Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 October 8

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 7 October	9 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 Delete. JGHowes ^talk 02:05, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great Music Agency[edit]

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

Notable?. The record label has not gained significant coverage in any reliable sources to warrant a stand-alone article. A Google search search doesn't bring up nothing of relevance. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:36, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:36, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:36, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:36, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:36, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N; nothing relevant available aside from a few social media accounts and their website. Luke ^Talk 03:26, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This kind of stuff could be merged to some list of minor record labels if one existed... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:40, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. No significant coverage. Barca (talk) 13:27, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Notability and nominator's rationale. --Wario-Man (talk) 08:17, 15 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 John Cabot University#Programs. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:12, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Guarini Institute for Public Affairs[edit]

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

Article from 2008 without sources. Apparent lack of notability. There're some hits in Google, but they seem to be mostly passing mentions. MarioGom (talk) 22:04, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 22:04, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 22:04, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the only possible refs I see are about guest speakers invited to it,not about the institute itself. Mccapra (talk) 19:46, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into John Cabot University, the institution that gives The Guarini Institute for Public Affairs, notability. Eliko007 (talk) 20:46, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to the John Cabot University article. As with others, my searches are finding only routine announcements of events or association, insufficient to sustain notability. AllyD (talk) 12:00, 14 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 ICICI Bank. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 02:24, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ICICI Bank Canada[edit]

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

Noticed outstanding, unactioned, and apparently, unopposed, merge tag and discussion on this page, so thought that as per WP:NORG, WP:Notability, and WP:Permastub, and following the lead of User:Piotrus and User:Mrschimpf, this article may not be notable or, if it is, it is either a permastub or an emerging permastub. It could easily be consolidated into ICICI Bank, which wholly owns this relatively small Canadian bank, as a separate section, if it isn't already, as was done with CTBC Bank (Canada) into CTBC Bank. As you can see, this is an orphaned, stub-class article with multiple issues. Seems not to need its own article. Doug Mehus (talk) 20:35, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:40, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:40, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:40, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to ICICI parent whatever. The merger proposer never finished it, but AfD has much more visibility than merges so we can take care of this here with few votes in few days :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:20, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Agree with nom and the Prokonsul to Merge. would fit both articles, also per ATD. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 03:14, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
L3X1, Thanks for your vote and thoughts. Agree that the closer will need to carefully select the best, non-duplicative prose and merge it into the parent company's page. Doug Mehus (talk) 04:06, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with ICICI Bank; as a new section or could be mentioned in other relevant sections. --Wario-Man (talk) 08:33, 15 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. No prejudice against re-creation if there are more sources when the film is released. RL0919 (talk) 21:23, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dhamaka[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM. The three links provided do not cover the film well. Also, I am not sure if the film has been released yet, so it may satisfy WP:CRYSTAL. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 19:13, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:23, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:23, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:HAMMER and WP:RS. It's unclear if this has been released; the only sources are blogs/comments. Bearian (talk) 15:01, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 20:34, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFILM, as, outside of the sources provided, there are virtually no relevant sources available. Luke ^Talk 03:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFILM, all the criteria. The film is slated to be released in Nov-Dec 2019. The sources so far only cover the announcement event of the film. Being an unreleased film it fails WP:CRYSTAL. --DBig Xrayᗙ 16:07, 10 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) 21:26, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rupert Dover[edit]

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

There are no honest grounds for having an article of this subject: A police officer of marginal notability (few Ghits). The article is a stub destined as an attack page, or a form of doxing. Since this person is commanding officer of anti-riot police who anti-ELAB protesters hold directly responsible for the decision to launch teargas, rubber bullets, and other ballistic anti-rioting weaponry against protesters, he has become a hate figure and has been subject to vilification and personal attacks in Hong Kong. Some examples of the attacks can be seen clearly in this article. I therefore nominate this article for deletion. Ohc ^¡digame! 20:32, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:36, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:36, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - It's a disgraceful cyber manhunt, should have been nominated for G10 speedy deletion. STSC (talk) 20:19, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article is largely coat racking about the current protests in Hong Kong. Nothing justifies an article on this person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:00, 14 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) 21:29, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bridgewater Bank[edit]

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

Per WP:NORG, WP:Notability, and WP:Permastub, and following the lead of User:Piotrus and User:Mrschimpf, this article may not be notable or, if it is, it is either a permastub or an emerging permastub. Its edits have been few and far between over the years, often limited to trivial cleanup or adding tags. It could easily be consolidated into Alberta Motor Association, which wholly owns this small Canadian bank, as a separate section, if it isn't already, as was done with CTBC Bank (Canada) into CTBC Bank. Doug Mehus (talk) 20:05, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:34, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:34, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:34, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As written, fails WP:NORG. Operating for a bit over 10 years, not historically significant. Ping me if there are new sources/arguments presented so I can reconsider my vote. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:19, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP; the only sources online are about a different bank in Minneapolis. The only sources provided are either from their website, or merely passing mentions. Luke ^Talk 20:09, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hei314, Interesting. I was doing a quotation mark-enclosed phrase search, so no results showed up for the Minnesota-based Bridgewater Bank. This further adds to the need to delete this article, in case that bank were notable (although, it, too, does not appear to be). Doug Mehus (talk) 20:15, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable bank. No significant coverage per WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 23:09, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bridgewater Bancshares/Bridgewater Bank is listed as one of the top five top bank stocks to purchase and is indexed by NASDAQ. [1] [2] [3] For a company to reach this level, it *obviously* has to be notable. That’s not something a local credit union would achieve. I actually feel a bit surprised that my opinion here seems to be in the minority, but stand by it. Eliko007 (talk) 20:48, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Eliko007, (1) No, Bridgewater Bancshares is an entirely separate company from Bridgewater Bank. The two have NOTHING to do with each other; thus, I request you, or an admin, strike your vote and (2) publicly-traded does not equal notability. In this case, though, this company is not publicly-traded. It is an insignificant, non-notable bank subsidiary that deals chiefly in the deposit and mortgage broker space. It generates little press coverage, all of it trite, trivial, and insignificant. Doug Mehus (talk) 20:52, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 21:32, 12 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) 21:33, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Problems in General Physics[edit]

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

No evidence of notability presented in the article. A WP:BEFORE search gives a few articles with passing mentions that it is used for the IIT entrance exams in India (e.g. [4], [5], [6]), but no evidence of WP:GNG-level notability. — MarkH21 (talk) 19:24, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 19:24, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 19:24, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 19:24, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Generic textbook with no assertion of notability. Reywas92^Talk 19:49, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is a similar AfD on another IIT entrance examination textbook. — MarkH21 (talk) 05:38, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unexceptional textbook. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:32, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - run of the mill textbook. Bearian (talk) 19:15, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable topic. Barca (talk) 13:35, 12 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 Mandali (Meher Baba). (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 02:23, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mehera Irani[edit]

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

The 3 volume work by David Fenster is not a reliable source; neither the author nor the publication house has any credibility/repute and t÷he publication house is non-independent.

As determined in a RSN thread; Bhau Kalchuri's biography is not reliable (for largely the same reasons) except as to verification of non-extraordinary claims. Certainly, it does not add any to notability.

We are left with Purdom, who (despite being one of Meher baba's closest associates) has covered her in the context of his narrative about Meher baba via a a reliable press. But, a single source doesn't confer a passage of WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO.

I don't locate any other reliable source that covers her signifcantly (in a non-trivial fashion) and hence, seek a redirect to Mandali_(Meher_Baba) ∯WBG^converse 16:40, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 16:40, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 16:40, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 16:40, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, at least this one's a save. The publishing house of George Allen & Unwin(now Allen & Unwin) is, in fact, one of the most credible publishing houses in the world. It published, for instance, J. R. Tolkian's The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbitt, among many other well known publications. A reputable source. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:00, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you trying to compare publication of fiction with non-fiction? That seems odd, and one non-neutral author/source does not notability make. - Sitush (talk) 17:07, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The publishing house is notable and reputable. It published a nonfiction book which lends reputability to this article. Maybe the book can be used to bulk up some of the cites on the deleted articles, but I'm surprised that the Baba editors here were strangely silent on the burial site page. I got caught up in these pages when the first wave of deletions were ongoing out of a sense of fairness. Is Baba so disliked in India? Peter Townshend seems to really like him, which should say something in his behalf. And, of course, Don't Worry, Be Happy gave him a nice image. I guess I'm missing something in terms of understanding the dislike, but that's neither Here or there. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:21, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are again casting aspersions, despite being warned about it by Jo-Jo Eumerus when they closed the recent AfD on a related matter - this has nothing to do with dislike and I, for one, am not even from India or of Indian heritage. And, for what it is worth, the opinion of Pete Townshend counts for nothing more than mine here, and the status of the publisher means nothing in terms of the notability of the subject. As I've just said on your talk page, I think you need to read WP:CIR. - Sitush (talk) 17:31, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That still doesn't answer my question as to why a published book by a reputable publisher doesn't "count". Because, as you say below, it's labeled as being written by a hagiographer? Where is that line drawn? Anyway, this woman seems to have been the central female in the Baba group, and that seems important enough to the topic to be worthy of an article as long as a good source by a reputable publisher has been included, which it seems to have been. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:21, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Randy Kryn, WP:GNG says:- If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.

