteers to protect from vandalism. Cbl62 (talk) 17:36, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I believe everyone in this discussion would agree that high school football teams should not have season articles. But the point I'm trying to make is, what's the difference between the 1973 Temple City HS football team and the 1973 San Diego Toreros football team in terms of notability? Both are amateur football clubs in which their players did not receive compensation in the form of athletic scholarships or salaries (Division III athletes do not receive scholarships), and both likely meet your threshold of significant coverage for WP:GNG. There is no article for the 1973 NCAA Division III football playoffs (or any season's Division III playoffs for that matter), so I'm not sure a presumed notability threshold should be earning a spot in the final four of a playoff series that isn't notable by itself. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:59, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Eagles247: We largely agree. Regardless of whether a season can be said to arguably pass WP:GNG, the football projects have the right and ability to make editorial judgments on which levels of football seasons should and shouldn't be covered by season articles. That's what I would like to see happen. My original thought was that season articles for D3 should be limited to national championship teams -- however, I don't think consensus supports my original view. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 Saint John's Johnnies football team. So, my backup position is to try to build consensus that nothing below the final four in D3 should have season articles. Having consensus even at that slightly looser level would ameliorate the risk of people creating stub articles on thousands of ordinary D3 seasons supported by the kind of highly local, small-town coverage that many high school teams also receive. In my view, some consensus-drive, bright-line cutoff is better than none. Cbl62 (talk) 19:32, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I think this is still best left to WP:GNG, but I think that's where the primary source of the disagreement is - you pinged me to change my vote on the grounds the team's season had been covered by the San Francisco Examiner and the Los Angeles Times, but looking at those sources brings up a box score, a three-sentence article written only because they played Loyola in Los Angeles, and a two-sentence article written only because they played St Mary's nearby San Francisco. The two good sources, in my opinion, are the Humboldt State feature article (again, written not because San Diego's season was particularly notable, but because Humboldt State were playing a specific opponent) and the Chula Vista article (which lends notability to the team, but not necessarily the season.) I expect this to be kept and don't really feel strongly about it since I'm enjoying the discussion and since the article's less terrible than most and they were one of the top four teams in their division, but even after the WP:HEY the article's prose is mostly sourced to the team's own media guide. I also respect the research that's been put in, I just disagree any sports coverage automatically implies notability in the Wikipedia context (even as a user who has improved a couple sports articles using pretty much exclusively local sources). SportingFlyer T·C 13:35, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete entirely unsourced, no prejudice on recreation if better sources can be found. SportingFlyer T·C 23:36, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer: Significant coverage has been added to the article from multiple, reliable sources, including two of the USA's largest newspapers: Los Angeles Times and San Francisco Examiner. Will you now reconsider your "delete" vote? Cbl62 (talk) 11:48, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:05, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am skeptical about season articles about routine Division III team seasons. However, this one is different for several reasons. First, San Diego is now a Division I team (elevated in 1993) and there is great interest in providing full coverage for Division I teams. Second, the 1973 team made the final four of the D3 playoffs (maybe that's a reasonable cutoff for D3 teams?) Third, and even though archives of The San Diego Union-Tribune for 1973 are not readily available on-line, a quick search turns up a good deal of significant coverage in other reliable sources, sufficient IMO to pass WP:GNG. E.g.,this, this, this, this, this. Cbl62 (talk) 00:28, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cbl62. @SportingFlyer: as I argued elsewhere, lack of sourcing in an article on its face is not reason to delete. Sourcing can usually be found. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:32, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jweiss11: There are many poorly sourced season articles on this website. When I !voted delete, there were no references at all. I really question whether these sorts of articles are necessary, especially because if we go off of which sources are available alone, you could write these for high school sports seasons and technically still pass WP:GNG, but the article's certainly in a much better state than it was. SportingFlyer T·C 03:51, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer: I'm aware that you voted delete before the addition of sources and expansion, but your vote's rationale was illegitimate nonetheless. The point is that lack of sourcing in an article—and toward which no one has yet put much effort—says almost nothing about the notability of the subject. What matters is all available sourcing that's out there that could be added to the article. I understand your concern about the specter of creating an article for every single college football team season and your argument about high school football, although I think consistent sourcing in higher status, notable newspapers is going to fall off for most high school programs. One-off AfDs are not the solution. We need have a general discussion about universal standards at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:16, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jweiss11: I am not going to assume a season article without sources for an amateur team which doesn't even play in its top division should be kept because sources might exist. Some of these articles are no more than two or three sentence long game recaps. Most of the notable coverage comes from a very small town which happens to have a university football team and a newspaper which isn't even the main rag for its metro area. Keep in mind I'm a member of an amateur club which gets local and occasionally statewide coverage - the clubhouse is full of article clippings about how the team won the division in such and such a year, or big games the club has played in, and a season article on the club would be justifiably snow deleted - so just because coverage exists doesn't mean it's notable enough for an article. SportingFlyer T·C 10:06, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cbl62's sources and the improvments made to the article since this AfD was opened. Ejgreen77 (talk) 04:59, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clear pass of WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:28, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG and the article has been improved. WP:NEXIST. Lightburst (talk) 20:05, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article clearly passes WP:GNG. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 20:49, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly passes WP:GNG . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:54, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG with multiple sources of significant coverage from independent source.—Bagumba (talk) 09:29, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:09, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Ramsey (artist)

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

Doesn't meet notability guidelines Robrobbie2 (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly sourced. Doesn't meet notability requirements https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability. Most links don't refer to his art. No references to curated shows or work. No sources for art since 2013. The only major editor is a single user who has only posted edits on this one page - likely the artist himself.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:47, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:47, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article has already been ~~deleted~~ nominated for deletion three times, and the subject still does not meet notability criteria for WP:NARTIST, nor WP:GNG. The references/sources are mentions (a couple sentences), or dead links or don't mention him at all. The ones with more than two or three sentences are human interest pieces, like how he met his fiancé. None are significant coverage, nor reviews/articles of critical and/or art historical importance. Lastly I'm wondering why the article states who he is "friends" with - notability is not inherited from friends or family. Netherzone (talk) 02:10, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NARTIST fail. Almost all of the creative work is done in service of a brand. They amount to publicity stunts. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 10:40, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:21, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:21, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NARTIST - run of the mill artist. Al sources are local, or blogs, and one single syndicated article in Business papers; lacking significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 20:27, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 21:56, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Richard C. Cook

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

No evidence of notability; mostly self-sourced, third-party sources have passing or no mention (the only substantial source, before I removed it, was deprecated source globalresearch.ca); WP:BEFORE shows only fringe sources. Has never been a well-sourced article. Not even notable as fringe. PROD removed, but with no effort to remedy the issues. Doesn't even seem notable per WP:NFRINGE, let alone WP:GNG. David Gerard (talk) 21:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 21:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 21:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough sourcing to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:08, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -Roxy, the dog. Esq. wooF 07:03, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sourcing and claims are self-published. Bearian (talk) 20:29, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. There have been no objections to the two rationales for deletion, and the AfD has been open for over seven days; however, as there has been little participation, WP:REFUND applies. SilkTork (talk) 19:06, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TuxWordSmith

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

Unremarkable software with no evidence of SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG. Zanhe (talk) 21:11, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Zanhe (talk) 21:11, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:55, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:55, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:55, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:58, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete entirely non notable spin off Scrabble fails WP:GNG. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 20:39, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:45, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TuxMathScrabble

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

Unremarkable software with no evidence of SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG. Zanhe (talk) 21:10, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Zanhe (talk) 21:10, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Zanhe (talk) 21:10, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:56, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:56, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:57, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete entirely non notable spin off Scrabble fails WP:GNG. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 20:37, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 22:00, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Realms of Trinity

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

This was, effectively, a heavily modded online server for Neverwinter Nights 2 online play. It received considerable coverage and acclaim within the NWN2 modding community, but that doesn't constitute independent coverage in reliable sources. There are a lot of references provided, but they're universally self-published, podcasts, or otherwise non-independent and non-reliable. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:57, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:57, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't seem to have much significance outside the Neverwinter Nights community. The sources in the article don't look reliable, and the topic of the article is unlikely to ever gain much coverage in secondary sources. Not a very active user (talk) 09:09, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spinout non-notable article which is just WP:GAMECRUFT. Fails WP:GNG. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 20:44, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 21:58, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Known Lands

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

This was, effectively, a heavily modded online server for Neverwinter Nights 2 online play. It received considerable coverage and acclaim within the NWN2 modding community, but that doesn't constitute independent coverage in reliable sources. The IGN links provided in the references here are to a hosted wiki, rather than actual IGN-authored reporting, and so do cannot contribute toward notability. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:56, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:56, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't seem to have any significance outside the Neverwinter Nights community. The term "known lands" is also vague and might refer to several other things. Not a very active user (talk) 08:22, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spinout non-notable article which is just WP:GAMECRUFT. Fails WP:GNG. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 20:45, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 21:59, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dasaria

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

This was, effectively, a heavily modded online server for Neverwinter Nights and Neverwinter Nights 2 online play. It received considerable coverage and acclaim within the NWN/NWN2 modding community, but that doesn't constitute independent coverage in reliable sources. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:52, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:52, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't seem to have any significance outside the Neverwinter Nights community. Not a very active user (talk) 08:05, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spinout non-notable article which is just WP:GAMECRUFT. Fails WP:GNG. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 20:45, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Calidum 20:52, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Hawkins

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

Stub article with a single reference fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. (Please note the other Aaron Hawkins AFD is about a different person with the same name.) Calidum 20:01, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:04, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep He's an IEEE fellow, so meets WP:NPROF C3. Judging from his Google Scholar, he also probably meets WP:NPROF C1. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 20:29, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Firm pass of WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:02, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep. Pass of WP:PROF#C1 for heavily-cited publications, double pass of #C3 for the IEEE Fellowship and Fellow of the Optical Society of America, and pass of #C8 for being editor-in-chief of IEEE Journal of Quantum Electronics. Maybe speedy because the nomination didn't even consider our academic notability guidelines, but in any case I doubt anyone taking those guidelines seriously is likely to choose deletion. And the poor state of our article is not a valid reason for deletion: AfD is not for cleanup. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:34, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep, per all of the above comments. The subject passes several criteria of WP:PROF, including C3 as the fellow of IEEE and of the Optical Society, and C6 as an editor-in-chief of a major journal. The citation data is also impressive with GScholar h-index of 44, and there is at least one significant award; so also passes WP:PROF#C1. Nsk92 (talk) 11:49, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep for unambiguously passing WP:PROF on multiple counts. XOR'easter (talk) 15:29, 31 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 University of Tulsa. Fail of GNG; reasonable consensus to Redirect to the source university (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 12:01, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick O'Shenanigan Memorial Scholarship Endowment Fund