Purdom counts somewhat (though not very strongly, courtesy the independence concerns) but even then, it's a single source contra the emphasis on plural, in the above quote. ∯WBG^converse 06:34, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are claiming that David Fenster's volumes were/are published by George Allen & Unwin; what?! Why not take some time, before !voting? ∯WBG^converse 17:11, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, and thanks for pointing it out in case I hadn't caught it already. But the book that I meant above that they did publish, Charles Purdom's work, is reputable and should satisfy even you. Why doesn't it? Randy Kryn (talk) 17:23, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was your mistake. You're also making the mistake of (again) misunderstanding WP:GNG and again misunderstanding that a hagiographer etc is not independent. - Sitush (talk) 17:33, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And I quickly reverted the mistake, even before comments about it were posted. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:21, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ST47 (talk) 18:54, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of significant coverage and inability to verify. The debate so far has been whether a single book that references the subject is itself notable. Disciples of barely notable religious figures are not themselves notable. Bearian (talk) 15:04, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:06, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article and Mandali (Meher Baba). Fails WP:GNG. Kutyava (talk) 03:15, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mandali (Meher Baba) as nominator has explained. Disciples of notable religious figures can be notable in their own right, such as Swami Vivekananda who was a disciple of Ramakrishna and Sister Nivedita who in turn was a disciple of Swami Vivekananda. What should be looked at is their individual contributions. Mehera Irani's individual contributions are not widely covered in literature/newspapers which makes me feel that it is best redirected.--DreamLinker (talk) 14:42, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTINHERITED.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:42, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mandali (Meher Baba) per DreamLinker's comment. --Wario-Man (talk) 08:27, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is consensus to keep this article in some form (either as an article about the album, or about the rapper, or both). WP:A9 does not apply because the fact that the album received WP:SIGCOV is itself a credible claim of significance. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 02:16, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Girls (Yung Baby Tate album)[edit]

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

This album got one review from Pitchfork (already cited) but I can find nothing else in reliable sources and the article is otherwise dependent on social media announcements and basic retail listings. Also, This album could be eligible for speedy deletion per WP:A9 because there is no article on the rapper, but maybe the album's importance is boosted by the reviews it has received. There is very little to find about the rapper besides tidbits in the reviews and this: [7]. There might be enough for a stub article about her, but that should come before an article for this album. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:43, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have altered my nomination to reflect the existence of various reviews as noted by Aoba47 below. I missed most of those in my WP:BEFORE search, perhaps due to the album's generic title. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 00:13, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:43, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This XXL source, 1, briefly mentions the album. HotNewHipHop published an article, 2, about the album. The Fader, Paper, and BroadwayWorld also put out articles about specific songs from the album, 3 4 5. Genius published an article about the album's lyrics, 6, Pitchfork also put out a second article about one of the album's songs, 7, and NPR has done a review for the album, 8. A majority of the articles that I have found focus on songs from the album, but I have also located a few sources that discuss the album. I agree that an article about the rapper would be the ideal starting point, but there does appear to be coverage on this album. I am leaning keep, but I am not completely certain so I am not casting a vote either way. Here are some additional sources. I broke down some of them above to avoid just putting put a list of links without any context: 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16. Aoba47 (talk) 20:23, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the update. The album's title is very generic so it is understandable how a before search may have missed these sources. That is one of the most frustrating parts about working on an article about a generically named subject matter lol. Aoba47 (talk) 19:31, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ST47 (talk) 18:54, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The sources found by Aoba47 seem sufficient to me. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:12, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - given the sources that I have located and listed above, I feel that WP:GNG has been fulfilled here. Aoba47 (talk) 21:23, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have no dispute with this, but we may need a Yung Baby Tate article to go with the album, because someone may still call for deletion under WP:A9, rightly or wrongly. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:02, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that. Aoba47 (talk) 20:48, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:06, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. JGHowes ^talk 02:12, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maryam Asadi[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a writer, not reliably sourced as clearing WP:AUTHOR. I can't read or write Farsi to determine whether she has the correct kind of sources to salvage this with or not, so I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with the appropriate language skills can repair it -- but I had to strip all three of the "references" that were here because one was a WP:CIRCULAR self-citation to the Farsi Wikipedia and the other two both went to spoof sites that tried to make me download computer viruses instead of real media, and even the Farsi article is flagged for major maintenance issues and doesn't have any sources in it either (so we can't just copy over sources from there and be done with it.) As always, writers are not automatically notable just because they exist, and nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to demonstrate her notability through the use reliable source media coverage. Bearcat (talk) 18:30, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can't find an atom of references from reliable sources independent of the subject. Danidamiobi (talk) 23:34, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:30, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:30, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:13, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:13, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:06, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. does not coverWP:BLP and live person notability. My native language is Farsi. I have just nominated the fa article for speedy deletion due to wp:notability.Gharouni^Talk 01:35, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable poet. Search in Persian shows just non reliable websites and trivial mentions.Farhikht (talk) 13:53, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a clearly undersourced article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:34, 14 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. In the sense of "not delete". There is no consensus about whether to keep this as a separate article or to merge it into Obergefell v. Hodges, but that can continue to be discussed on the article talk page. Sandstein 11:45, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Obergefell[edit]

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

WP:BLP1E of a person who is notable for a specific event, but is already well-covered by that event's article without needing to delve deeper into his private personal life outside of the event. This is referenced entirely to factoids cherrypicked from coverage of the court case itself (along with a few stray primary sources that aren't notability boosters), not to any evidence that his personal life has actually been a subject of coverage in its own right -- and since the existing Obergefell v. Hodges already covers him in the appropriate context, there's no compelling reason why he would need a standalone biographical article to delve more deeply into his childhood or his educational background or his career or his family relationships than the court case's article already does. To be clear, I do believe his name should be retained as a redirect to Obergefell v. Hodges -- but I'm not seeing a convincing reason why it needs to be a separate standalone biographical article that deep-dives into his private life outside of his role in the court case itself. Bearcat (talk) 17:11, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:11, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:11, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:11, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Obergefell v. Hodges; I think the "Recognition" section has some worthwhile material that can go there, but otherwise I agree with the nom. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:07, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge or redirect into the court case. Clear WP:BLP1E. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:43, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - since the SCOTUS case, he's become notable as an activist. Plenty of sources are available about that; see WP:BEFORE. Bearian (talk) 15:06, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We don't keep articles just because somebody generically asserts, without showing any actual evidence, that there are more sources available. WP:NEXIST is not a magic word that instantly sends an AFD discussion to hell just because you say it — it only comes into play if you actually show the evidence. Also,

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:05, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bearian placed a neutral notification at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies on 15:08, 7 October 2019 (UTC). --MarioGom (talk) 08:04, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bearian. There is plenty of precedent for people who became famous for 1E who use that fame to go on to become notable advocates and campaigners. De Guerre (talk) 06:27, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, De Guerre. See also Edith Windsor for another example. Bearian (talk) 19:01, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Edith Windsor features evidence that she already had some degree of preexisting notability before her court case. It may not necessarily have gotten her all the way over a notability standard in the absence of the court case, but it's still contributory — and Edie Windsor also cites a lot more sources than this does, covering her in the context of a lot more than just the court case alone. That's the difference between her and this: her article is actually showing and sourcing hard evidence that she's more than just a WP:BLP1E, while Obergefell's isn't — all we've got is soft, unproven assertions that he's notable for more than just the court case itself, not hard evidence equivalent to what Windsor's article is showing. Bearcat (talk) 14:52, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was thinking of Walter Mikac, but yes. De Guerre (talk) 07:11, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe selective merge to Obergefell v. Hodges, the case looks notable. --MarioGom (talk) 11:55, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obergefell is an important figure in the history of the Supreme Court as well as an important LGBTQ+ activist. Obergefell's story is widely covered in high school history classrooms and students will frequently use his page for their research Serenewilliams (talk) 17:42, 15 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. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 20:23, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

D. S. Bradford[edit]

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

Article has a strong whiff of promotion to it, likely WP:COI creation/edits. Nearly all of the sources listed are either primary, or simply listings (local events, etc). The only reference I see from a publication that might meet WP:RS is this one from PopMatters. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:32, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:48, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:48, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 16:07, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:03, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not here for promotion. Coverage is lacking. Maybe good, popmatters and a very short allmusic. That's it and that's not enough. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:14, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:27, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seacons[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional topic TTN (talk) 16:01, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 16:01, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 16:01, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:01, 8 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, contributions) 18:59, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LIM (rapper)[edit]

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

No sources. (not counting an improperly formatted link to what appears to be a biography on a non English website). A google search doesn't show him to be notable. Even if he was, current article is a totally unusable promo/resume, should be deleted and recreated when and if someone digs up sources to pass GNG or NARTIST Hydromania (talk) 07:12, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've gone ahead and reverted to original page subject as noted below. I don't think original subject passes GNG or NARTIST either, although article is at least readable.Hydromania (talk) 00:04, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Hydromania (talk) 07:12, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hydromania (talk) 07:12, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Incredibly poorly written article, which runs afoul of WP:PROMOTION and is generally a mess. No references. The external link to the "official website" leads to an Instagram page. Non-notable subject. The page is extra confusing as it was initially written about a different, French, rapper with the same name [8] (who wouldn't have passed WP:GNG either) and some sections from that version of the article survive to the current version. The 9 September edit which changes the rapper this article is about with a different one might also constitute vandalism. [9] In any case, strong delete or, at the very least, reversion to the version about the French rapper if anybody thinks that has some merit, but I doubt it. PraiseVivec (talk) 12:10, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The longer and better French Wikipedia article looks as if it has reliable sources coverage such as Paris Match and if that coverage backs up hit records with gold status then he would pass WP:NMUSIC criteria 2, will look into it tomorrow, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 23:18, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sorry for the delay, have looked at the French Wikipedia article and he definitely passes criteria 2 of WP:NMUSIC with nationally charting releases, as shown in this reference of the official French charts which shows 14 charting releases including a number 1 hit with his solo album Delinquent shown here. The french article has additional sources here, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 20:27, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:25, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:59, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:NMUSIC #2 Wm335td (talk) 17:51, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He had chart success in France. Binksternet (talk) 05:20, 13 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. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 20:27, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Burgis[edit]

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

Does not meet notability guidelines per WP:NACADEMIC. KidAd (talk) 02:36, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:52, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:53, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete or redirect to an article about the book. His book, Give Them An Argument: Logic for the Left, is published through John Hunt Publishing, which uses a mix of traditional-model royalty-based publishing and author-pays vanity-press publishing (and deliberately keeps secret which books are which). So we can't really judge its significance merely from its publication, but maybe this is not different from most other books. What we should look for is published reviews. And it has some, together with author interviews, in webzine-like sources rather than the scholarly press: [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. If he had another book with the same reception, I'd think he had a strong case for WP:AUTHOR, but as it is there's an issue with WP:BIO1E and WP:TOOSOON. His academic work as listed on Google Scholar is certainly very far from WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:48, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I think he's a very recognizable name in the right circles at this point. Regardless of his importance in a narrower, more antiquated view of academia, he's a relatively prominent satellite in a lot of online political commentary related to left-leaning economics and progressive politics. The article's current state is pathetic, but it should be simple, if tedious, to collect well-viewed and well-received pieces he's done with various outlets. Dfsghjkgfhdg (talk) 00:34, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- So you think he has reviewed books, plural? Can you at least name them? Because I couldn't find more than just the one. Recognizability is of no value if we can't back it up with sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:00, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It looks like this is one of those cases where, going by the letter of our guidelines, it would be easier to justify an article on the book than on the author. XOR'easter (talk) 02:22, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:24, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:59, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I spent some time looking for notability for him and/or his book. The results from Google Scholar and his CV don't come close to showing he meets WP:NPROF. I also don't see that WP:GNG is met because there's a lack of coverage about him. So, to me, the question is whether he meets WP:NAUTHOR. He appears to have one book out, but it's unclear whether or not it's self-published. He has a number of posts at academia.edu, but that's all self-published material with no editorial review. The reviews of the book are by blogs and left-leaning sources that are, to me, of questionable reliability and independence. Academic publications and main stream media generally have not reviewed this book. It's not apparent to me that this one book is enough to show notability or meet any notability criteria--at least not yet. Papaursa (talk) 21:31, 13 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 no consensus. Sandstein 17:32, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shaun Sanghani[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. Presented references are name drops. Nothing of depth. scope_creep^Talk 21:59, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:52, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:52, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:53, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:53, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:54, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - run of the mill sales person and film producer. We tend to delete articles about producers. His listing in Variety is in passing and is of the up-and-coming variety, pardon the pun. Bearian (talk) 15:30, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I can see where many of the concerns are coming from. I have amended the reference for the Variety line to one which more directly and substantially addresses the subject; the honor itself also suggests a level of recognition by industry peers, as the recipients are chosen via industry submissions which are then curated by Variety's reporters and critics. Additionally, articles exist for other recent recipients, such as Xavier Gens and Nancy Grant; while it would be fallacy to suggest this warrants an article for every recipient, it may suggest that those named are not always of an "up and coming" variety. It's also arguable that the "Prince of Alexandria" profile in Scene magazine and the first Deadline article cited tend toward being substantial, as opposed to passing or trivial mentions. Taken together, these sources might establish notability. I am also not seeing guidance to suggest that we tend to delete articles about film producers in the common outcomes article. Given the fairly extensive credits of the subject, it's likely that further sources could be added in order to bring the article to its full potential, as well. Stm2193 (talk) 03:10, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 10:47, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Most films that are created now have multiple producers so the producer may not be particularly notable, even though they are attached to a famous film with famous actors. As always secondary sources that are of a sufficient depth of coverage are the standard to prove notability. Here there is a lot of name drops, some minor coverage, a single primary source (an interview) but no real secondary sources of depth. Not a thing.scope_creep^Talk 23:42, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that, while an executive producer credit can indicate varying degrees of involvement, a producer/produced by credit (such as many of those here) is traditionally understood in the industry to indicate one of the main, actually hands-on producers of a project, which is why they are so coveted and one sees so few of them on a given film.Stm2193 (talk) 00:08, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:53, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The coverage of him is sparse, but he was a writer/director for many items, and a good half of them are blue links. That suggests he may pass WP:NCREATIVE#3 or such. PS. If it was one or two items, I'd agree with the nom, but if he is linked as producer or such to something like ten blue links, that's probably on the keep side of borderline, at least for me. Ping me if you want to convince me otherwise, I am always open to discussion. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:01, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: Do you fancy looking for some additional evidence. I really don't mind withdrawing it, if you give me an inkling of summat. I don't want him deleted if there is inkling that he is notable. scope_creep^Talk 00:42, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not seeing anything beyond what is there, as I said, it is just my personal view of what to do in borderline cases - in this one, I think there's enough stuff he had his name in as credits etc. that he probably should have an entry. A weak argument, hence my weak keep vote. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:46, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've not found much either. It is really all in the article and its not sufficient to establish notability. scope_creep^Talk 18:33, 16 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:53, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Troutman Sanders[edit]

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

The company doesn't appear to be notable. In the various more or less promotional versions of the page there ever was only one source that meets WP:SIGCOV, and that's of dubious reliability and independece and even spam blacklisted (www.referenceforbusiness.com/history2/0/Troutman-Sanders-L-L-P.html). My efforts to find something better found a piece of local law news. Beyond that there's some recent news buzz about a sexual harassment case at the firm, but that doesn't cover the company in any detail and is mostly reporting on the allegations which haven't had their day in court yet and adding which would cause BLP issues (e.g. [15]). That's not enough to write an encyclopedia article about the company. Huon (talk) 10:03, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:13, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:13, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is highly unlikely that a firm of 650 lawyers would fail notability. bd2412 T 13:04, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I am finding sources. bd2412 T 14:05, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the third of those sources is a rehashed press release and doesn't meet the standard of WP:SIGCOV. There's more of that quality, but it doesn't help. The other two I'm skeptical about; they seem to be a summary of interviews with employees about the firm as a workplace. I'm not sure that counts as either a secondary or a reliable source. I'm not sure how we would make use of such sources even if they were generally considered to be reliable. "Troutman Sanders pays below-average salaries but offers free car rides home when lawyers work late"? That's not what I'd expect from an encyclopedia article. Huon (talk) 20:51, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Given that a search for news articles at the Atlanta Constitution - just one potential source - yields over 250 hits, I wouldn't stress about it. As for the other sources, the Vault Guide series is clearly independent and reputable enough to be cited in dozens of Wikipedia articles. bd2412 T 21:22, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This very old firm (originally founded in 1897) has around 650 attorneys and at least 11 offices around the United States including in Atlanta, Chicago, New York, San Francisco, and Washington, D.C. with annual revenue of over half a billion US Dollars. If we deleted every article w/o sufficient or questionable citations thousands and thousands and thousands of articles and stubs that are useful to readers would be subject to deletion. As pointed out by @Bd2412:, just one example of a long existing and credible newspaper & web news outlet produced 250 hits for this firm. As with multitudinous other articles, why not use a tag or tags such as {{More citations needed|, {{Better source|, {{unreliable source?|, {{third-party|, {{importance inline|, {{cleanup-PR|1=article, {{Cleanup|reason=, {{update-section| or whichever is applicable to correct a perceived problem or problems. The firm is a Global 200 (#83), Am Law 200 (#68), NLJ 500 (#74) ranked, as well as Tier 1 ranked in many areas of the law, in 2019 rankings (see, Ranks#1 and Ranks#2). Deleting instead of correcting this article would be unfair to our readers, specially when less extreme measures are warranted. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 10:00, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Substantially for the reasons listed above by Q-V, would also be good to improve the article as suggested, and company pages always benefit from vigorous pruning of self-promotional material. But Troutman is comparable to a number of other firms with well-established articles such as, say, Quinn Emanuel, Locke Lord and many more. Shorn again (talk) 16:12, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:49, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per bd2412 above, there are at least two references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Topic meets GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:40, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SNOW the article passes our GNG Lightburst (talk) 01:38, 13 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 Meher Baba#Teachings. Whether to merge anything remains open for discussion. Sandstein 17:33, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

God-realization (Meher Baba)[edit]

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

Sourcing looks impressive at first glances but barring Cohen it's either sourced to Meher Baba himself or publications by follower-trustees or random non-independent websites.

Not seeing any significant coverage of the concept apart from trivial mentions; delete, please. ∯WBG^converse 16:55, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 16:55, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 16:55, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 16:55, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Thought you were striking. As to nom, redirect to Meher Baba. Merge what is best-sourced if anything not redundant. Must be some lines on this in a section to be made the landing spot. Hyperbolick (talk) 17:42, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources used: the Cohen book published by Harper & Row (a reputable publisher), the vetted and published Emory University Ph.D. doctoral dissertation, and the Purdom book published by George Allen & Unwin (a reputable publisher). Meher Baba's own book God Speaks published by Dodd, Mead & Co. (a reputable publisher) is then used to describe the concept, which I would think is acceptable given the number of good sources already used on the page. I may now be told that people who write about someone they like can't be used as sources, even if published and vetted by reputable publishers. I've been threatened to be taken to ANI over my actions on these Baba deletion pages, and called incompetent on my talk page by an established editor. But I still must ask, what is exactly wrong with the PhD. paper and the books mentioned above, I thought reputable publishers who vet their material are used as sources on Wikipedia. It's lucky I've got one of those fake trophy fishes that sing "Don't Worry, Be Happy" (which is the closest I've come to being a follower of Meher Baba). Randy Kryn (talk) 22:00, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Appreciate sources but being Meher Baba’s philosophy, why not incorporate into his page? Hyperbolick (talk) 04:13, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
PhD dissertations are not reliable sources usually, and the publication came of a non-independent house-press.

Meher Baba's own book is reliable for documenting what Meher Baba said and certainly does not allude to the notability of any concepts, contained therein.

Purdom is quite non-independent and his contribution to the case of notability, is borderline. ∯WBG^converse 07:04, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Same problem of WP:WALLEDGARDEN exists with this article and Mandali (Meher Baba), New Life (Meher Baba) and Perfect Master (Meher Baba). all maybe merged into Meher Baba or separate article on his teachings/concepts can be made in case the merging isnt feasible due to article size constraints. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:03, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article has nothing to do with WP:WALLEDGARDEN, an essay which is summarized: "Articles should have outgoing and incoming links to the wider encyclopedia. Don't create a group of articles that exclusively link to each other." This article has many unwalled-garden outgoing and incoming links. These can be easily seen by reading the article and noticing the outgoing links, and then clicking on the 'What links here' topic which appears (at least in Monobook) on the left-hand sidebar. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:44, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:03, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the essence of the essay is that there shouldn't be standalone article which are just related to each other and which can be merged into. It does not mean that one should check the "What links here" and be happy that something turns out. Just for the sake of linking, one can always disregard MOS, give wrong piped links and so on. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:55, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, the essence of the essay is as summarized in the "Summary" box at the top of the page: "Articles should have outgoing and incoming links to the wider encyclopedia. Don't create a group of articles that exclusively link to each other." The page has links to many articles outside of Baba related pages, and has many incoming links outside of links to Baba related articles. "Walled garden" does not apply in this case. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:30, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Kryn, pray provide some of those many incoming links from this list. I am seeing 4 links from articles within this Meher-baba-garden, 3 from out of the garden and 1 from a dis-amb page.∯WBG^converse 07:31, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Pray" seems the right word here, as the concept of God-realization is present in many practices and instructional spiritual teachings. A state of mind or an actual personal experience with whatever people define as the "Divine" (yoga, for instance, means "yoke" or "union with God" or "union with the divine").

It seems Meher Baba calls this state of mind or being "God-realization". Appropriate links to this page include the term Spiritual evolution, which begins "Spiritual evolution is the philosophical, theological, esoteric or spiritual idea that nature and human beings and/or human culture evolve: either extending from an established cosmological pattern (ascent), or in accordance with certain pre-established potentials." The page Plane (esotericism)'s short description is "A subtle state, level, or region of reality", and Involution (esoterism) says "In some instances it refers to a process that occurs prior to evolution and gives rise to the cosmos, in others an aspect of evolution, and still others a process that follows the completion of evolution in the human form."