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

Fails WP:GNG. This is a small scholarship fund for one university. Rogermx (talk) 18:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 18:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 18:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 18:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quick delete Obviously no notability, no independent coverage. Reywas92^Talk 18:37, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~: After conducting a search and noting the merge tag, I intended to vote for a merge. However, on UT's talk page there was no support for a merge, only advocacy to delete this article. Lacking any reliable, indedependent, secondary sources (Facebook? really?) this article fails GNG. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 16:41, 31 October 2019 (UTC) Struck prvious !vote. Persuaded to change to:[reply]
Redirect per DannyS712 below. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 21:17, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to University of Tulsa per discussion above - there may be no support for a merge, but redirecting to the related topic would be okay --DannyS712 (talk) 05:05, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 17:06, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Artyom Alimchev

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

Article about footballer who made four appearances in the Russian regionalized third-tier league. The online English- and Russian-language sources covering this person are limited to a handful of match reports and database entries. It's unclear whether the Russian third-tier is a fully-professional league (I'm skeptical that it is), but in any case this is a comprehensive failure of WP:GNG and any presumption of notability from WP:NFOOTBALL doesn't hold. Jogurney (talk) 16:07, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:11, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:11, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:11, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:08, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails GNG which is more important than squeezing by on NFOOTBALL. I agree that Russian third division is likely not fully pro. Giant Snowman 09:02, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:37, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources, no article – Levivich 03:43, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 17:09, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greenfield Girls' Primary School

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

Non-notable primary school. Fails WP:ORGDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:02, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:02, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:06, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing makes this primary school stand out, lack of notability. Reywas92^Talk 18:42, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sub-secondry schools need actual claims to notability, which is totally lacking here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:55, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - run of the mill school and sources. Bearian (talk) 20:33, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 17:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Habito

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

Not notable--refs are PR or notices of initial funding; the articles shows clear cos, and probably paid editing. DGG ( talk ) 20:21, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:58, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:58, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. The only substantial independent articles that I could find are about investors; such as this: [1].4meter4 (talk) 19:12, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There's a profile on the founder, at the BBC, which includes some info and criticism of the company. I'll keep looking for WP:SIGCOV - ChrisWar666 (talk) 21:24, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 15:36, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NCORP. Its services might have garnered some coverage, but the corporation itself is privately held and has zero coverage. Bearian (talk) 20:39, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, fails GNG/WP:NCORP, HighKing⁺⁺ 17:26, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus trending towards keep. Stifle (talk) 14:12, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David Scowsill

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

Another five years on from the previous discussion, the subject does still not appear notable per WP:BIO as none of the sources provide substantial coverage. SmartSE (talk) 23:21, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SmartSE (talk) 23:21, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:44, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:44, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree the WP:SIGCOV isn't established. In the sources available, he is mostly mentioned briefly or that source in question is a press release. Not notable. Gargleafg (talk) 01:36, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The subject seems adequately referenced in the media. There is a significant discussion of him in multiple reliable sources, including Forbes, Reuters (a few times), The New York Times (a few times), The Seattle Times, Washington Times, The National, El Pais, and others. The Wikimedia Commons contains dozens of images of the subject speaking at the global events, which as well signifies of decent notability.--WikedRohutirts (talk) 01:47, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are many sources in the article, but none of them establish notability. The claim above that there is "significant discussion of him in multiple reliable sources" is not the case. Many of the sources are just are him being quoted for something about the travel industry, and are not about him. Others are routine business announcements about executive hirings. None of the references in the article represent significant coverage from independent reliable sources. My own search turns up more of the same. Also the existence of photographs pf somebody at Commons does not indicate notability, it indicates somebody uploaded freely licensed photos of him.- Whpq (talk) 13:04, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. He's a widely cited authority on the travel industry and is a ubiquitously interviewed commentator across the media in major and minor publications. There are many Q and A type interviews with him in the media where he is the main subject (or rather his opinions on topics). I did find some other sources through my university database, including quotes of him in peer reviewed journal articles and some articles where he is the main subject. Appologies for not having urls because my university search tool is internal and I don't have any to give by the means I am using to access the material. See these:

"World Travel and Tourism Council taps Scowsill as next CEO: resume includes stints with AA, Hilton, Opodo.(NEWS)(David Scowsill)"; Weissmann, Arnie; Travel Weekly, Oct 11, 2010, Vol.69(41), p.23 (main subject)
"Q&A with WTTC president, CEO David Scowsill.(World Travel and Tourism Council)(Interview)"; Scowsill, David; Travel Weekly, May 16, 2011, Vol.70(20), p.19
"Interview: WTFC's David Scowsill.(Interview); Baker, Michael B.; Business Travel News, Oct 10, 2011, Vol.28(14), p.6(1)
"BOOKS: The book that shook David Scowsill, chief executive of Opodo"; Management Today, Sept 15, 2003, p.44
"David Scowsill is Interviewed on Bloomberg Surveillance"; CEO Wire, Mar 13, 2014
"David Scowsill Talks About the Global Travel Industry and What Individual Nations Can Do to Help It Grow.(Travel Desk)(Q&A)(Industry overview)"; Christiansen, Kenan; The New York Times, March 30, 2014, p.3(L)
"Scowsill calls for unity"; Travel & Tourism News Middle East : TTN, Jul 1, 2011
"International Sustainable Tourism Policy"; Edgell, David; The Brown Journal of World Affairs, Fall 2015, Vol.22(1), pp.25-36 (cited in this peer reviewed journal article)
"2050 Scenarios for Long-Haul Tourism in the Evolving Global Climate Change Regime"; Vorster, Shaun ; Ungerer, Marius ; Volschenk, Jako; Sustainability, 2013, Vol.5(1), pp.1-51 (cited in this peer reviewed journal article)
"Job satisfaction and employee turnover determinants in high contact services: Insights from Employees’Online reviews"; Stamolampros, Panagiotis ; Korfiatis, Nikolaos ; Chalvatzis, Konstantinos ; Buhalis, Dimitrios; Tourism Management, December 2019, Vol.75, pp.130-147 (cited in this peer reviewed journal article.

In addition to these, there are close to 400 other print articles in which he is interviewed. Theres just enough RS to pass WP:GNG in my opinion.4meter4 (talk) 14:58, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@4meter4: This just looks like more of the same - none of them appear to provide substantial coverage of the subject and a million mentions, quotes and book reviews(!) cannot substitute for 2-3 sources providing substantial coverage. SmartSE (talk) 20:22, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:09, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - he seems to be the mainstream media go-to guy for comments on travel and tourism crises. Bearian (talk) 15:53, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Bearian: I don't dispute that, apart from the should be a, but how does that translate into meeting any criteria for inclusion? SmartSE (talk) 20:22, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - People considered experts in major fields tend to have articles. Bearian (talk) 19:14, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Sympathy with the nom, but the subject is interviewed in too many high-quality RS. His database of video appearances (CNN, CNBC, BBC etc.) is even more impressive ([2]). WP:BASIC says If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability; these are not trivial references, the subject gives material interviews to major RS on the industry. Britishfinance (talk) 11:35, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:RS appears to be SIGCOV and so gng is met. Wm335td (talk) 22:41, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 00:54, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Genovese

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

Still no evidence in the article that supports this person is notable (WP:BASIC). Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 14:07, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:31, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:31, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Jessica Bendinger a notable writer researched the subject for 4-5 years for the podcast she co-presents which is therefore a reliable source with a dozen or more episodes, also coverage in historic newspapers and LA Times already in the article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:20, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the LA Times article, there's only blog-based folklore. This is not enough to satisfy WP:BASIC or WP:PERP. The LA Times article offers little to no information about her history against Vito or her supposed involvement in the queer community, which is only mentioned, not described. BASIC: If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. Also just because a podcast is being conducted by a notable person does not mean the content itself is notable, see WP:INHERITWEB. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 20:36, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If the podcast is researched and written by a respected notable writer then it has strong claims to be a reliable source and there is also historic newspaper coverage,imv Atlantic306 (talk)

Still not enough to convey its notability per INHERITWEB - very little coverage on the podcast to show supposed notability. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 02:14, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INHERITWEB discusses the notability of a source on the web. That is not relevant here. What matters is whether the source is, in this case, sufficiently reliable. A reliable source need not be notable. Thincat (talk) 08:41, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is relevant when you're trying to make the argument that she is notable just because she is in some podcast by a notable person that has very little coverage. Further, that LA Times article, the only reliable source in the article, is talking more about the podcast than it is about Anna, neither of which have enough coverage to have a stand alone article. This article along with the newspaper clipping that takes up a small portion of the paper do not provide sufficient evidence, or substance, that would warrant its own article outside the two sentences that could be written at Vito's, per BASIC. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 14:54, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A reliable source does not have to be popular or notable it only has to be reliable, for example an article in a scientific journal by a professor may not be popular or notable but it's still reliable Atlantic306 (talk) 19:09, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. And what I'm saying is, is that there are not enough reliable sources that prove to verify substantial info (BASIC) beyond the fact that she has testified once or twice against her husband and was a hostess at a gay bar (non notable) - all of which can be said in two lines at Vito Genovese (as I have already merged the small amount of verifiable information to his page). Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 19:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a podcast about a person is not a book, and thus does not create automatic notability, and there is no other notability criteria covered. The fact we lack a birth year to me argues against the reliability of the article and that she is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:35, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As Atlantic306, there is coverage in contemporary newspapers - over 800 results on Newspapers.com. It will take a while to go through them and add sources to the article - but it is clearly quite incorrect to say that there is only a podcast and an LA Times article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:31, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Newspapers.com requires a paid subscription and there is no indication if those sources are substantially about her, or just mention her in passing while talking about other things that are the main topics. Still not enough to meet BASIC or PERP. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 13:11, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have a paid subscription to Newspapers.com (although actually it is possible to get one through Wikipedia). The sources can be clipped so that non-subscribers can view them. What I meant by "It will take a while to go through them and add sources to the article" is that I will read the newspaper articles, find the ones that are substantially about her, and add them to the article. You cannot say yet that it is not enough to meet any notability guideline, as the sources are not yet there to assess. Note that I did not !vote, I just commented about the existence of newspaper articles. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:24, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a lot of work - are you willing to do it - is anyone willing to do it? If the articles are hard to access for the general public or wikipedians, it will be difficult to verify the info. These articles are from the 50s - the clippings I've read that are accessible so far barely mention her involvement in the gay bars (or mention that she is waitress, not a supposed owner - which is not notable). Other than that we have the event where she testified against Vito. A single event. Barely notable - if at all. Perhaps the article may be better suited for the WP:DRAFTSPACE until it shows that it can meet notability guidelines (which I still really don't think it can). Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 13:32, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I frequently do it for articles brought to AfD, to check whether and then show that the subjects are notable. The sources are not hard to access once clipped, and even if they were, per WP:SOURCEACCESS, "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access." RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:54, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that would be good if you could find sources to make it meet guidelines - however, until then, if it would take you a while, this article should really be moved to the draft space until it is ready, if it does not get deleted that is, as it is in shambles right now with regards to its writing style and sourcing. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 14:02, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you have brought it to AfD, it should not be moved anywhere until there is a result here. If consensus is to draftify, then it will be moved to draftspace after the AfD ends. I hope that this will be relisted, as it has been listed for only one week so far, with one Keep !vote - there is certainly not consensus to delete. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:20, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - if it does not get deleted (which I still think it should for the record) - it should be moved to draft until it can be demonstrated it actually is a notable subject (which I still don't think it will be after scouring your news articles for the reasons I stated two posts above). Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 14:25, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I meant. It will be up to editors who participate in this discussion to give an opinion about whether the article meets notability guidelines and should be kept; does not meet notability guidelines and should be deleted, or merged, or redirected; or has potential but is not ready for mainspace and should be moved to draft. Then the closing editors will assess the consensus. If consensus is to keep, it will be kept. Until the AfD is closed, it needs to stay where it is. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:52, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, however, if the consensus here is not to delete, the appropriate move would be to draft it until it meets guidelines - as is something that is done when the topic may have the potential to be notable, we just don’t know yet or it will take a while to get it there in terms of time. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 15:16, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RebeccaGreen: Per WP:AFDFORMAT the course of action is usually in the form of '"Keep", "Delete", "Merge", "Redirect"'. Drafting is not usually a common action, however, per WP:DRAFTIFY, "The aim of moving an article to draft is to allow time and space for the draft's improvement until it is ready for mainspace. It is not intended as a backdoor route to deletion." If this article is really notable according to the potential sources you have seen, the amount of time you or someone else will need to get this article to meet the notability standards may take some time. That would be the intention of moving this to draft if it is kept, definitely not as a 'backdoor deletion', let me make that clear. I would be happy to have this article around if it was written properly and had the appropriate sources to meet notability criteria. A look at Caterpillar84's talk page shows this alternative route has also been taken by other editors for Caterpillar84's other recent creations: Draft:Don't Sweat the Small Stuff for Teens, Draft:Hey, Look At Me! I Can Be. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 20:15, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:04, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - there's some reliable sources that she owned the Stonewall and other legendary LGBT nightclubs in NYC. Is that enough? Bearian (talk) 15:57, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She played an important role in LGBTQ history and has a close association with Stonewall, a national monument. Here are some additional sources of significance:

"THUG'S WIFE TESTIFIES; Mrs. Genovese Tells Pier Board of Gambling and Kickbacks". The New York Times. May 19, 1955.
Phoebe Letts (October 5, 2019). "The Latest Audio Buffet.(The Arts/Cultural Desk)". The New York Times. p. C4. (here her importance to the history of the Stonewall riots and the history of the Gay Rights Movement is highlighted)

In my opinion she passes WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 16:20, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

None of those sources discuss Anna's role in the gay community or owning a gay bar or the details of the court hearing - all it ever is is a one sentence mention of her. Then you show another source that mentions the new podcast. This is an oral account - speculation not supported by sources that substantially demonstrate her notability beyond the occasional mention. Is this really what makes someone notable now? A mere mention in a few articles and a non notable podcast? What really is her "importance to the history of the Stonewall riots" - if she really was important she would be mentioned there - those sources do not explain this supposed importance. The NY Times source is also in their blog section which isn't a particularly good source ~~per WP:NEWSBLOG~~. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 18:54, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The NYT blog is one of the most reliable news blogs around and this isn't an opinion piece and the podcast double series is by a notable writer who spent five years researching the topic Atlantic306 (talk) 20:48, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough about the blog itself, however it also offers little to no info about the contributors to the podcast - ie it does not mention the backgrounds of these authors or that they "spent five years researching the topic". Again, this is INHERITWEB. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 21:09, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I took another look at the LA times source, and see that's where you are getting that info about the years researching the topic - although the number of years isn't super clear since all it really says is "five years ago found a cache of letters while cleaning out the storage unit of a recently deceased older friend." This is the only research they discuss. Notable? You can research any topic you like, that doesn't make it notable. They also write, "researching gay nightlife of the 1950s that Bendiger and Seligman first stumbled onto the story of Anna Genovese". The nightlife is the subject here, not Anna. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 15:14, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quit wikilawyering Vaselineeeeeeee. Look at who the author of the blog is and the authority lent to the blog by virtue of who is sponsoring it. Further, the first source was just to show significant coverage in another part of her life. I didn't' say the first source was to support her activity in LGBTQ rights.4meter4 (talk) 18:51, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll admit that that wasn't a great use of NEWSBLOG (scratched) - I had looked at who the author was and couldn't find any info on the person, although knowing NY Times is a good source, I assumed their blog would probably be alright, but still not the best source out there as it does not provide any substantial or useful info related to Anna Genovese anyway. Other than that, I wouldn't say "being a stickler about Wikipedia policies/guidelines" is wikilawyering. The point is, is that she is known, relatively, for one event that involved testifying against her husband (where neither are notable enough for its own article outside of Vito's article), I disagree with you that the sources demonstrate significant coverage (to me they do not - ie several sources that show the outcome of this testimony, and thereby any supposed importance of this testimony other than just than the fact that she did testify and what monetary compensation she was seeking for her husband). Even if she was the first wife to testify against her husband, let's say, this is still not notable enough because she is not the subject of that testimony, Vito is. Then we have her supposed gay community importance (which is a BIG claim that needs solid sources), that is largely undocumented other than some oral accounts and mere speculative mentions of her in a couple sources is also not enough to meet BASIC. I know you didn't say the first source - that's why I said it was the second source that you said talks about her supposed importance in the gay community, and brought it upon yourself to connect her with the Stonewall riots, which the source does not mention, and even if she was mentioned in sources as part of the Stonewall riots, it is the event that is notable not her. Don't try to make her sound more important than she really was. Keep in mind, I do not have paid versions for these sites, so I am going off of what is barely legible in the newspaper clippings and sources I can find in books and through Internet Archive. If you provide any other sources that can address some of the concerns I made above, please provide the quotes. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 19:07, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Vaselineeeeeeee, may I suggest that you read WP:BLUDGEON? RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:31, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RebeccaGreen: My goal isn't to get you to change your !vote, it's to show that there isn't enough verifiable evidence, to satisfy the basic guideline of WP:BASIC, in that showing this subject is notable beyond the couple notable sources provided that do not substantiate any aspects of her collective life (can't ignore evidence that is not available). So when people bring up sources that still do not convey evidence to warrant this subject an own article, I'm not going to not comment on it, and when people reply to me, I'm not going to not reply back. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 14:55, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NEXIST meets GNG with RSs. Lightburst (talk) 21:53, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The New York Times believes the pod cast about her is notable enough to write a review about it [3] as are others [4]. The LA Times gives her significant coverage [5]. She seems to have played a notable role in a historic event. Dream Focus 22:42, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:GNG per sourcing. Per third party reliable sources. Plenty of coverage.BabbaQ (talk) 22:46, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ugh, this is disappointing. Per WP:PERP "a person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person". The only thing that makes her remotely notable is her involvement in one trial - her testimony against Vito. This can, and is, easily incorporated into Vito's article. A trial of a woman divorcing her husband or being a waitress at a couple gay bars, mixed with speculations about her sexuality, does not make her notable. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 01:50, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Running gay bars on behalf of a gangster Atlantic306 (talk) 20:29, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Running vs being a waitress is disputed in sources, none of which really matters anyway because so have hundreds others, all of which are not notable. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 20:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Lightburst and BabbaQ: Mind pointing to how those conditions are met rather than just arbitrarily stating they are? These are some of your WP:NEXIST sources available, provided by User:RebeccaGreen/sandbox: "82 Club [140], [141] ; divorce case, mother, home, lush living, alimony [142], [143], [144], [145], [146]; neighbour of Mrs Roosevelt [147]; on census etc at Ancestry [148], [149], [150], [151]." WP:GNG: ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material" (also see follow up example about Martin Walker). Tell me how GNG is passed? Being mentioned as a bar worker, in a divorce case, a mother, living lush and being a neighbour of Roosevelt and being on Ancestry (not reliable [[6]]) classifies a notable person now—but hey they're mentions in a couple reliable sources, so she's notable. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 20:57, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note:@Vaselineeeeeeee: pity the closer who has to weed through this bludgeoned AfD. Apologies. Lightburst (talk) 22:49, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note:I'm trying to have a discussion, which you seem to be against. Note Lightburst's inability and/or unwillingness to defend/discuss his simple, unsubstantiated claim. WP:NEXIST is not satisfied per outside existing sources found that still do not substantiate this person's notability beyond mere mentions and non-notable events per GNG, BASIC and PERP. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 23:15, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Look at this record on this AfD and tell me a casual observer wouldn't consider your involvement WP:BLUDGEONING at this point. I suggest you take a step back and let the editors state their opinions. Lightburst (talk) 23:21, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a case of whether Anna Genovese meets notability guidelines. Perhaps I've commented too much, (pointing to the history is unfair and unrepresentative though as much of those edits are stylistic) however, when editors such as yourself unsubstantially claim they meet notability guidelines, are we not to show reasons, quoting the guide, of how they do not? Are we not to respond to fellow editors who respond back? At a RfA, are votes not taken seriously when they are not backed up and are called upon by other editors to expand on their vote? Lightburst, I am not trying to get you to change your vote, once again, I am simply trying to understand why you are not willing and/or able to defend/discuss your simple, unsubstantiated claim if this article actually meets the guidelines you have mentioned, when the sources mentioned here and researched by other editors and Rebecca do not appear to do so as I have shown above. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 23:33, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 23:59, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Vaselineeeeeeee, I see that you found the sources I have saved in my sandbox. They do not constitute the totality of sources on Anna Genovese. Nor have I saved the Ancestry search results in order to include them in the article. Searching Ancestry and similar databases is WP:OR, apart from the fact that census returns are primary sources and may not refer to the same person. What they do give me, and the reason why I search on websites like Ancestry, is more information to use in searches of secondary sources. Searching any database, whether it's digitised newspapers or Google, does not immediately bring up all possible results - in digitised sources, sometimes the OCR fails, and in Google, perhaps it's their algorithms, I don't know. Providing more information in the source, or using other search terms, can find results that are otherwise missed. Please do not use links I have saved in work in progress to argue about a subject's notability - there is a reason that I have not (yet) added them to the article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:41, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. At a WP:COMMONSENSE level, Atlantic306's initial argument is WP:SIGCOV – 4-5 years of research by a notable author on the BLP subject, brocast via a podcast series sponsored by the New York Times, a WP:RS/P. In addition, RebeccaGreen's, and other, references also support broader WP:GNG. There is certainly no consensus to delete this BLP (I was almost tempted to close it myself on that basis), however, there is also a clear consensus that it passes WP:BASIC as a Keep. Meeting WP:BASIC is not a legal concept, it is the consensus of a collection of Wikipedians following guidelines (not rules), as to what constitutes sufficient RS that can support a subject's GNG. I know that Vaselineeeeeeee has worked hard on this AfD, but they should listen to what other experienced Wikipedian's are saying – I have been there myself (many times); you go in with one view, and it gets completely turned, but that is what makes it interesting. Britishfinance (talk) 00:54, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Britishfinance: I'm still not convinced SIGCOV is satisfied because the 'significant coverage' are mostly non-substantial mentions, mainly for one event, mixed in with speculation about her sexuality and running a gay bar, which are non-notable, but I do respect your response and view. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 03:14, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:20, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn per WP:HEY. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:25, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kal Hourd

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

We seem to have another non-notable obscure Canadian country singer here.