These pages provide links to this page, with a key page Spiritual evolution pointing to Baba's contributing thoughts to the concept. The walled garden essay calls for incoming links (its summary again: "Articles should have outgoing and incoming links to the wider encyclopedia") - and three good links fulfill this requirement. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:20, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:49, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove this page from the Meher Baba template, as the nominator did in this edit, I assume in good faith, on 8 October with the edit summary "take out of template for a cause". Randy Kryn (talk) 03:38, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Would like to clarify, per the information asked above about outside links, that the Spiritual evolution page and the Involution (esoterism) page both have entire sections which describe this topic, and not just a link. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:02, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now the nominator removed the entire section on this topic on Spiritual evolution with this edit with an insulting edit summary to whatever editor added it (the appropriately placed per-topic and on-topic section was added on 15 May, 2011, by user Hoverfish). They also once again removed this page from the Meher Baba template. On the basis of "tampering with the evidence" this AfD should be immediately ended. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:07, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete / Merge (if there is anything to merge) to Meher_Baba#Teachings. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:14, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You pretty much made your 'delete' ivote above, which is how I and possibly Sandstein read it (if it wasn't an ivote then maybe this AfD would have been closed as no consensus instead of relisted twice). Do you have another reason to delete besides the walled-garden, or is this an "I don't like it comment?". Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:29, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My reason is same that this has no notability outside Meher Baba's connection. Read the article; it has nothing from outside world. It only talks about the theory that baba proposed. He draws connections with other theories; but that's again what he says. This is the walled garden in the sense I explained above; which might not be what others interpret from the essay. But in short, the topic has no standalone notability outside Baba's connection. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 13:44, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That wall-gardened reason seems incorrect per the standalone nobility this article achieves through an entire subsection and link in the Spiritual evolution article, where this topic fits into and adds to the article's subject. The links in the article itself further define what is being discussed, so the outside links act as descriptors, which I would think would be the reason and purpose that outside-garden links are asked for. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:59, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have said enough of what I want to say. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 15:46, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge to Meher Baba (preferably to the Teachings section). A standalone article would need enough independent references to pass GNG. This is one article which I think is unlikely to be expanded with information from third party sources. It reads more like an "in-universe" fandom article and is a good candidate to redirect to the main article. At most, a sentence or two could be merged if required.--DreamLinker (talk) 13:41, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article is well sourced with independent references (see the first 'Keep' comment above). This isn't an in-universe fandom page but the sourced description of god consciousness -- a topic discussed and described by many notable philosophers, religious figures, human potential teachers, yogis, and others -- by a notable individual who took the time to study and report on the topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:28, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there are references, I disagree that these are enough to write out a full fledged article and establish notability for the same. Vanamonde93 has mentioned a great solution below where we could merge these smaller article into one article dedicated to the philosophy of Meher Baba, which is notable as a whole. I am willing to support that.--DreamLinker (talk) 03:22, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My first preference would be for someone to write an article titled "Philosophy of Meher Baba" or equivalent, and merge all these spinoffs into that. There isn't enough material for a standalone article, but obviously his teachings as a whole were notable, and that would prevent his biography from being overwhelmed with this material. Failing that, I would recomment a redirect to Meher Baba, because of the absence of substantive information in reliable sources independent of the subject. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:22, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a great solution.--DreamLinker (talk) 03:19, 15 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:57, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tharshan Thiyagarajah[edit]

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

Fails requirements of WP:NACTOR, simply appearing on a reality television show doesn't qualify as being notable. Neither does being a contestant on a male beauty pageant. Fails WP: ANYBIO lacks significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources. Dan arndt (talk) 00:12, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 00:12, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 00:12, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 00:12, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:27, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:27, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:27, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:27, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:28, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just similar to this Afd on Mugen Rao. It is also quite evident that this bio too might have been created for the purpose of promoting the subject. Abishe (talk) 11:49, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have overhauled majority of the content in the article to match Wikipedia's standard and I think that the subject of the article satisfies WP:NACTOR, since the 'reality show' is not generic since there is a constant of mayhem in the social media due to the article and the people who follow the show rigorously support for their favourite contestant even going to the extremes. I think the subject is one of the above mentioned people and I have cited resources in the article. So I recommend to Keep the article.
Beastranger (talk) 19:33, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Abishe. -- Begoon 05:51, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. The newsminute, pinkvilla, and times of India sources almost seem satisfy GNG/BASIC. But I see it as pretty trivial coverage of mostly one event. Hydromania (talk) 07:52, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep concur with Beastranger (talk) - Sunlitsky (talk) 09:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not one reliable source in the article is anything but about the TV show called Big Boss. The subject has been referred to by-the-by in all these articles that primarily address the show. There is no other significant coverage of the subject. Fails ANYBIO, fails GNG, fails NACTOR. Should be simply deleted till the subject gains more notability. Lourdes 15:02, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:48, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, or, at most, redirect to Bigg Boss Tamil 3. bd2412 T 18:53, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are a number of sources which mention him, but I cannot see enough substantive coverage. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:33, 8 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 List of dramatic television series with LGBT characters: 2010s. Sandstein 17:34, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of BL dramas[edit]

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

Poorly-defined list that uses the possibly made-up term "BL" to refer to male-male love scenes, loosely alluding to the proper Japanese term Yaoi though Japanese media is not included in the list. The article is confined to Thailand and one show from South Korea, and from a limited time period. The author claims that "BL" is different than matters covered at the existing List of dramatic television series with LGBT characters: 1970s–2000s but without verification. The limited entries in this list could probably be merged into List of dramatic television series with LGBT characters: 2010s. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:15, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:15, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:15, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:15, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to relevant articles per nom. Alternatively, I could see the list being retitled and repurposed to be "List of yaoi television series". _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:26, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of dramatic television series with LGBT characters: 2010s per nom. A separate List of Yaoi television series article could be created per Rosguill's suggestion but that'd probably be better done as a separate task to the merge so as to avoid a content fork. SITH (talk) 18:45, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. "BL" is not a made-up term. The lead even mentions that it stands for Boys' Love, which means the same thing as yaoi, and redirects there. Yes, it is a far less commonly known term than "yaoi", but the acronym and term itself are even mentioned in the first few words of the article for yaoi. Ss112 03:53, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. A separate List of Yaoi television series article could be created per Rosguill --SalmanZ (talk) 23:53, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Decepticons. Merge from history remains possible. Sandstein 18:13, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Barricade (Transformers)[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional character TTN (talk) 17:47, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:47, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:47, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:47, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TTN, can you please make a recommendation on redirect if the character is a notable or recurring Transformers character? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:40, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm definitely arguing for outright deletion for these. If someone wants to redirect them after, that's fine, but I don't really feel we even need that much. Especially when there are three to five versions of each character, it's even more pointless to try to redirect them when there technically should either be a DAB page for each one or multiple separate redirects for each incarnation to each series. TTN (talk) 17:06, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Decepticons where there are multiple mentions. A brief description can be added for each variant if need be. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:41, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Decepticons. The list's design is not suitable for a merge at this time. ミラ P 17:08, 16 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:53, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Scientists for Future[edit]

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

May not meets WP:GNG A1Cafel (talk) 16:41, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of good independent coverage is provided as references... I don't see what the nominator's issues are with the sourcing? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:11, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I can't be bothered to do a {{source assess table}} but references 2, 4, 5 and 8 appear to meet WP:42. SITH (talk) 18:49, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
comment I can't read the German to fully assess the refs, but I do see that many of the refs are primary (to papers and statements from the group or group's members) and #9-18 are in support of the scientific facts, not the Scientist for Future initiative. The few remaining may be significant coverage or could be press releases. Schazjmd (talk) 18:56, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:38, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Noting nominator does not seem certain of their rationale. I previously tagged this page for notability and discussed on the talk page, as there are limited English language sources available. However, Korrigi provided more evidence of coverage in German language media sources. This satisfied my concerns and I removed the notability tag. I agree with Schazjmd that a lot of the sources relate to the climate change facts and not actually the group, a content issue that requires resolution on the talk page, but I think the German media sources provided do satisfy GNG.Polyamorph (talk) 19:59, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are more than enough sources to fulfill WP:GNG, and many more could be brought by if necessary. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 21:26, 13 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, contributions) 17:19, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reading Railroad Heritage Museum[edit]

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

This is a non-notable small local museum, open just a few hours per week. There is no significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Currently the references are local news coverage (the museum will put up Christmas lights this year), the organization's own website, and a Facebook page. Beyond that, WP:BEFORE turns up little more than directory listings and other non-significant coverage. Peacock (talk) 15:03, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. See refs at 1, 2 and 3. Mccapra (talk) 19:04, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:20, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:20, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:20, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems easy to find detailed coverage such as this. Deletion would not be sensible as there's such an obvious alternative: merger with Reading Railroad. Andrew D. (talk) 09:56, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable as per above. SL93 (talk) 23:10, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Physical infrastructure. scope_creep^Talk 00:41, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has accrued coverage in local media and one print source, and so likely meets WP:GNG.--SamHolt6 (talk) 21:06, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:54, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pancho Guapo[edit]

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

Doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:ENT. All Refs provided (and in Google news) are routine press coverages. Bishal Shrestha (talk) 04:17, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bishal Shrestha (talk) 04:17, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bishal Shrestha (talk) 04:17, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:51, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:51, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:52, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:52, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 05:21, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any input could help move this along.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 12:36, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promotional article for non notable DJ. Mccapra (talk) 07:48, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promotional article depending on the future events. Tessaracter (talk) 12:47, 10 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 13:30, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sòrcha Carr[edit]

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

Being at demos, and even having a caption mention you is not notability. Slatersteven (talk) 12:07, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Foxterria: There's not reason to delete it, and it has being sourced. She has being seen multiple times online and appeared in my own social media feed several times in New Zealand. She's obviously got some traction in the country. Foxterria (talk) 1:12pm, 9 October 2019 (NZT) —Preceding undated comment added 12:12, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please read wp:n, it is not enough to have been seen, she has to have been written about in her own right (by RS).Slatersteven (talk) 12:16, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the sources, she has being. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foxterria (talk • contribs) 12:17, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have and I am not even sure two of them mention her by name. The other two only mention here in a photo capitation, that is not enough to pass wp:n.Slatersteven (talk) 12:19, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:55, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:55, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:55, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:55, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. WP:GNG is not met. The subject is only afforded trivial/passing mentions in some sources. And is not mentioned in others. At all. WP:SIGCOV is not demonstrated. Delete. Guliolopez (talk) 13:40, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Guliolopez. (If kept, then needs much better sourcing and probably renaming. If she's Irish-born, then presumably her name is actually just Sorcha, or possibly Sórcha (the síneadh fada on the "o" like a French accent aegu, not an accent grave). The grave accent does not appear in Irish orthography. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:58, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The source all say Sorcha, so this article is riddled with OR from (literally) the start. Its hard to not assume there is COI here, and promotionalism.Slatersteven (talk) 14:03, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In fact is there anything in the article that is actually sourced and verified?Slatersteven (talk) 14:10, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness, if there was COI involvement, you'd have to assume they know how to spell their friend's name... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:35, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