This article mentions that an astronaut was taking his music into space. The biggest coverage by far is that he was one of several musicians whose albums were taken into space by an astronaut -- which says more about the astronaut than it does about the musicians.

His name shows up several times in the Regina Leader-Post, but nearly all of them are just directory listings of concerts, or fluff pieces like the above that have little to say other than "Kal saw his own album at Walmart". For instance, this is just a fluff piece about him performing at a local bar, larded with a bunch of name-dropping and non-notable awards (Saskatchewan Country Music Awards do not seem to be a major third-party award that would meet WP:NMUSIC #8) to make him seem more accomplished than he really is in a "local boy makes good" way. No newspaper other than the Leader-Post has given him even the faintest of mentions, and he doesn't seem to have ever performed significantly outside of SK except at one non-notable festival.

His only album turns up absolutely zero reviews, despite having a fairly unique title which is unlikely to be conducive to false positives or difficulty in finding proper sources.

Zero results on americanradiohistory.com, a site that archives many multi-national music publications, including Canadian ones.

His name is so obscure that Google keeps trying to autocorrect it to "Kal Hours".

While he does meet WP:NMUSIC with one charted single, it spent only one week at the lowest position on the Canadian Country Music charts. This puts him into the same boat as, say, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waycross (band) where the utter lack of sourcing overrode the fact that a single made the charts. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:30, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:30, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 11:29, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep So, as well as having a charting single, he won a rising star award at the 2007 Saskatchewan Country Music Association Awards [7], and three awards at the 2010 Saskatchewan Country Music Association Awards (single of the year; album of the year; song of the year) [8]; and song of the year award in 2012 [9]. There's a review of the album in the Star-Phoenix [10] (a newspaper other than the Leader-Post) (that's what should be in the article, but it had a url for a completely different newspaper article). More coverage of his album going into space in the Star-Phoenix [11]. His song When Pink Is Just a Color Again was the Pink Ribbon International official song in 2009 [12]. I have clipped the "Kal saw his own album at Walmart" article and will add it to this article - it says a bit more than that, actually. I'll add these sources and information to the article, and anything else I find. (I don't think "autotext knows the name" is a criterion of any notability guidelines.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:47, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RebeccaGreen: Not a single one of the awards you named is notable per WP:NMUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:00, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:04, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as enough sources have been identified above to show a pass of WP:GNG with reviews of his work as well as the charting so also passes WP:NMUSIC criteria 2 and as the article is being improved there is no longer a requirement for deletion, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:58, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Withdrawn by nom and a consensus to keep - no need to prolong. (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 23:28, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Withlocals

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

Company ad-like entry, most of references are blogs, press releases and primary. A few mentions in passing. Some usual startup trivial coverage related to fundraising. There is a piece about it in The Australian Financial Review ([13]) but I don't think it is sufficient to warrant keeping this, but maybe if we look at other sources together (my WP:BEFORE doesn't show anything else that's good) we can find reasons to not delete this... right now IMHO it falls on the wrong end of boderline, but with the AFR piece it at least shows a possibility of not being your garden variety spam (plus, the creator is an experienced Wikipedian I respect :D and not some COI SPI, so AGF on the intent, too). Further thoughts? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:22, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:22, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:22, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (Note, I'm article's author).

I have gone through google-scholar today and added 6 academic references to the lead paragraph (tightening that section up in the process). I acknowledge that these academic articles only refer to Withlocals in order to illustrate their wider points but I believe they collectively help demonstrate that the organisation is sufficiently notable to be seen as representative of trends about the 'sharing economy' and 'gastronomic tourism' - particularly in southeast asia, the market where the company focused initially. I would also argue that the "horizon 2020" - from the European Commission grant makes it notable on the basis that they've won a government-funded support 'prize'.

As a side point, given that you took the time to check the edit history you will have noticed that the article had been being expanded daily - I hadn't abandoned it. I'd have appreciated if you would have brought your concerns about the notability of the article to me directly (e.g. pinging me on its talkpage) rather than going straight for the deletion nomination which starts a ticking-clock. Late last week I also asked the organisation itself if they had any other press-clippings they had collected, and if they could provide some free-licensed multimedia, to supplement the article - so that might come in soon too. As you state yourself Piotrus, you know and trust me so you're not claiming this is drive-by spam: my motivation for creating the article is that I recently signed-up to be a local guide on this platform in my home city, and was doing research about it in the process. Witty lama 10:58, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was probably a bit too hasty. The odds are good that this will be kept, but I'd appreciate a third party looking at this before I consider withdrawing my vote. AfD, in the end, are the only place we can count on attracting more editors to comment on such issues. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:25, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:02, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There seems to be enough independent coverage to meet WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 16:37, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

Coldwell, Will (2016-10-17). "Regional know-how: the best websites for contacting local guides". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2019-11-04. Retrieved 2019-11-04.
Carter, Jamie (2018-08-01). "Three apps and websites that offer travellers a local experience, and make sure money you spend benefits people on the ground". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2019-11-04. Retrieved 2019-11-04.
Marcela, Ana (2016-01-19). "Withlocals chega a Lisboa e Porto" [Withlocals arrives in Lisbon and Porto]. pt:Dinheiro Vivo (jornal) (in Portuguese). Archived from the original on 2019-11-04. Retrieved 2019-11-04.
Verstegen, Gert-Jan (2017-10-11). "Eindhovense startup Withlocals haalt 3,5 miljoen euro op" [Eindhoven startup Withlocals raises 3.5 million euros] (in Dutch). RTL Nieuws. Archived from the original on 2019-11-04. Retrieved 2019-11-04.
O'Hear, Steve (2013-09-16). "Withlocals Raises $500K For Its Local Travel Experiences Marketplace Targeting Southeast Asia". TechCrunch. Archived from the original on 2019-11-04. Retrieved 2019-11-04.

Sources with quotes

Coldwell, Will (2016-10-17). "Regional know-how: the best websites for contacting local guides". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2019-11-04. Retrieved 2019-11-04.
The article notes:
With Locals

More intimate travel experiences can be found through the With Locals site. While Trip4Real is still predominantely focused on Western Europe, With Locals has a big spread in Asia, with activities and tours (mainly food/dining related) to book everywhere from Indonesia to Sri Lanka, Thailand to the Philippines. These include an organic home-cooked meal in a bamboo house in Bali, tea-tasting in Old Bangkok and a riverside picnic in Saigon.
Carter, Jamie (2018-08-01). "Three apps and websites that offer travellers a local experience, and make sure money you spend benefits people on the ground". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2019-11-04. Retrieved 2019-11-04.
The article notes:
WithLocals

Much like social dining app EatWith, this distinctly Airbnb-style app includes food tours run by local people, but also quirky walking tours and other guided experiences. Examples include “The Only Authentic Cu Chi Tunnels Tour With a Local” in Ho Chi Minh City, “Gordon Ramsay’s Favourite Thai Food Tour” in Bangkok, and “Magical Harry Potter Walking Tour With a True Fan” in London.
For each tour there are extensive descriptions, detailed itineraries, photos and plenty of reviews, and everything can be booked and arranged via the app. What makes this different to EatWith is that for each experience you get a choice of hosts; each provides a short video introduction, and you can even start an online chat with them.
WithLocals offers more than 1,200 experiences in 50 cities in 22 countries, but it lacks a map of the world with its activities plotted, which would avoid the inevitable disappointment of searching for a destination that is not yet covered.
Marcela, Ana (2016-01-19). "Withlocals chega a Lisboa e Porto" [Withlocals arrives in Lisbon and Porto]. pt:Dinheiro Vivo (jornal) (in Portuguese). Archived from the original on 2019-11-04. Retrieved 2019-11-04.
From Google Translate:
Learning to make tiles or getting to know Lisbon on a Vespa are two of the offers that the Withlocals network is offering to tourists who want to know Lisbon and Porto, but with a different twist: the experiences are with and organized with the locals. The international network starts in the Portuguese market from this Tuesday.
Portugal is the fifth European country to host Withlocals, being the 15th country in the network founded in 2013 in Asia by two Dutch. ”Portugal was in our expansion plans since we launched in Europe and we have been monitoring how things have evolved in the world. says Madalina Buzdugan, communication manager of Withlocals a Vivo. “With Porto being voted Europe's hidden treasure several years in a row and Lisbon being recommended for its great value and authenticity, it was only natural that it was one of Withlocals' next destinations,” he adds.
...
It all started when Marijn Maas and Willem Maas traveled to Asia. The experiences were different. Honeymooners Marijn Maas made the usual five-star hotel circuit, but the best memories were gathered at a meal at a local family's home, and the stories shared around a table. Willem Maas, after traveling 6 months around the region using local guides, concluded that in this relationship it was the travel agencies, not the guides, who made the most profits.
Verstegen, Gert-Jan (2017-10-11). "Eindhovense startup Withlocals haalt 3,5 miljoen euro op" [Eindhoven startup Withlocals raises 3.5 million euros] (in Dutch). RTL Nieuws. Archived from the original on 2019-11-04. Retrieved 2019-11-04.
The article notes:
The Eindhoven-based company Withlocals, which links travelers to locals, has received an investment of 3.5 million euros. The startup acts as an online marketplace for private tours and activities on holiday.
...
Now Withlocals is active in 24 cities. With the raised investment, 40 cities must be added, including New York and Hong Kong. "We need about three weeks for a new city. We search for guides on Facebook. We have a Skype conversation with those people. Anyone who remains is then looked up, and with that we do a demo tour," Keij tells RTL Z.
...
Withlocals already has strong competition. Airbnb has been offering Airbnb Experiences for a while now. There too you can book activities directly with local residents. The difference lies in the way tours can be personalized.
O'Hear, Steve (2013-09-16). "Withlocals Raises $500K For Its Local Travel Experiences Marketplace Targeting Southeast Asia". TechCrunch. Archived from the original on 2019-11-04. Retrieved 2019-11-04.
The article notes:
Withlocals, a peer-to-peer marketplace for locals to offer travellers various experiences, such as tours, home dining, and other local activities, has raised $500,000 in funding from startup builder and backer Greenhouse Group.
The Netherlands-founded startup will use the investment to launch out of beta this fall and, curiously, target Southeast Asia — a move it says differentiates itself from U.S. competitor Vayable.
One way to think of Withlocals is as an Airbnb for travel experiences (in fact, rival Vayable has partnered with Airbnb). It enables locals to sell travel experiences within three categories: — “EAT Withlocals,” “TOURS Withlocals,” and “ACTIVITIES Withlocals” — the idea being to enable a more authentic travel experience for tourists while enabling locals to make money through the platform.