True, assuming that, and not assuming its a different person, or there is not COI and they have just seen them on FB or...but that is the problem with assumption, Hence why I have asked them.Slatersteven (talk) 14:37, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Instagram account uses the grave accent. Haven't checked if it really belongs to this person. Daß Wölf 19:51, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and others. Fails GNG and SIGCOV. Promotional. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 16:49, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have removed her unsourced date of birth from the article. PamD 08:36, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing to indicate notability: the fact that creator of article added an unsourced date of birth suggests either WP:COI or WP:OR. PamD 08:36, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They have still not responded to my question about COI, so I am now going with that.Slatersteven (talk) 08:54, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing whatsoever that indicates notability. Schwede 66 04:09, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and others. Dubious spelling and unsourced DOB are red flags, and any mention in sources is passing. Extinction Rebellion has many members, so does not impact.SeoR (talk) 12:21, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG . Spleodrach (talk) 12:20, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article is an extreme example of rushes to show notability that WIkipedia should avoid. It is a key reason I constantly say we need to force all new articles through the article creation process.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:13, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. JGHowes ^talk 02:49, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Capitol Casino[edit]

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

No indication of standalone notability. Presented sources are either directory listings or contains insignificant information. Does not meet WP:GNG. Routine coverage and passing mentions are not enough to demonstrate notability. Hitro talk 10:16, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 10:16, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 10:16, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Not a single independent secondary source is available that is in-depth. scope_creep^Talk 21:22, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:21, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dungeons & Dragons creatures (B)[edit]

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

Lists like this only exist for two letters, A and B. Most creatures on the list don't seem to have any real-world notability. Not a very active user (talk) 10:18, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:40, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:42, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I think all these recent AfDs have confirmed that Wikipedia is no place for an extensive list of all monsters in D&D, so having yet another list to gather non-notable monsters is unneeded. It's just gameguide material without some standard as to what monster are and aren't covered. TTN (talk) 12:19, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Listcruft, and we certainly don't need minor creature lists for every letter of the alphabet. Wikia material._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:31, 13 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 no consensus. Opinions were split between keeping and merging. Since the latter can be done outside of the scope of an AfD without any admin assistance, this seems like the best option. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:29, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Dexter House[edit]

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

no apparent evidence for notability, unless every house where George Washington slept for one night is notable. There is no evidence that the building is on any historical register. If it is, it would be notable. DGG ( talk ) 09:43, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:43, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:51, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:51, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Town and historical society documents ([16] and [17]) indicate that this property is located within the NRHP Dedham Village Historic District, though I have been unable to determine if it is a listed property. 24.151.50.175 (talk) 16:05, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep List of Washington's Headquarters during the Revolutionary War, may just indicate that "every house where George Washington slept for one night is notable', especially if it is still standing, and certainly if it is a contributing property to the Dedham Village Historic District, which [18] clearly indicates it is. This article is less than one week old. Further research will likely reveal more sources and there should be no delete, but rather expansion to this very specific piece of American history. Djflem (talk) 16:53, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I couldn't readily count the number of AfDs I've seen where a previous AfD a decade earlier closed on the basis of "further research will likely reveal more sources" ... never to have done so, obviously. This notion has always flown in the face of settled policies and guidelines requiring such sources to have already been produced. In any event, I haven't seen any notability guidelines explicitly granting presumptive notability to buildings in which Washington (allegedly) slept, but NOTINHERITED definitely covers whether every building in a historic district is notable: thankfully, not, because the notion of a Wikipedia article on the tenement apartment building in which I lived for three years (and which just happened to be in the boundaries of a NHRP district) is a gigglefit. In any event, if there are sources discussing this building in the "significant detail" the GNG requires, they should be produced. If not, the content can be merged into the historic district article, which is just a scanty paragraph long itself. Ravenswing 02:59, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, Wikipedia:BEFORE, was cursory, since several sources were easy to find and could easily "be produced",as this building clearly saisfies Wikipedia:NBUILDING, which states:

"Artificial geographical features that are officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage, or of any other protected status on a national level and for which verifiable information beyond simple statistics is available, are presumed to be notable."

Addtionally, stated at contributing property:

"Properties within a historic district fall into one of two types of property: contributing and non-contributing. A contributing property, such as a 19th-century mansion, helps make a historic district historic, while a non-contributing property, such as a modern medical clinic, does not. The contributing properties are key to a historic district's historic associations, historic architectural qualities, or archaeological qualities"

Keep. I can see few situations in which a large 18th-century house would not be considered notable anywhere in the world, whether it had associations with someone famous or not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:07, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ravenswing. Rockphed (talk) 14:01, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge: With the sources found by TheCatalyst31, I think this passes GNG. However, I think the article can't really be expanded beyond the current size much. The sources, after removing all the verbiage about how they determined the history, all pretty much just said when the house was built, who built it, and that it was where Washington spent a night (with more or less information about any of those items). From the primary sources listed in the article we can get information about the house's construction, architecture, and decorations, but I am not sure how much that information will add to the encyclopedia. No, really, I have no idea; hence my "keep or merge" vote. If adding that sort of thing will make the encyclopedia better, then keep it. If it won't, then merge. Rockphed (talk) 14:02, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While buildings that are on the National Register through historic districts are only independently notable if proven otherwise, this house actually does seem to be independently notable. The MACRIS inventory file (click the INV link to download the file) suggests that the house actually would be historically significant enough to be listed on the National Register independently, though a listing wasn't pursued since it was already preserved as part of the historic district. There are also plenty of sources here to meet WP:GNG; in addition to the ones already in the article, there's this extensive section of a journal, coverage of the interior design in this book (free to borrow with an account), and sections of this book and this other book. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 14:52, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Dedham Village Historic District, of which this building is a contributing property. Neutrality^talk 17:41, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Dedham Village Historic District. The rather limited notable information about this house would be better served in the context of the district article, rather than a separate permastub. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:25, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As per nominator "There is no evidence that the building is on any historical register. If it is, it would be notable." Since it is on the National Register of Historic Places, it would be notable. Djflem (talk) 22:22, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Several good sources in article and elsewhere, per TheCatalyst31. Clearly notable. Station1 (talk) 00:21, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Current version of article greatly improved. Meets GNG per sources found by TC31. MB 03:45, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:20, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dungeons & Dragons creatures (A)[edit]

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

None of the creatures listed here seem to have any notability. It should also be noted that lists like this only exist for two letters, A and B. Not a very active user (talk) 09:26, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 09:26, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 09:26, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 09:26, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I think all these recent AfDs have confirmed that Wikipedia is no place for an extensive list of all monsters in D&D, so having yet another list to gather non-notable monsters is unneeded. It's just gameguide material without some standard as to what monster are and aren't covered. TTN (talk) 12:20, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:16, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Listcruft, and we certainly don't need minor creature lists for every letter of the alphabet. Wikia material._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:31, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A random sampling of non-notable, primary sourced fictional creatures. Many of the individual entries in this selection have already had their own articles deleted, and shoving them all in one place doesn't confer any additional notability as a grouping. Rorshacma (talk) 01:48, 15 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. Technically "wrong venue" as copyright issues are discussed at WP:CP but it seems like the copyright issue was resolved here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:57, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jobos Beach[edit]

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

queried copyvio, for Jobos Beach or Playa Jobos Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:12, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonzvaldo: User:Gonzvaldo said "Note from creator: The other page copy the info from my wikipedia page! Wich I am happy about it. You can see in the text that there are has mixed words (without space in between) because they copy and paste my words. I'm a local at that beach, those words about cleaning the beach are mine. My first "Jobos Beach" Wikipedia page was created on 2011, same time as the "Pozo de Jacinto" page, but it was deleted. 2 of the 3 pictures he has at the end of his page were taken by my phone. I don't mind him using my text, but don't delete my Wikipedia page. I just rephrase my wikipedia page to avoid deleting it. Jobos Beach or Playa Jobos is a beach facing the Atlantic Ocean located on the PR-466 street of Isabela in the northwest of Puerto Rico." :: see Template:Backwards copy. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:12, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We had the content first, at Playa de Jobos as of March 22, 2013, at 02:56. The purported source webpage is dated April 24, 2013. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:06, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, what's the next step? Will it be deleted? I already edited the contents. I have a few pages that refer to this article, if deleted then I have to replace the link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gonzvaldo (talk • contribs) 18:44, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:10, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:10, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this whole thing is strange. Not sure why this went to AfD when there was a speedy-copyvio tag up. The beach itself should be notable enough for a stand-alone article. I've added one source. The difficulty is it's a tourist hot spot, so most of the immediate search engine hits are tourism-related as opposed to sources helpful for creating an encyclopaedia article. SportingFlyer T·C 02:22, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The initial infractions all seem to have been corrected. I don't believe the issue here was ever WP:N; the beach meets that criteria. WP:DBN may also apply here somewhat. Mercy11 (talk) 00:49, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.The beach is notable enough for a stand-alone article.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 22:59, 12 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. The consensus is that this individual does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. The only arguments against its deletion were by the articles creator/main contributor to the page. PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 18:31, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Roop Chand Joshi[edit]

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

Previously deleted for lack of notability -- this version has a few more sources, but given the language issues I can't tell if this is enough. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 04:46, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 04:46, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 04:46, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - the first deletion was done in hurry without any scope of giving contributors chance to add sources and expand the article. If you see it was not even relisted and deleted just on basis of one single vote. Therefore, I have created this article with more sources and information. Roop Chand Joshi is regarded is originator of new line of thinking and interpreting the ancient Jyotisha shashtra of India. The person is certainly notable and article is a Strong Keep.Jethwarp (talk) 05:18, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 05:21, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:59, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:05, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:05, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator; FWIW, I was the nominator of the first AfD. A bunch of unreliable sources have been added, nothing else. ∯WBG^converse 17:43, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Wikipedia is encyclopedia - the article is of encyclopedic values - if you have to learn vedic astrology today - the books of Roop Chand Joshi are a must to get in-depth topic and get masterly over the subject. Please note that none of the sources are unreliable. There are even newspaper article cited which mention that his birth day is celebrated please explain a bunch of unreliable sources. In fact he has been the only author who has written this science in urdu and in verse. All other ancient texts on astrology are written in sanskrit. Even most famous western astrologer Cheiro learnt this science from India. I hope better sense prevails before deleting the article. Jethwarp (talk) 05:42, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the nomination. The article Fails WP:GNG. Kutyava (talk) 03:34, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - I am at loss to understand that how an article on the author of Lal Kitab , who has created a new branch in Astrology does not pas WP:GNG. one can just check [19] the link on Lal Kitab is viewed as a new branch of astrology or not ? Roop Chand Joshi chose to remain away from lime light, in obscurity, was a mystic and simple man and never ever claimed name and fame for his work, which he dedicated to world - denying an article to his name would be injustice, when sources have been provided, which all name him to be the author and founder of this branch. Thanks Jethwarp (talk) 04:48, 14 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:24, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dire rat[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional monster. Fails WP:GNG and WP:GAMEGUIDE. Not a very active user (talk) 08:06, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 08:06, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 08:06, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. KingofGangsters (talk) 23:10, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:16, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Extremely minor creature with no reliable secondary sources. The article on "Dire Animals" in D&D in general was deemed non-notable enough to be redirected, merged, and ultimately deleted over the years. One very specific example of the concept is definitely not notable on its own. Rorshacma (talk) 01:46, 15 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 no consensus to delete. bd2412 T 04:56, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Qantas Flights 7 and 8[edit]