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

Cunard (talk) 01:41, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding those references Cunard. I've added them in. Witty lama 12:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for adding the sources, Wittylama. Thank you for withdrawing the AfD, Piotrus. Cunard (talk) 09:06, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw. The consensus seems pretty clear. Thanks for participating in the discussion, hope some further / new sources found can be used to expand this futher. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:09, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 14:18, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Odii

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

Article doesn't establish notability. The content and references given are promotional in nature, lacks in-depth coverage from WP:RS, fails WP:GNG. Meeanaya (talk) 06:57, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:08, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:08, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article have citations and references from credible sources establishing notablility. it was written in an objective and unbiased style and shows no conflict of interest. Keep Kojomo (talk) 14:30, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:50, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTLINKEDIN, essentially a personal bio that's SEOed out the max as well. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:33, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTRESUME is also relevant here. The citations offered to attempt to dress this out as an article are either not significant, not reliable, or not independent. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 07:27, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it seems to be a well-meaning effort, but it's far too promotional in tone and might take a lot of effort to clean it up; stubification is probably needed. There is wide coverage in many sources, but except for one article (footnote 1 as of this moment), the coverage is shallow - lists of up-and-coming entrepreneurs under 30 and that ilk. If it is not deleted, I strongly urge a userfication to clean it up. Bearian (talk) 13:42, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete, notlinkedin. Mahveotm (talk) 17:57, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Creator of article & subject of article may be familiar hence obstructing neutrality & causing WP:COI. Furthermore subject of article hasn’t received sufficient WP:SIGCOV in reliable press to establish notability. Celestina007 (talk) 23:13, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT WP:NOTRESUME Wm335td (talk) 22:44, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Isaac Newton Vail. Clear consensus to redirect to this article. (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 02:17, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Annular Theory (Vailan Theory)

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

Appears to be a non notable fringe topic that has only 1 main proponent. Slatersteven (talk) 14:48, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete - there don't appear to be independent sources that even comment about this theory. Clearly non-notable. --mikeu ^talk 14:54, 30 October 2019 (UTC)~~[reply]

Redirect or weak delete works for me. The new Vail page seems like a good target. --mikeu ^talk 20:37, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked into this more I'm not sure that redirects like Canopy theory, Annular theory, Vailen theory, etc. add much value. Are these really terms that are widely referenced by modern creationists? I don't mind the redirects but I also don't see a compelling need for them to exist.[14][15] As an aside, Isaac Newton Vail is fascinating. I'm glad to see that this didn't fall through the cracks. --mikeu ^talk 15:20, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Copying from its talk page: No relevance. The article includes two good references for things not related to Vail's invention, one reference to Vail and one reference to a single article discussing it, both over 100 years old. The Wikipedia article is full of misconceptions, misrepresentations of science and so on. --mfb (talk) 15:32, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect This is a poor article on one aspect of Isaac Newton Vail's eccentric thinking. I've had a look and Vail is certainly notable, as a 19th century catastrophist, with a reasonable number of reliable sources such as Armstrong's 1988 'Evolution of Creationism' - yes, there's nutty physics, nutty geology, and creationism all rolled into one sticky ball; Vail is a major figure within Pseudoscience. I've written a short article on Vail and suggest that we Redirect to there. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:05, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there's another possible redirect target at Flood geology#Canopy theory which is also decently cited. Canopy theory redirects there. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:32, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re-direct seems OK.Slatersteven (talk) 17:54, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting to Isaac Newton Vail would be OK, as would deleting outright (the page title is a bit too awkward to be a plausible search term). XOR'easter (talk) 20:52, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect as outdated non-notable fringe theory WegianWarrior (talk) 23:15, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Isaac Newton Vail. Flood geology#Canopy theory would be okay too, but there seems to be more support for the former. -Crossroads- (talk) 01:29, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:04, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Isaac Newton Vail. The section about the theory there has a “further information” link to the relevant section of the flood geology article, so both are covered. Brunton (talk) 07:55, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Vail article. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:40, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:CHEAP. Bearian (talk) 20:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 14:12, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of members of Municipal Council Sopore

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

Fails WP:NPOL, specifically local politicians are not prima facie notable unless there is sourcing showing otherwise, and as such a list of local politicians in a specific locality are also not presumed notable. In my WP:BEFORE I failed to find any instances of significant coverage of the membership of Sopore Municipal Council either. Did consider speedy deletion via WP:A7 but AFD seemed the more certain way of going. FOARP (talk) 13:56, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 October 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:21, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:28, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:28, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:01, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sopore is not a very large city and does not automatically need a its own article for the council. Merge to that article if you wish. Reywas92^Talk 18:51, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 November 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:12, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Municipal Council Sopore. ミラ P 14:40, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it falls short of WP:GNG Kb03 (talk) 15:25, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:POLOUTCOMES. This is a city of under 120,000 - a small town by standards of that country, the second-largest in the world. It does not seem to be a town of regional importance, nor a state capital. It would make a terrible precedent and consensus is unlikely to change soon. A smerger would not be out of the question. Bearian (talk) 13:48, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Foarp Fails WP:NPOL, specifically local politicians are not notable without WP:BASIC or an WP:SNG pass. Wm335td (talk) 22:33, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 15:32, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Imsk

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

Non-notable fictional topic. TTN (talk) 14:18, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:18, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:18, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find anything notable from WP:BEFORE, either, and there's almost no content anyway. Doesn't look like it would be a primary topic anyway, although the other acronyms would have different capitalization. A PROD probably would have worked based on the age of the article, the small history of edits, and the number of watchers being <30 people. -2pou (talk) 17:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was not able to find any reliable, secondary sources discussing this fictional planet at all. Rorshacma (talk) 19:00, 31 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) 15:35, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

White Triangle

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

Non-notable fictional topic. TTN (talk) 14:18, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:18, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:18, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non-notable._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:03, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I hate to say fancruft, as a fan, but that's what it is. Bearian (talk) 20:41, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Legion of Super-Heroes. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 00:55, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

United Planets

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

Non-notable fictional topic. TTN (talk) 14:13, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:13, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:13, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non-notable._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:03, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Legion of Superheroes. While lacking the reliable secondary sources needed to support an independent article, it is a major element of the Legion of Superheroes mythos, and is already discussed on the target page, making it a valid Redirect candidate. My only real concern is that its a pretty vague/generic title. Rorshacma (talk) 18:37, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Updated I was actually getting behind some of these planet deletions in AfD or PROD, but when searching for one of the others, I came across these articles, both of which are directly about "United Planets", so unfortunately, I can't back this one. More so since it showed up so high in my search for a distinct article.

Brian Bendis Bringing the Legion’s United Planets into DC Continuity at Bleeding Cool
Legion of Super-Heroes: What You Need to Know About the United Planets at CBR

I don't exactly think it's a good article, but if GNG/Notability is the basis for removal, I don't think those particular arguments hold water. -2pou (talk) 20:14, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those have anything that can actually be added to the article, so not sure why you think they're particularly relevant. It's just a "here's an in-universe summary of something slightly relevant to recent comic news." TTN (talk) 20:21, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that they don't add to the article, but that isn't really what I was trying to do. I also don't particularly care if the article is kept or not; I simply don't think that a valid reason for deletion has been presented thus far. I might be able to look for one, but I don't have any interest in doing additional research into reasons for deletion. I'll look at them if presented to me (or abstain), but the ones that are always in my mind are notability and copyright. Notability is the only thing that has been presented thus far.
I find the articles relevant simply in establishing notability. Yes, there is in-universe content in there, but when I read GNG, these are the bullet points to hit:
✓Significant - The topic is definitely directly addressed, and in detail
✓Reliable - Both sites have editors
✓Sources (plural) - There are two
✓Independent - Both sites are not affiliated with DC
I assume that when you bring up in-universe, you are suggesting that this negates the significant coverage piece. That may be true in some cases, but I personally don't think making a hard and fast rule linking those two is valid—it is a case-by-case evaluation. In this particular case, two separate sites have felt the need to publish news about the article in question. In doing so, they use a lot of in-universe material, but it is done in order to establish context and help explain why they felt the need to write an article directly about the topic. I would feel differently if this was an issue recap that simply says these things happened. That's just my take, though. If no-one agrees, that's OK. If not kept, I'd lean towards Rorschacma's redirect suggestion over deletion. -2pou (talk) 21:55, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional topics need to have real world information per WP:PLOT, so a source that provides no real world information cannot be called significant coverage. You also need to look at those articles in the full context of those sites. Those kind of "what is this obscure topic being brought into relevance by a recent event" articles are a dime a dozen. Similar to how Top X lists deserve less weight than other articles, cookie cutter articles like that are nothing more than a means of catching relevant search results for a niche topical event in that sphere of influence. TTN (talk) 22:05, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! That is overall a different argument, though I see your link. This was fun. -2pou (talk) 22:28, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Rorshacma and cheap. -2pou (talk) 22:28, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Legion of Superheroes.4meter4 (talk) 22:20, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 15:37, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ADV Group

(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, fails WP:GNG. Meeanaya (talk) 06:47, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 06:47, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:49, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:49, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:40, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable company.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:33, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I can't see how this marketing company is anything other than run of the mill. Bearian (talk) 20:42, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, fails GNG/WP:NCORP, HighKing⁺⁺ 17:28, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 15:40, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shree Talakchand Zabakba Visalpur Sarvajanik High School

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

Not notable. Fails WP:GNG and even if it passes then also these simple details can be easily created after. No verifiable information is available to us. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 06:10, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 06:10, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:25, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:25, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If it actually exists, there's a longstanding consensus that high school articles are generally notable. tedder (talk) 09:32, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tedder, But no verifiable information is available in article or on internet which is violation of basic policy WP:Verifiability. Will your vote still be same?— Harshil ^{want to talk?} 03:37, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tedder: that consensus changed in February 2017 RFC :) —usernamekiran(talk) 10:50, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:09, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the mass approval of allowing articles just because they exist without adequate sourcing was a horrible decision and needs to be ended.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:58, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to a lack of available sources with which to meet WP:V and WP:GNG. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:29, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:V and WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 13:48, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it appears to be a run of the mill school. Bearian (talk) 20:49, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. With respect to "User:DGG, the subject is actually notable to a great extent. ", we generally want evidence of notability, not a mere assertion that it exists. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:54, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Oladipupo

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

the references that are not their own publications are a combination of PR and mentions, and do not show notability DGG ( talk ) 06:10, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:DGG, the subject is actually notable to a great extent. References deemed PR should be pulled off although they provide information about the subject which I made neutral. Mutiat Mustapha (talk) 19:57, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:51, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - he owns stuff. Bearian (talk) 20:49, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources presented are a combination of promotional PR and passing mentions. Nothing that suggests significant coverage in reliable, independent sources is apparent in the article or in searches. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 07:05, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. Fram (talk) 06:49, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hise Model A

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

A company which only developed one aircraft, of which they only built a prototype. The only book that has given it any attention is this, a highly specialized 127 page book that spends 4 lines on this plane. If even the source where you could expect to find most information on this, only has so little to say about it (and no other sources could be found[16]), then it seems to lack the required notability. Fram (talk) 12:37, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 12:37, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 12:37, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can find virtually nothing (beyond the brief mention in that single source) about Fred Hise, his company (was it actually even a company?), or this plane. Effectively, all that we can say is "A guy built a slightly distinctive plane in Michigan in the 1920s" and ... that's not enough to clear the notability bar absent additional sources. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:02, 30 October 2019 (UTC) Yeah, okay, so my source searching on this was clearly wasn't up to my usual standards. That said, I think we're best off with a Move here, to Hise Aircraft Corporation as nearly all the sources are more directly about the company than their prototype plane. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 23:36, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A brief mention here on p507 of a report in the US journal Aviation on the 1929 Cleveland airshow, where it was exhibited, together with specifications here (p508) and a mention of a revised version [17] (registration required I'm afraid) - not a huge amount, but can fill out the article a little.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:47, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the sources and detail that User:RecycledPixels added demonstrate that SGNG is met, so Keep.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:10, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Found some additional sources, and even a photograph from the Smithsonian (maybe). The company received an order for 5 aircraft valued at $100,000 ($1,500,000 today) but the airline purchasing the planes had its authorization to sell stock yanked because it spent all of its money on the planes, leaving nothing for operations. I only have Google snippet view of the "Orders and Opinions of the Michigan Public Service Commission" source, but that may provide additional information if someone has better access to it. I haven't spent a ton of time digging around this, but I suspect the cancelled order plus the onset of the Great Depression led to the demise of the company. So it's not really about a guy who built one airplane and flew it once. RecycledPixels (talk) 20:57, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The image that I found and uploaded was apparently put on Flickr by a user on the Commons blacklist who is known for misrepresenting the copyright status of their images. So it might not be usable. RecycledPixels (talk) 00:14, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn, thanks for all the improvements and finding sources which were not easily accessible. Fram (talk) 06:49, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. This deletion discussion was initated by an initially unproven request for deletion by the article subject that was substantiated later in the course of discussion by Bearian, citing concerns that Mrs. Campbell is being harassed as a consequence of this page existing. Most of the keep arguments here rely on notability claims, which are reasonably argued and mostly uncontested. The key delete arguments rely on WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE and the arguments made by the subject but haven't gone uncontested (e.g Xxanthippe's and David Eppstein's concerns) and the counterarguments are non-negligible.

On balance, it seems like this discussion has no clear consensus in favour of deletion as there are valid points on both sides, and it seems like the criteria on WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE do not necessarily require deletion. That said, I'll be extending the protection of the article to indefinite and open a discussion at WP:BLPN as the concerns raised here should not be simply let slide. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:01, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Campbell (educator)

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

Subject, Rebecca Campbell, would like article removed Feeneyh (talk) 14:26, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:29, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:29, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:29, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 20:00, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Is this a genuine request by a 1 edit Spa? If not, its a slam-dunk Keep (to use a sports metaphor, hopefully correctly). Xxanthippe (talk) 21:32, 22 October 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:21, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 32 publications with over 100 cites each and an h-index of 55 [18] is an easy pass of WP:PROF#C1. The US government and APA awards [19] [20] are a likely pass of #C2. We could possibly consider WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, but only with stronger evidence that the request actually comes from the subject, and even then I think she's too prominent for that to work. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:01, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep It looks like there's a good case for passing WP:PROF, and it's not clear how a fairly standard (if unpolished) academic bio like this could constitute such a risk to the subject that it outweighs the public interest in having the page available. Should MSU also scrub her from their website? Nor is it clear that the deletion request is actually legitimate. XOR'easter (talk) 16:53, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No evidence has been supplied that the deletion request is genuine. I suggest that AfD nominations should not be allowed, except through an admin, until a user is WP:extended confirmed. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:43, 25 October 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Comment - regarding the level of evidence needed to indicate that the subject would like deletion is interesting. We frequently accept users who take a username indicating the person more directly as indication - despite no more evidence on them (e.g. the recent Mark Lindquist AfD). OTRS is the more preferred route, though obviously the subject has to agree to have their confirmation made public. This comment is not a commentary on the notability (or lack) of the subject Nosebagbear (talk) 19:22, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - full professor at a large research university with significant research (and alma mater of two of my relatives). I would agree to deletion of a marginal case or a minor (e.g. child actor). I've reached out via email to the subject. Bearian (talk) 20:09, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Initially closed as a keep but I was told a formal request way made to delete. Relisting in order to allow for a proper discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 12:15, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No evidence that the subject wants deletion, no reason given for proposed deletion, article complies with policy. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 12:36, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - After I emailed the subject, I received a reply email from her requesting deletion due to emailed threats on her work email, connected from an external link on the article. It seems that disturbed persons are finding her email address via a link from her Wikipedia page, and emailing her weekly threats of a serious and credible nature. In lieu of deletion, I also requested long-term semi-protection on WP:RFPP. Bearian (talk) 13:09, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ymblanter protected for 1 week, which I've increased to 2 to cover the potential length of the AfD. If the page isn't deleted, a further discussion can be had as to long-term protection Nosebagbear (talk) 13:56, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Subject easily passes notability requirements. --Darth Mike^(talk) 14:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have reconsidered my !vote in the light of Bearian's further information, and now I tip over to the "delete" side. XOR'easter (talk) 14:50, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Pinging Xxanthippe, David Eppstein, and Roxy, the dog who referred to the lack of confirmation. XOR'easter (talk) 14:58, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, very sadly, on account of Bearian's remarks and with thanks for his initiative. Removing a link is, in my view, insufficient. Thincat (talk) 14:54, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
comment we appear to be being asked to delete our encyclopaedic article because the subjects email address is on the subjects workplace website? Roxy, the dog. wooF 15:34, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. So we are to have no coverage on researchers of sexual violence because the crazies will seek them out and harass them? That seems like an inappropriate outcome. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:13, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is a significant and difficult issue. I can appreciate arguments on either side. In this particular case the abused email address is of msu origin. I note that many institutions do not make public the email addresses of their staff (which makes it harder for both ill wishers and well wishers to contact the staff). The problem is with the msu website, not with Wikipedia. Perhaps the best solution would be for msu to change her work email and remove it from public view rather than delete the Wikipedia BLP. My earlier keep is maintained as the reported reason for deletion is not sufficient. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:18, 30 October 2019 (UTC).[reply]

The problem arose from lax security of the subject's web site. Wikipedia was not to blame. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:57, 31 October 2019 (UTC).[reply]

I guess the best argument for "keep" that I could make is that it's on MSU to implement some basic #@%&#!-ing precautions, and perhaps it's too late for anything we do to make a real difference. I mulled that over, failed to be satisfied by any course of action, and ended up less unsatisfied with "delete" than with "keep". XOR'easter (talk) 02:25, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, to give my take on this after !voting delete. I think we should delete the article because the subject asked us to, not specifically because of links or email addresses, not because of the nature of her research. I don't think WP would be significantly harmed in this particular instance though I do realise that deletion might be seen as the start of an undesirable trend. In balancing encyclopedic comprehensiveness against reducing personal risk (or fear of risk), on the whole, I think the latter is more important. Thincat (talk) 08:41, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since everybody is commenting, I just spent a trivially easy two minutes finding her email and phone number, in numerous places. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 08:52, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Delete per Thincat. It’s unfortunate that it has come to this, but I can’t on good conscience say that we should ignore the subject’s request on something like this especially given the ongoing harassment which may be linked to our page. Michepman (talk) 15:30, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The harassment is not linked to Wikipedia, which does not give her email address. Her email address (and telephone number) are on her own public web site and many other places on the web, the former also on her Google scholar profile, but not on Wikipedia. Any connection of the harassment to Wikipedia is unproven. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:44, 1 November 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Comment. E-mails on her WP BLP cannot be the source of the problem as her details are easily searchable online. In such cases I would be suspicious that there is some unfavourable content in the BLP that the subject does not like, however, in this case, I don't think any such unfavourable content exists? It is possible that her work leads her to give testimony in court cases, for which she can be harassed by defendants etc. However, I am still not sure that deleting her WP BLP would give her much additional anonymity in regard to this, given it is just a collection of public sources? Perhaps a follow-up e-mail could be sent to the subject outlining these points (which are also made above by other editors), so she could clarify her rationale? Britishfinance (talk) 10:41, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus, but start move discussion. OK, from reading this discussion it seems like the concerns are less with the existence of the article and more about the title it currently resides under as it's not clear that it should be called a "conspiracy theory". What little discussion on the first point there is does not clearly indicate a consensus for either deletion or keeping, so no consensus. On the name question it seems like there is a consensus that the current name is inappropriate, but AFD isn't the correct venue for discussing article renames. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:14, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

War against Islam conspiracy theory

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

This started as a redirect. User:Bless sins removed the redirect in May 2006 but left the title - the lead started "War on Islam is a term used by some Muslims and westerners alike to describe military actions taken against Muslims by Western powers, prior to and after 9/11." and the text didn't mention a conspiracy theory. The lead later called it a neologism - the phrase "conspiracy theory" was only added in July 2016, without source.[21] Even today the only use of the phrase is in the lead where it's used twice. and much if not most of it doesn't seem based on sources talking about a conspiracy theory but about the "English-language political neologism of "War on Islam" which the article says was only popularized as a conspiracy theory after 2001 - although the source, pp. 559 and 560 of this book[22] seems to be referring to 9/11 conspiracy theories.[23] So no sources that I've checked so far call it a conspiracy theory. Doug Weller talk 11:58, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Doug Weller talk 11:58, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 12:12, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 12:12, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There appear to be a number of sourced uses of the term, or of language consistent with the idea of organized western hostility against the Islamic world, in the article. Having said that, the organization of the article is not great, and there is some questionable material. For instance, the article cites the billion bibles website, which appears to be beyond "fringe." There may be some value in trying to clean up the article. EastTN (talk) 20:08, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@EastTN: what sources use the phrase "conspiracy theory" to describe a war on Islam? Doug Weller talk 13:50, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Doug Weller: Sorry, I didn't catch that the use of the term "conspiracy theory" was your core concern. That's my mistake - I should have read more carefully. While I personally think it has many of the hallmarks of a conspiracy theory, I wouldn't be opposed to changing the article title to something more neutral. Perhaps we could just delete the word "conspiracy" and make it "War Against Islam theory"? EastTN (talk) 15:21, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - @EastTN: maybe, see the descriptions at War as metaphor and Anti-Islam for that title. Let's see what others say, and in any case it's a bit of a mess. Doug Weller talk 16:24, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Doug Weller: I completely agree that it needs work. I noticed that both War as metaphor and Anti-Islam both use just "War against Islam". That could work, but it could implicitly imply that there is a coordinated war against Islam. My instinct is that it would be more neutral to include another word, such as "theory", to avoid taking sides on that point. On the other hand, there is an article entitled "War on Women" even though Republicans would deny that there is such a thing, and an article entitled "War on Coal" even though the Obama administration would not have characterized their policies that way. But instead of "War on Christmas" we have "Christmas Controversies". Could we do something similar and go with something like "War against Islam Controversy"? EastTN (talk) 17:44, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. At first I was going to Ivote delete. But looking deeper at the article there is something here. I think "conspiracy theory" should not be part of the title, at all. Also, it can be said, that Sayyid Qutb, Ayatollah Khomeini, and Osama bin Laden had a point. It can be said, that Muslims have been vilified by those who are not willing to raise their consciousness, because the actions of a few placed a label on Muslims. And it could be true that a number of Muslims die every day as a result of attacks - this I don't know.