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

This is now only the seventh-longest flight in current service, and the mantle of "longest flight in the world" gets passed around so much that the sources for this article are nothing more than WP:ROUTINE. I propose to redirect to Longest flight; however when I did this it was reverted, so I am taking it here. CapitalSasha ~ talk 04:43, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:59, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:59, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:59, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:59, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support delete it - it once was for a time the longest flight in the world and fortunately no one has been silly enough to create an article for other such transitory longest flights. This article does not really have anything in it that you couldn't also write about any of the hundreds of thousands of routine daily flights which do not, rightly, have articles. Andrewgprout (talk) 06:05, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Firstly, if the nominator is after a merge discussion, that should have been raised at the talk page, not via AFD. Secondly, I don't see how this article is any different than a train route or something similar. The article is supported by plenty of external sources that discuss the flight, its development and how it came to be, so the route has been given significant coverage over the years, therefore meeting GNG, and a fair bit of the article is not about it being the previously longest flight anyway. Most flight routes don't have articles (and rightly so), but there are some that have received significant enough coverage that do. Bookscale (talk) 11:30, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a keep from me. Bookscale (talk) 10:45, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of coverage in reliable sources thus passing WP:GNG. Notability is not temporary; once a topic has received significant coverage, it does not have to have ongoing coverage. World's longest regularly scheduled commercial flights for a few years is a nice claim of significance. feminist (talk) 09:32, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:03, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability is not temporary. It broke a world record, has significant coverage, and the nominator doesn't even support deletion, they want redirection. The article satisfies the WP:GNG and deserves a spot. AmericanAir88^(talk) 18:02, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per AmericanAir88 and definitely per WP:NTEMP. The subject was definitely significant in the past, and just because it no longer holds a record doesn't automatically detract its notability. ToThAc (talk) 13:47, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete may be worth a one sentence mention in Qantas but not really noteworthy for a stand-alone article, with the advent of long-range versions of airliners the longest route changes regularly and this is really just trivia. MilborneOne (talk) 13:31, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - except it isn't "trivia", it has been covered in multiple reliable sources (which are set out in the article) and clearly passes GNG. This really reads like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Bookscale (talk) 00:43, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 07:29, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jonghoon An[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG lacks sources and one of the 2 links is a fundraising one. Can also see WP:BLP issues with this article. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:58, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:58, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:46, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:NOTPROMOTION. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:59, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 07:29, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Navied Mahdavian[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and is upcoming his first cartoon was published in 2018 a case of WP:TOOSOON. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:38, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:38, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:47, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:57, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No significant coverage per WP:BIO. SL93 (talk) 23:12, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable cartoonist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:38, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 07:29, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Radical Youth (Aotearoa New Zealand)[edit]

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

This group has no notability; only a brief mention in one newspaper article from 2006 Ross Finlayson (talk) 06:36, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:47, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:47, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ORG. Lacks significant coverage to satisfy notability standard. Ajf773 (talk) 11:10, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails notability WP:ORG. --SalmanZ (talk) 17:57, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:53, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:07, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Excalibur Publishing[edit]

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

Unnotable company; it appears as a side note in some sources ("Excalibur published X, will announce Y") but there is nothing substantial that would satisfy WP:SIGCOV. The topic also fails WP:NCORP. Lordtobi (✉) 06:26, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Lordtobi (✉) 06:26, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lordtobi (✉) 06:26, 8 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 Adaptation. Very selectively, as discussed. Sandstein 17:35, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Niche adaptation[edit]

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

Article was redirected to Adaptation a year ago after a merge discussion. No merge was actually performed on the basis that this is an essay with no content worthy of merging into the existing article. The creator has recently returned to the page requesting restoring. Nothing has changed since the original merge discussion, this page reproduces content that already exists at Adaptation and related articles. The content should be deleted. Polyamorph (talk) 09:08, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Merge anything worth saving: per nom, yes, I recall the events; it was a student contribution. The topic is a non-starter, and there is still nothing there worth doing anything with. We already have articles on Ecological niche, which, er, fills the niche for an article about that subject (all to do with adaptation in an environment), and as stated on Adaptation. It is hard to see how an additional article could usefully fit into the hierarchy of articles here, but the current sorry effort certainly doesn't fit the bill. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:29, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 18:51, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's hard to see why we would need an article under this title when we have Adaptation and Ecological niche, as mentioned above. Moreover, both of those are better-developed than this, which is a rather meandering essay that loads a lot of specifics into the introduction, making it somewhat arduous to read. XOR'easter (talk) 00:17, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Selective merge Surplus to requirements for the reasons named above. Update: Changing to merge, because something may be salvageable, and to get closer to a consensus. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:41, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Point of order This discussion should be closed immediatley per WP:SKCRIT 2.d "nominations that are clearly an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion, where dispute resolution is a more appropriate course". There is an existing merge discussion and that should be resolved rather than starting another separate discussion here. If more input and formality seems needed, then the RfC process should be used. See also WP:ATD; WP:BITE; WP:MERGE; WP:NOTCLEANUP; WP:PRESERVE; &c. Andrew D. (talk) 11:05, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Davidson Andrew, that's not what happened. After a period of some months of quiet discussion (few editors bothered to join in), I merged the articles. Recently, the student author resurrected it without discussion and after a brief edit-war, another editor brought it here. We have sufficient articles on the topic already, and there's not really anything to merge; since redirecting has been challenged, there's little alternative to a deletion discussion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:09, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is clearly an alternative, as I said: use the Request for Comment process. And the assertion that ""there's not really anything to merge" is false. For example, the page in question has a section about horizontal gene transfer as a significant mechanism. The adaptation page currently has nothing about that; it just talks of genetic variability and mutation. To deliberately use the deletion function to erase all such content and its history just to win an edit war with a new editor is outrageous; contrary to all the policies which I have listed. Andrew D. (talk) 11:25, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I don't agree. Merging was (last year) and remains the right answer; I don't much care whether a redirect is left ("merge") or not ("delete"), as long as the article is not recreated. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:29, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I also strongly disagree with Andrew Davidsons interpretation, I nominated this article for deletion on the basis that following a merge discussion over a year ago it was redirected with no useful content to merge. As I said in my nomination the article replicates content found in adaptation and related articles. As such it is a WP:CONTENTFORK and should be deleted.Polyamorph (talk) 11:40, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The merge discussion was not properly or formally closed. There were only two participants when Chiswick Chap said that he was closing and he was one of them. But WP:MERGECLOSE states that "the determination that a consensus to merge has been achieved should be made by an editor who is neutral and not directly involved in the merger proposal or the discussion. When Ssraza discovered what had been done, he naturally objected and reverted and so the close lacks consensus. The correct procedure to call for more participants in the discussion and a proper formal close per WP:RfC. Starting another discussion at AfD while leaving the other discussion open is procedurally wrong. And it is inappropriate because this good faith, valid content should not be deleted. Andrew D. (talk) 12:07, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the big talk, the material needs to be merged. I already changed my !vote. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:11, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A merge discussion that stays open for more than two months and has only two participants, who agree, can of course be closed by either of them. There is no requirement for a quorum of three, nor does unanimity require an uninvolved closer, or whatever Andrew postulates. I assume he has participated in enough normal merge discussions to be aware of this, and is merely doing his wikilawyering act on behalf of a random deletion here. The result stands, and should be affirmed. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:32, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The other discussion was had over a year ago, and was closed by Chiswick Chap according to the consensus then when they redirected the article. There is no procedural error here. I also note that your interpretation of WP:SKCRIT is wrong since that applies to disruptive users. Polyamorph (talk) 13:00, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is procedurally improper. For further confirmation of this, see WP:DELAFD, "It is also inappropriate to request deletion because of an editorial dispute. Such disputes are not resolved by deleting the whole page; instead, use dispute resolution." Andrew D. (talk) 13:32, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your opinion on this matter. Polyamorph (talk) 13:46, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's not my opinion; it's policy: "It describes a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow.". But as the nominator declines to withdraw, we must press on with this discussion fork. Andrew D. (talk) 15:27, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is your incorrect opinion that there is anything improper about this nomination, and your persistent wikilawyering about it is unhelpful and ultimately pointless.Polyamorph (talk) 16:18, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This policy is being misapplied. This proposal is clearly stated as due to redundancy/content forking, not a content dispute regarding this article. If an editor thinks that the other page, the page that was target to the earlier null merge, lacks important information, then the best approach is to add the material to that page, rather than (re)creating a content fork. Agricolae (talk) 07:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/delete Stop whining about process. There is clearly no need to have this article that duplicates content on other articles. Professors, please have your students improve existing articles rather than requiring new ones, these so often end up duplicative or essay-style. Reywas92^Talk 16:17, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per discussion here. I actually think Ssraza's writing style is quite pleasant, which make it more of a pity that the work wasn't directed towards improving articles, or at least documenting any aspects of Niche adaptation that are unique compared to other types of Adaptation. However there is very little information or references in it that aren;t already present in the merge target page. Ideally, I think it is best to avoid deletion if possible in order to preserve the edit history. I can't claim to know the details of procedural policy on this, but I think that the overall direction is clear. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 23:59, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the work actually was directed towards improving an existing article. Niche Adaptation was as stub with about two sentences before it was assigned to me for this project. I since added nearly 1000 words citing ten new sources which were peer reviewed scientific articles. If this does not add value to Wikipedia, than I don't know what does. It is not the most important page in the history of the site, but it represents everything the site stands for-people adding knowledge to the internet. Ssraza (talk) 03:22, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The assertion that "there is very little information or references in it that aren;t already present in the merge target page" is false. The page in question has 11 references. Only one of them appears in the page adaptation. That's Darwin's Origin of Species but, even for that seminal work, a different edition is cited. If we consider the section headings, then we see that they are all different and do not appear in adaptation or ecological niche. So, there's less than 10% overlap and the claims of redundancy are exaggerated. Andrew D. (talk) 15:27, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic in question was suggested as part of a set covering the field of integrated genomics. All the other topic titles in that set are blue links and, as it happens, I started one of those topics myself at a different event: beanbag genetics. All these topics seem quite respectable and sensible. The organisers were Laura Reed and Ian (Wiki Ed). The former is a professor who teaches in this field and so it would be good to get their input. Perhaps they have a view about the scope of the topic by this title and their expectation as to how this would fit alongside our other topics. Pending such expert advice, there seems to be no pressing need to take any action let alone deleting this good faith work. These topics are not concrete and discrete; they are theoretical abstractions; concepts which are used to explain and simplify the complexity of the real world. As such, their meaning tends to vary, depending upon the theoretical model. For example, adaptation currently starts by saying that it has three different meanings in this context. Likewise, ecological niche is split into three different theoretical forms. And then there are many other related topics and sub-topics. So, in this web of concepts and constructs, there is space for the view in question, especially as its title phrase is used in relevant sources and so may be expected to be the subject of search and readership. Andrew D. (talk) 15:27, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not exist simply to serve as as course-space for a university class. Just because your professor decides to organize evolutionary biology in this manner doesn't mean Wikipedia needs to organize it the same way. Agricolae (talk) 07:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article was, in fact, improving on an existing article. I did not create the page for Niche Adaptation, it was there already and I simply added to it. I turned the stub into a short page that goes into more detail on topics that may or may not appear elsewhere on Wikipedia. Ssraza (talk) 03:31, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:28, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[added: Selective] Merge/Delete Article seems not well balanced in terms of WP:PROPORTION, and is rather scattershot. We would be better off improving adaptation than to proceed with this content fork. Agricolae (talk) 07:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge — very careful, selective merge — to Adaptation. This simply is not a separate topic. Perhaps references and bits of prose can be salvaged and given a better life in a different environment. XOR'easter (talk) 19:44, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge per XOReaster. Poorly balanced and doesn't really work as a separate topic. Maybe a few bits and pieces can be salvaged, but probably not very much, and so a merge would need to be more rigorous than a simple Ctrl-C Ctrl-V dump. Reyk _YO! 10:57, 11 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. Sandstein 17:35, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Luca Piccolo[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. Most sources are very local and/or niche and most seem to be based on press releases. Nothing substantial. Appears to be a promo piece. Fails WP:GNG. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 10:31, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 10:31, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 10:31, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:36, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:37, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I spent some time to dig out the references used. Majority of them feature the topic. I believe this is inline with what I read from WP:BIO. Thanks
Delete - we have almost always deleted pages about run of the mill producers, stage managers, and musical agents. I don't see any significant coverage in reliable sources of this person that would break the general rule. Bearian (talk) 13:04, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:26, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I do not see anything that shows this person to be anything other than a run of the mill manager/promoter/agent, with nothing to indicate that he meets any notability criteria. PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 18:37, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while I didn't take a critical eye to every source in the current article, the only one that seems significant is an interview with the subject of the article. Rockphed (talk) 16:30, 17 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 no consensus. That is, no consensus between merge and keep. Nobody agrees with deletion. Whether this content should be merged is perhaps better further explored on the article talk page than in an IVth nomination. Sandstein 18:12, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tantive IV[edit]