But, it is not a coordinated effort as is claimed by the three aforementioned Muslim leaders. Yet, going back to the 1980s and the time of Ayatollah Khomeini, the west was indeed involved in a proxy war against the Islamic state known as Iran. The Unites States was allied with Saddam Hussein's Iraq, which was at war with Iran. Millions did die on both sides. From the intro in the Wikipedia article entitled Iran–Iraq War, it says -- "The United States, Britain, the Soviet Union, France, and most Arab countries provided political and logistic support for Iraq, while Iran was largely isolated."

So, from the Muslim perspective, millions have been killed with support form the West. Anyway, whatever is here, is not really a conspiracy theory. Also, saying "conspiracy theory" in this context seems to disregard any validity that Islam is denigrated by other people and other groups. Then there is the "racial" or "ethnic" memory of the Crusades, where Christianity was involved. I'm going to keep reviewing this. At this moment I am agreeing "theory" would be a much better than conspiracy theory, due to its neutral wording. But, is "War against Islam" a real thing?

There is no declared war against Islam on the planet. The only perceived War on Islam (in the West), that I can recall at the moment is the several Crusades. Other than that I am not sure we can include that in the title. Wikipedia reports what reliable secondary sources say. Was the war between Iraq and Iran a War on Islam? I don't know how to answer that. I can say from the West's perspective, it was a war for disputed territory between to countries - but is that the accurate perspective? Sorry, for such a long post. ---Steve Quinn (talk)

"...it is not a coordinated effort as is claimed by the three aforementioned Muslim leaders." My sense is that the article was originally intended to discuss the claims made by Muslim leaders such as these that there is a widespread, coordinated effort by the West to attack the Islamic world as a whole. If so, the challenge is figuring out what to call that claim. Language like "War on Islam" and "War against Islam" has been used to describe the idea. But we need to avoid implicitly endorsing the idea that there is such a coordinated effort, given that many Westerners deny that it exists. We also need to be careful that we don't confuse the idea with other concepts, such as wars fought for territorial reasons or to suppress terrorism. EastTN (talk) 22:59, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK I see what you're saying. I think it is worth it to find a title because their rhetoric has been heard by many and resonated with many. The rhetoric seems to have historical impact looking to the past and for the implications for the future. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 00:45, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't had time to look this over as in-depth as I would like. But so far, from what I have read, I think "War on Islam" as part of the title is not a bad idea. It's as much a hyperbole as the other article titles mentioned and it speaks to what we have been discussing. Perhaps one of the following would work: "War on Islam theory"; "Concept of War on Islam"; "War on Islam concept"; "War on Islam ideology"; "...philosophy"; "...position"; "...premise"; "...system"; "...rationale"; and so on. I prefer not to use "theory" because I think it will appear to be a made up topic. The others seem equally OK. I will have to mull them over. In any case, how do these proposed titles come across to others?---Steve Quinn (talk) 13:07, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too hung up on the specific word we use. Of the options you threw out, I like "Concept of War on Islam", "War of Islam theory" and "War of Islam concept" in declining order of preference. But honestly, I think any of them would be better than what we have, so I'm not inclined to arm-wrestle over which one we use. EastTN (talk) 15:07, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No time right now, but I hate the overuse of "theory" - it's often not appropriate and I don't think it is here. "Charges of/there there is" or something similar? Doug Weller talk 16:09, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with not using the word "theory". I could live with "Charges of..." I also like "Concept of War against Islam" or "War against Islam Controversy". EastTN (talk) 16:27, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad we have a few people involved in this discussion. It seems we can throw around some good ideas. Let's give more time for Doug to chime in again. It seems he wants to say more.

So, this is good. "Charges of War on Islam" is accurate, Concept of War On Islam is good. "War Against Islam controversy" is OK, but I'm not sure it is a controversy. Taken from the view of the Muslim leaders I don't see an actual controversy. What they are saying is straightforward and I don't see anyone debating them. I don't see corruption emanating from their organizations. I don't see anyone challenging them in the domain they occupy.

To give a little contrast, even though I am guessing we all know this - there are moderate political forces in Iran, sometimes the pendulum swings their way, but they still answer to or are beholden to the more conservative domains - seemingly without controversy. Hopefully, this make sense. If it doesn't please feel free to chime in. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:29, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with waiting for Doug to weigh in again. And I would be comfortable with any of those three titles. As an aside, I don't think "controversy" is unfair. There may be broad agreement within the Islamic world. However, we have documented sources for prominent Western leaders such as Obama and Bush denying the existence of the kind of coordinated "war" that Qutb, Khomeini and bin Laden allege. Salman Rushdie's comments seem relevant here too. So if we look beyond the Islamic world, it does seem to me that there's a real and significant disagreement about whether this "War on Islam" exists, and if it does, what the nature of it is. That's why I would be comfortable with "controversy" as well as "Charges" or "Concept".

(Just for the record, I think we've both waffled between "War against Islam" and "War on Islam". The two seem equivalent to me, and I'd be comfortable with either one.) EastTN (talk) 23:47, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch on "War on Islam". I missed that. That is an error on my part - I meant to stick with "War Against Islam." Yet, I agree the two seem equivalent to me as well. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:48, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you make a good point that this can be construed as a controversy, when looking at the bigger picture. Thanks. Steve Quinn (talk) 03:50, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: Doug, do you have any additional thoughts, or are you comfortable with the direction we're headed in? Thanks. EastTN (talk) 20:04, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy. I think I prefer "War on Islam controversy". Doug Weller talk 20:25, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That works for me. Steve, does that work for you? EastTN (talk) 21:24, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I've history merged it into the (declined) draft at Draft:Shikha Chhabra. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:54, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shikha Chhabra

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

Fails WP:GNGACTOR, no sources exist except social media profiles. Andrew Base (talk) 11:56, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Andrew Base (talk) 11:56, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:01, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:21, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:21, 30 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) 16:26, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2017–18 Burgos CF season

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

Does not meet WP:NFOOTY and WP:NSEASONS as it did not play a fully professional league. Asturkian (talk) 11:49, 30 October 2019 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because [insert reason here]:[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 12:14, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 12:14, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:15, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NSEASONS. Can't fail WP:NFOOTBALL as that applies to biographies. Giant Snowman 09:16, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NSEASONS and WP:GNG HawkAussie (talk) 21:45, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to University of Sydney Library. Unsourced article with no support for Keep, but a support for a Redirect (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 02:53, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney eScholarship

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

Very short and devoid of useful content or references Rathfelder (talk) 08:43, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 08:43, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to University of Sydney Library. Bookscale (talk) 09:39, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:56, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:49, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a totally unsourced article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:59, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - what about a redirect then? It's part of the uni library now (see [https://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/ here), definitely not worth its own article, but redirect solves this. Bookscale (talk) 09:19, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to University of Sydney Library.4meter4 (talk) 22:22, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nom withdrawn after RS were provided on which there was a consensus that they met GNG (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 11:24, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bionicle: Matoran Adventures

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

Received no reviews according to Metacritic and GameRankings and I don’t think it received any notable coverage. Toa Nidhiki05 18:02, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:04, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Argonaut Games. Contains no references and thus clearly fails WP:GNG. 🕵️Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 18:14, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually looking at the sources provided by Lordtobi it does seem to have could enough sources to be made into a workable article but currently no sources are even provided in the article thus is essentially WP:OR for all I know so I would still suggest this to be redirected until it can be appropriately sourced. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 21:16, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, available sources: [24][25][26][27][28][29] (review)[30] (review). These might be helpful to determine notability. Lordtobi (✉) 18:25, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like decent pre-release coverage, but only a handful of reviews. Hm. This is worth considering. Toa Nidhiki05 18:35, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently Game Informer reviewed it in the November 2002 issue as well. This review was incorrectly attributed to a different Bionicle game in GameRankings. I’m going to withdraw this nomination. There seems to be enough to salvage something here. Toa Nidhiki05 18:40, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The nominator has withdrawn in a later comment, but a redirect !vote exists. Regarding the redirect !vote, it is of note that per WP:NEXIST, topic notability does not hinge upon the state of sourcing in articles. Overall, this discussion would benefit from more input for a solid consensus to form.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The references found above are enough to convince me that WP:GNG is met. Lowercaserho (talk) 21:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nominator withdrawn. Passes WP:SIGCOV. 4meter4 (talk) 22:24, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:45, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DWER

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

Can't find any record of this radio station anywhere in the Philippines, let alone in Isabela. Currently, the second source does not list the station, and the first source actually contradicts this article, saying that frequency 104.1 FM in Isabella is a station with the call sign, PU, which is owned by Kaissar. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:36, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 11:40, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 11:40, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: DWER-FM is in the 2018 NTC list (page 3). It probably gained a call sign after the release of the 2010 list (reference #1). --Bluemask (talk) 02:48, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks RS. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 22:34, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing notable here. Wm335td (talk) 22:26, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 11:27, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ChineseSkill

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

Not noteable - fails WP:GNG. Wikipedia is not a business directory for small unknown companiesWP:NOTDIRECTORY Iamchinahand (talk) 07:34, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:56, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the same reasons as in Skritter. FOARP (talk) 08:02, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:25, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:25, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:25, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:25, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:30, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:32, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - another spammy article about an insignificant app. -Zanhe (talk) 09:25, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not noteable - fails WP:GNG--SalmanZ (talk) 23:40, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. bd2412 T 05:21, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Skritter

AfDs for this article:

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

Not noteable - fails WP:GNG. References from first AfD were very weak - not in-depth. Wikipedia is not a business directory for small unknown companiesWP:NOTDIRECTORY Iamchinahand (talk) 07:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:56, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Search is complicated by the fact that "Skritter" is a word in Norwegian, but in my WP:BEFORE all I could find were drive-by references and press-release material. Fails WP:GNG let alone WP:CORP. The Japan Today reference cited in the previous AFD might have been helpful but since it is now a 404 link I cannot assess it, but even if it was WP:SIGCOV it, by itself, would not be enough to sustain notability. FOARP (talk) 08:00, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:30, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:30, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:30, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:30, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:30, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:30, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unremarkable software, fails WP:GNG. -Zanhe (talk) 08:51, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG.--SalmanZ (talk) 09:15, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've added the Japan Today ref to the article. I'd also comment if the nom. was on article defence they would likely have gathered a tagging as a possible Wikipedia:Single-purpose account. The nom's contributions [31] appear to be one narrow focus of AfD for Japanese/Chinese langauge learning ... with little other contributions from the account ... which may be a concern.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:23, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 11:24, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Step into Chinese