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

Look. I like SW just like any other SF fan, but this minor plot device is not notable - fails WP:NFICTION. The article is an in-universe description, plus an overview of merchandise, desperate enough to even mention that the ship appeared on two individual cards of related collectible card games. I am sure it can be expanded with mentions of video games and books it was mentioned in too... but let's face it, the topic has no real world impact outside a few toys. It is mentioned in passing in some books on Star Wars, but nobody dedicated as much as a paragraph to this, a sentence or two in passing is all it gets. Not all plot devices (ships, etc.) from SW are notable, folks. This is not a Deathstar, Star Destroyer or Millenium Falcon, this is funcruft. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:23, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:25, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:25, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 01:56, 11 October 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Merge to List of Star Wars spacecraft. Editors agree that the list should exist, so it seems like an adequate place to put this information, which isn't notable enough for a page._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 06:29, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's a trap! The idea that lists are a sensible place to consolidate such material is mistaken. When you have an extensive fictional franchise and universe like this, the lists tend to become huge and difficult to read. People use devices like phones and smart speakers now so it's best if our content is organised in small, well-named pieces rather than endless scrolls. And, here's the trap: the fiction-hating deletionists are now going after the lists too, as there are numerous D&D lists currently at AFD. Andrew D. (talk) 09:05, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a "trap" there. People need to check to make sure the list they are suggestng to merge to isn't also non-notable. Yes, there is such a thing as list notability, and the D&D lists all fail it. However, there is little chance the List of Star Wars spacecraft will be deleted because it passed an AfD before. Also, accusing people of being "fiction hating deletionists" is going into the realm of WP:NOTHERE, specifically "Treating editing as a battleground"._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:13, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The trap is obvious; that editors might be fooled into accepting merger into a list only to find that that the list is then deleted. This is happening in other cases because there are editors who do nothing to build the encyclopedia but whose only activity is to attempt to delete such content. Andrew D. (talk) 10:23, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the list, not notable enough to have it's own page. Not a very active user (talk) 07:09, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This has been listed twice today - please combine the discussions. FOARP (talk) 09:27, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't find the other listing, could you link it? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:44, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oops - some kind of page formatting error? At the very least it's showing up twice for me (at no. 18 and no. 20 in today's list of AFD's) FOARP (talk) 11:52, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Let's face it; this nomination doesn't make the slightest effort to observe our numerous policies of WP:ATD; WP:BEFORE; WP:CIVIL; WP:NOTPAPER; WP:PRESERVE; &c. Instead, it's a time-wasting rant contrary to WP:NOTFORUM. The topic has great notability, being covered in hundreds of thousands of sources and it's easy to find good ones for our purpose such as National Geographic which reports that this craft was an exhibit organised by the Boston Museum of Science. If it's good enough for a museum then it's good enough for us. Andrew D. (talk) 08:51, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- (Ignoring the unfortunate WP:NPAs, sigh) Mentions in passing do not suffice for passing WP:GNG.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:28, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - A museum exhibit is not a mention in passing; it is evidence that the subject has been noticed, studied, curated and displayed for public edification. Andrew D. (talk) 10:12, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - 99.99% of museum exhibits are not notable, and that includes film props too. Most museums have tens of thousand of exhibits, but few have .even a single one that's notable.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:59, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - There's no actual reception in the reception section. Toys and merchandise mean nothing for notability. Without additional sources, this is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 12:58, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Forbes gives significant coverage of the LEGO form of this ship. [20] I see mention of that LEGO set in news elsewhere. Small scale models(not LEGOs) of it and other Star Wars things were part of a Star Wars exhibit that went around to different museums. That's all I could find so far. Dream Focus 13:11, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Few paragraphs reviewing a toy, and Forbes Sites is effectively a blog hosted by Forbes ([21], [22], [23]). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:47, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Star Wars is a notable franchise and the spacecraft are also notable. The WP:NOTPAPER The Tantive IV is a notable craft and the article is complete with RS. Lightburst (talk) 18:36, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a valid argument. Please try to use arguments that go beyond 'I like Star Wars'. Which source in the article is reliable, independent and discusses the subject in depth? Name one, please. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:13, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons cited by Andrew D. and for reasons cited at [2nd dnomination. These serrial nominationss are a serious waste of valuable editor time. No compliance with WP:Before. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:18, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as reliable sources coverage in Forbes as detailed above, Metro, and Reuters to name three Atlantic306 (talk) 22:55, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Closing admin should carefully review the arguments, and be aware that most Star Wars nomination attract fanboys who vote keep without providing valid arguments. AfD is not a vote. When closing, I'll ask the closing admin to provide an analysis of the arguments of both sides. TIA. I will stress that not a single editor above showed that there are sources outside mentions in passing which do not satisfy GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:28, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The closer should start at the top by considering the nomination. This is based upon WP:NFICTION which is not policy; it's a failed guideline and so clearly lacks consensus. The nomination's analysis of the evidence is prejudiced and inaccurate. There are clearly substantial sources covering this topic such as those about the movie model and its auction or those about the large LEGO model. The nomination also fails to consider alternatives to deletion, which are obvious in this case. The nomination is thus triply flawed and so the nominator has no high horse. Andrew D. (talk) 10:08, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NFICTION is a perfectly valid essay companion to GNG, and if you want to ignore NFICTION, sure - please show how this fails GNG. No source has been presented here outside a link to National Geographic, which I can't access, but which is almost certainly a mention in passing (if it is not, I ask that you quote the relevant paragraphs, provide a scan or screenshot, or expand the article, showing that the ref can be used for more than a single sentence saying Museum X has a model of this ship). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:11, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thinking about this since I posted the other day. In the movie its just a toy/prop. The Forbes article gives significant coverage of the LEGO version of this toy. Various science museums thought it notable enough to have a prop/toy of it featured in them. Dream Focus 06:44, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per the fact that virtually no real-world encyclopedic content has been or apparently can be written on this topic by itself. Also, it should be noted that Andrew Davidson's sarcastic comment satirizing the nominator's wording is itself far more uncivil than anything the OP wrote, and even were this not the case the civility of the nominator's wording is entirely immaterial to whether this article should be kept or not. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:25, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It should probably also be noted that all (but one?) of the "keep" !votes are regular WP:ARS members who were canvassed on that page and showed up to block-vote. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:01, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, per this source it is considered important within Star Wars fandom for being the first ship to be seen on-screen in the original film, but not important enough to have been a readily available vehicle in toy form. It should also probably be noted that apart from the Death Star, this is the only entry in Category:Star Wars spacecraft that is about a particular vessel and not a model that appeared in several iterations across multiple films. Given that not even Starkiller Base and Luke's X-Wing get their own articles, I can't imagine any more could be said about this than about those other topics that didn't get even articles back in the bad old "wild west" days of Wikipedia. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:35, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I don't think it's Wikipedia's place to catalogue die cast accessories and appearances on trading cards merely for being in the set. Excise that and the unsourced fancruft in the infobox, and this fits in the list perfectly fine. NotPaper "is not a free pass for inclusion" so stop mindlessly citing that! Reywas92^Talk 08:02, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Star Wars spacecraft, per Reywas92. A lot of the sources are on its various inclusions in toy and card sets, rather than on the vessel itself. And a good amount of the information outside of that is either unsourced, or sourced only to the official Star Wars websites. It would make a perfect candidate to be included on the target list, however, as a ship that doesn't have extensive enough coverage to support an independent article, but is well-known enough to be a valid search term. Rorshacma (talk) 22:38, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Coverage of models/toys based on a fictional starship is also coverage of that fictional starship (just as coverage of any adaptation of a work from one form into another is also coverage of that work). As such more than sufficient evidence of notability has been cited above. FOARP (talk) 15:04, 16 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 no consensus. PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 18:41, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lighthouse project[edit]

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

No evidence that this term (as opposed to the German original) is in common English use. Has been previously prodded and deprodded. Sole ref is to an ngram for the German term. PamD 07:38, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. PamD 07:38, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in the UK it would probably be a ‘beacon project’ but then it would only be a dictionary definition anyway, so not seeing much reason to keep. Mccapra (talk) 13:20, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:13, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Easily passes WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. The term is used in hundreds of published sources, including academic research in English and other languages. My university library has 115 peer reviewed English-language journal articles using the term (several of them with the term in the article title), over 200 non-peer reviewed journal articles, 588 newspaper articles, 14 conference proceedings, four books, and four academic reviews. In other words, the term is widely used and lots of verifiable sources exist. I can copy paste a selection of sources if asked, but frankly there are so many it seems implossible that WP:BEFORE was followed.4meter4 (talk) 19:03, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Here are several peer reviewed journal articles using the term in the title (only a small handful of the 115 peer reviewed articles):