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

Not noteable - fails WP:GNG. Wikipedia is not a business directory for small unknown companiesWP:NOTDIRECTORY Iamchinahand (talk) 07:19, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:22, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the same reasons as in Skritter. FOARP (talk) 08:04, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:32, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:32, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:32, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:32, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no indication of notability. Two other articles written by the same user, TuxMathScrabble and TuxWordSmith, should probably be deleted as well. -Zanhe (talk) 08:48, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the above, --SalmanZ (talk) 23:29, 30 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) 07:13, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lyro

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

Procedural nomination, since I declined the PROD because the article was previously deleted via PROD in 2007. The nominator was Mccapra (t c) and their reason was: "Short lived non notable social networking site." –Darkwind (talk) 07:07, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. –Darkwind (talk) 07:07, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the rationale above. Mccapra (talk) 07:14, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:17, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:17, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:17, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:17, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's a word in some languages, and a surname, which complicates searching, but no WP:SIGCOV found in my WP:BEFORE. FOARP (talk) 08:06, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Although I am seeing some at-launch posts around the launch (e.g. Mashable (Jan 2008), perhaps close to meeting WP:PRODUCTREV concerns), these seem to me to be propositional coverage. My searches are not finding the substantial coverage of this venture and its closure which could demonstrate WP:NCORP or WP:NWEB notability. AllyD (talk) 09:49, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Defunct company that doesn't seem to have enough coverage at the time or after. Expertwikiguy (talk) 01:15, 31 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) 16:27, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

North American Basketball League (disambiguation)

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

There is one primary topic, North American Basketball League, and only one other topic, North American Basketball League (1964–1968). Per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Disambiguation_pages#Disambiguation_pages_with_only_two_entries, the recommended practice is just to use a hatnote at the primary topic. A disambiguation page is unnecessary. —Bagumba (talk) 04:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 04:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 04:28, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:56, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Disambiguation is not required. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:11, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem particularly necessary._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:41, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 03:43, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Wales (actor)

AfDs for this article:

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

The article was deleted back in 2014 for a lack of notability. That issue persists. There is some local news coverage of Wales of dubious quality, and quite a few interviews or promotional sources. What's lacking are independent reviews of Wales' performances or any indication that he meets WP:NACTOR. The Daily Record is the best source out there, but one good source is not enough. Huon (talk) 03:22, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Huon (talk) 03:22, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Huon (talk) 03:22, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Huon (talk) 03:22, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Huon (talk) 03:22, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:56, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:57, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:57, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - gets close to WP:BASIC based on the Daily Record article but there's no other article that isn't at least a bit dubious in terms of reliability/independence. I did consider this coverage in Cosmopolitan but it seems a bit too close to a WP:GOSSIP sheet-type-article. FOARP (talk) 08:23, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Gimme a break! The Daily Record article all but says: "This guy is NOT notable. He has had only bit parts (like the guys in red shirts on Star Trek!), and this is his first modelling gig." Some of his acting credits are community theatre roles as a child. Some of the roles listed are upcoming (maybe those films/tv shows will never be released, or his characters will be edited out). The Cosmopolitan article doesn't say anything about him except that they found some shlump who had a bit part in GOT and *doesn't like the show!* And nearly all of the roles listed in his WP article are unreferenced (and from non-notable works). He is so definitely not notable. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:47, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, WP:NACTOR and the (abrupt but likely accurate) summary by Ssilvers. To which I have nothing to add. Other than to highlight the COI/SPA/PROMO overtones. Which are a contributory concern. Delete. Guliolopez (talk) 10:59, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasons above. There is nothing in the article to suggest he meets notability. I would note that none of the projects/productions he is credited as being involved with would seem to be notable enough to have an article apart from one (Game of Thrones) where he is listed as being uncredited. Dunarc (talk) 20:26, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:57, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Fails NACTOR. Spleodrach (talk) 17:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus that GNG is established; no need to prolong. (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 23:33, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bernadette Ní Ghallchóir

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

Sole claim to notability rests on being one of the List of Eurovision Song Contest presenters. Other than that fails WP:GNG/WP:NBIO, no indication of in-depth coverage, awards, significance. I prodded this a few years back, but was deprodded. AFAIK from the discussions we had back then this was part of a series of similar articles created by a fan or fans of Eurovisions who were under the impression that everything related to that show is notable, but WP:NOTINHERITED bears keeping in mind. Few years on, the individual does not seem to have become more notable, so it's time for AfD. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:12, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:12, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:12, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:BASIC, at least two instances of WP:SIGCOV in more than one reliable source are needed. The first is this Irish Independent article which gives her three short paras and highlights the reasons for her notability (introduced the Irish language to many people in Ireland, hosted Eurovision) - nb. this is not a case of "inherited" notability because that would be editors saying, without supporting sources, that she was notable for hosting Eurovision, rather than having a reliable source state that this is the case. From that article, I see she now goes under the name Bernadette Ó hUiginn, and searching for that name I see she is also covered in this Irish Times article. I also see from the Nival database that she has had a number of exhibitions for her artwork including at Dún Aimhirgin which is a "prestigious state-run gallery" in Ireland. Additionally there's this coverage in the US Congressional records (EDIT: this appears to have been a story published in the Washington Post which can be read here). As with a lot of Irish gaelic names, searching in this case is complicated by the large number of variants of each name so there's probably more out there, but even with what's been found thus far seems like a pass for WP:BASIC and also WP:NARTIST (particularly 4(b)). FOARP (talk) 08:57, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:37, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. FOARP (talk) 12:40, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - An entry for a Eurovision Song Contest presenter is just as important as a presenter for any other relevant television show. Why do I mention this, because the presenter in question is the face to a worldwide audience - the Eurovision Song Contest is still one of the most watched television programmes worldwide. Whilst I except that not all TV presenters need a Wikipedia entry, I think it is significant that the Eurovision presenters should be entitled to an entry, given the fact they have presented one of the biggest television programmes, worldwide. To say that the entry is insignificant due to the lack of in-depth coverage, awards and significance I find to be an understatement. Mrluke485 (talk) 14:14, 30 October 2019 (GMT)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:39, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mrluke485, you took the words right out of my mouth. She was the face of the nation, well known by everybody. I suspect if you dig deep you will find a mountain of references. scope_creep^Talk 09:42, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She passes GNG. Spleodrach (talk) 21:16, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Good sourcing. Host of Eurovision. Passes WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 10:18, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Macross characters. (non-admin closure) ミラ P 00:50, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Milia Fallyna Jenius

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

Fails WP:NFICTION/WP:GNG. A significant, but I don't think, main, character from original Macross series. Her husband Maximilian Jenius who had a similar role was already merged and redirected to the list of Macross characters, and I don't see anything in the article or in my BEFORE search to suggest she has received more of a coverage. Some mentions in passing, some summaries of fictional character bio, and that's about it. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:06, 30 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} 03:06, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:06, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - None of the references provide real world information to establish notability. TTN (talk) 22:34, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:40, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Macross characters as yet more supporting recurring characters. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:49, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Macross characters.4meter4 (talk) 23:07, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was that the article has been speedily deleted by Bbb23 per CSD G5 ([32]). (non-admin closure) ——SN 54129 17:36, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amin Mehraein

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

No indication of notability per WP:BIO, WP:GNG, or WP:NSPORT. According to the reference provided, he was part of a team that came in third in a diving competition. ... discospinster _talk 02:48, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 02:48, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 02:48, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks notability and I suspect it could be autobiographical. No Great Shaker (talk) 07:12, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. the sport references written by notable journalist :
- ~~Some Picture taken by notable journalists : # Photo # Photo ---- Uniteme (talk) 11:40, 30 October 2019 (UTC)~~ strike sock of Amin mehraien. theinstantmatrix (talk) 17:18, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It appears the article has already been deleted per G5. theinstantmatrix (talk) 17:18, 30 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) 03:55, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Olympics on NBC commentators

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

I believe this list falls foul of NOTDIR. Most of these people are notable, sure, and that's great, and they reported on the Olympics, which is in their respective articles, I imagine--but that they reported on these various Olympics is not in itself noteworthy enough to be listed in a separate article. And that is proven, I believe, by the sourcing here, which is as meager and as primary as one should expect: that someone comments on Olympic events is rarely the subject of in-depth coverage in reliable sources. So, delete. Drmies (talk) 01:58, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not sure this passes WP:LISTN. Maybe make a category, but I don't think this is defining either. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:03, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Excessive minutiae not covered in independent sources. Reywas92^Talk 04:00, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:58, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 12:15, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 12:15, 30 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 merge to A217 road. Clear consensus to merge (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 02:07, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mitcham Bridge

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. There are thousands or tens of thousands of small bridges in the world (WP:ROTM). It's not even clear that this is actually named the Mitcham Bridge - it may just be a bridge in Mitcham. The only refs are two routine local stories about flooding that occurred when the bridge was being repaired. Much of the article has no citations. Not enough here to establish notability. MB 01:37, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. MB 01:37, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MB 01:37, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:16, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge to A217 road which is the name of the street on which the bridge crosses (as a viable alternative to deletion). The material supported by local sources can be included in this article as part of the relevant sections on the local area. Bookscale (talk) 11:47, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Not notable enough to warrant a stand alone article. Nightfury 12:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to A217 road per Bookscale. The problems I am seeing are: The bridge was virtually unknown before it collapsed, with the collapse itself not generating much coverage either; nom makes a valid point about the article name, so that even if kept, we have this source giving it as Mitcham Bridge, but others are calling it Bishopsford Bridge, Bishopsford Road Bridge, Bishopsford Road/London Road bridge, and even just the bridge, which means that establishing the correct name would be a chore. StonyBrook (talk) 14:18, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to A217 road per above. Barring any evidence that the bridge itself is notable, i.e., sourcing exists that it was of historic importance prior to its collapse, it can be briefly discussed at that article. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:24, 30 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:52, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gibraltar Photographic Society

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

Fails WP:GROUP. Previously PROD'ed by Ifnord, was contested seemingly in bad faith. — Frood (talk!) 00:31, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. — Frood (talk!) 00:31, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Frood (talk!) 00:31, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:38, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's an abundance of reliable sources which can be used to expand it. It's notable for its annual competition/exhibition. [33]

[34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43]

Undoubtedly meets content requirements. "Short" is never a valid reason to prod or AFD an article, what were you saying about bad faith?♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:04, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. One thing that makes this organization and its competition notable is that it is actually run by the Gibraltar Government, and the prize money awarded by the Ministry of Culture. Since this is a publicly funded society through tax dollars there is a public interest in maintaining an article. Passes WP:SIGCOV per Blofeld.4meter4 (talk) 23:02, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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