Transforming “The National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM)” Into a Lighthouse-Project of Sustainability, Seifried, Dieter ; Zayas, Luis Fernandez ; Ramirez, Alex, Energy Procedia, 2014, Vol.57, pp.3081-3090
Creating an Environmentally Sustainable Food Factory: A Case Study of the Lighthouse Project at Nestlé, Miah, J.H ; Griffiths, A ; Mcneill, R ; Poonaji, I ; Martin, R ; Morse, S ; Yang, A ; Sadhukhan, J, Procedia CIRP, 2015, Vol.26, pp.229-234
"The Lighthouse Project", Le Rose, Barbara ; King, Linda ; Greenwood, Salldy, Gifted Child Quarterly, September 1979, Vol.23(3), pp.472-486

Here is an example of a conference proceeding:

"Selected findings from a German lighthouse project on electric mobility: A summary of outcomes in the field of vehicle to grid communication, ICT- and business model solutions", Dornberg, J. H ; Lutz, T, 2011 11th International Conference on ITS Telecommunications, August 2011, pp.486-491

Here is an example of newspaper/magazine articles (there are more than 500 of these kind of articles; the term is often used in political bills):

"BB&T Lighthouse Project pitches in at Vinson-Bynum", Wilson, Drew, TCA Regional News, Apr 29, 2018
"Dept of Defence - CSI-SC BUILDING 180 secures contract for DVA Lighthouse Project services, Pivotal Sources, Jun 8, 2017
"Alternative ; Medicine.(Lighthouse Project, Alternatives, helps those with serious drug problems)", Wellard, Sarah, Community Care, May 26, 2005, p.44

These are just a tiny selection of sources.4meter4 (talk) 19:30, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:14, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's a stub with no reliable sources, so nothing really to keep. No prejudice against recreation with sources that show notability if they exist. BTW the above sources, though I don't have access to them all, don't appear to show notability. We would need evidence of some kind of in depth coverage of the concept, not just use of the term per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:03, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:07, 8 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 no consensus. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:26, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony J. Motley[edit]

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

The only reliable source supporting this is a WaPo article I can’t read. A search produced nothing else but mirrors of Wikipedia and a blog. Mccapra (talk) 04:45, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 04:45, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 04:45, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 1 source is not enough to show notability. Beyond that, it is unclear if the WaPo source covers Motley in enough detail to add towards notability. Lastly, since he is from Washington, being covered by the local paper, even if it is a major paper, is not a sign of notability, at least not when it produces just one article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:02, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - The current article is rather misleading as a biography of this man, completely omitting his political influence and corruption charges. The earlier AfD produced a number of articles from Washington City Paper not mentioned here, including [24] [25] and [26]. All of those have "blog" in the URL, so I'm inclined to believe they didn't go through full editorial review. However this WaPo article unambiguously constitutes significant coverage. Finding a second source is harder, but I think this Afro article might qualify, and my guess is that there's more out there.

I could still see an argument for deletion based on WP:BLP1E with a redirect to something like Marion_Barry#Conflict_of_interest:_personal_benefit_from_contract_to_girlfriend, but he's not mentioned there, and the whole saga gets pretty messy pretty quick. I provisionally lean towards keep (and rewrite) unless someone points out a better solution.

Also, since it seems others have hit their free article limit on WaPo, the currently cited article is not nearly enough to support inclusion itself. Here is its full and only reference to Motley: The effort also grew out of the JOBS Coalition, led by the Rev. Anthony J. Motley, which challenged industry leaders such as John McMahon, chairman of Miller & Long and president of the foundation, to hire more District graduates for local jobs. MarginalCost (talk) 11:35, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 11:37, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 11:37, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless the article sees significant improvement. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable for the purposes of guaranteeing him a Wikipedia article, but the sources proffered so far in this discussion just make him a WP:BLP1E. Sure, it's possible that there might be more meat here, but that needs to be shown and not merely speculated about before it would actually change anything. We need more than just two pieces of local coverage to deem a person as clearing WP:GNG in lieu of having to clear a subject-specific inclusion standard, because GNG is not just "count the footnotes and keep anything that reaches two" — it does also consider factors like the depth of how substantively any given source is or isn't about him, the geographic range of how widely the coverage is spreading, and the context of what he's getting covered for. As I've often pointed out, if two pieces of local coverage were all it took to deem a person "notable just because media coverage exists" and thereby exempt them from having to be notable for any specific reason, then we would have to keep an article about my mother's former neighbour who got into the local media several years ago for finding a pig in her yard. Bearcat (talk) 15:11, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your point is generally well-taken, though I think there's an obvious difference between human-interest stories of stray pigs and documented corruption scandals, which this article's inclusion would cause no danger of blurring. As I mentioned above, I'm sympathetic to arguments on BLP1E and WP:1E grounds, but that usually presumes having an article on the event in question. While I think some article like Marion Barry bribery scandal could be written, at the moment most information is contained in the article for Barry himself. I originally thought it would be an awkward fit to add Motley in to Barry's article, but I'm now coming around to thinking it wouldn't be that hard to add a single line and redirect Motley there.

You're also right that more sources need to be shown before it changes anything; my previous comment that's there's more out there was more an expression of intent to look more later than an argument itself. And as I've looked further, I've come up short, with the possible exception of The Chronicle of Philanthropy whose coverage is probably just WP:ROUTINE. I'm standing by my original weak keep though. MarginalCost (talk) 05:35, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In addition to the sources found above, I found additional sources with coverage in my university library's database. There were 61 entries, and I didn't take time to read all of them. Here are first ones given in order as they were presented in my library search. All of these articles are either about Motley or contain interviews with Motley or, in one instance, were written by Motley:

"Scheduling Conflict Causes Bruised Feelings", Salmon, Barrington, Washington Informer, Mar 19-Mar 25, 2015, Vol.50(23), p.23
"Leaders To Scrutinize Lending Practices For Blacks: Union Temple Launches Project Uhamaa", Washington Informer, Sep 22, 1993, Vol.29(47), p.22
"Mayoral Candidates to Address Workforce Development Strategies", Tesfamariam, Rahiel, Washington Informer, Nov 24-Nov 30, 2005, Vol.42(7), p.4
"Good Friday March to Stop 'Death Nails'", Afro - American Red Star, Mar 30-Apr 5, 2013, Vol.121(34), p.B.2
"Mother's Tea Unites Victims' Families, Community", Collins, Sam, Washington Informer, Oct 9-Oct 15, 2014, Vol.49(52), p.5,9
"Despite Debt-Ceiling Deal, Americans Not Out of Danger", Salmon, Barrington, Washington Informer, Aug 4-Aug 10, 2011, Vol.46(91), p.1,8
"An Open Letter to My Friend William Lockridge", Motley, Anthony, Washington Informer, Jan 27-Feb 2, 2011, Vol.46(65), p.19,30 (primary source)
"Wells' Possible Mayoral Run Has D.C. Residents Talking", Wright, James, Washington Informer, Jul 12-Jul 18, 2012, Vol.47(38), p.12
Green-Collar Jobs Give Hope to Thousands of Youth, and Ex-Offenders, Humphries, Nydria, Washington Informer, Mar 13-Mar 19, 2008, Vol.44(19), p.6
"Still Wanted -- Answers To Unsolved Murders In D.C.", Peabody, Alvin, Washington Informer, Jun 5, 1998, Vol.34(32), p.1
"Forgive Past Transgressions; Mayor Williams Pleads on Behalf of Ex-Offenders", Doku, Sam, Washington Informer, Jul 16, 2003, Vol.39(39), p.1
"Church Supports Jobs For Ex-Offenders", Wamble, Marvin, Washington Informer, Jul 10, 2002, Vol.39(40), p.14
"Forum on Creating Job and Training Opportunities for Returning Ex- Offenders to Be Hosted by JOBS Coalition", PR Newswire, Dec 10, 2003, p.14meter4 (talk) 18:44, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"STADIUM DEBATE: Will new facility benefit taxpayers? Participants hear divergent views on who will benefit most", Stafford, Leon, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution (Atlanta, GA), Nov 7, 2012, p.A19
"ANC Silver Scores Victory in Fight over Parking Lot", Wright, James, Washington Informer, Apr 15-Apr 21, 2010, Vol.46(26), p.11
"Chris Barry Set for Jail; Motley Gets Probation", Wright, James, Afro - American Red Star, Jul 4-Jul 10, 2015, Vol.123(48), p.D.1
"Should East of the River Be Called East End?", Adkins, Lenore, Afro - American Red Star, Jun 8-Jun 14, 2019, Vol.127(44), p.B2
"Peaceoholics Begin Work at Anacostia", Van Lowe, Carlton, Washington Informer, Mar 29-Apr 4, 2007, Vol.43(21), p.5
"PUBLIC SAFETY: Citizen board under scrutiny: Police resistance, internal politics put effectiveness in doubt.(Metro News)", Cook, Rhonda, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, (Atlanta, GA), May 27, 2012, p.B1
"Ground Is Broken for Senior Wellness Center in Ward 8", Barnes, D, Washington Informer, Oct 20, 1999, Vol.35(50), p.1

Passes WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 18:44, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Washington Informer and the Afro-American Red Star are both small community weeklies in Washington DC, covering him in purely local-interest contexts, so they are not sources that can tip the GNG scales all by themselves if there's no strong evidence of any substantial coverage beyond just his own local media market. Press releases are not notability-supporting sources, so the PR Newswire hit doesn't count for anything at all — and he's not the subject of the Atlanta Journal Constitution hits, but merely gets glancingly namechecked in coverage about other things or people. So no, none of these hits make the difference. GNG is not just a matter of counting up the media hits and keeping anything that surpasses an arbitrary number; it also tests for the depth of how substantively any given source is or isn't about him, the geographic range of where the coverage is coming from, and the context of what the person is getting covered for. A person can have 1,000 media hits and still fail GNG if those hits still fail one or more of those other tests; for example, a lot of local figures (city councillors, musicians who play the local pub on Friday night but have never accomplished anything that would pass NMUSIC, winners of local poetry contests, etc.) are not automatically notable just because they have some local media coverage in their own city. Bearcat (talk) 16:29, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:15, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:06, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:SIGCOV per 4meter4 rationales. Also per WP:GNG. When kept the article needs some expansion though.BabbaQ (talk) 22:20, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Kutyava (talk) 03:17, 13 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, without prejudice against refunding to draft if there are editors willing to continue working on it. bd2412 T 04:51, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DG House[edit]

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

Completely non-notable artist. Page creator's only contribution to Wikipedia was to create this page, so possible promotional effort Yuchitown (talk) 20:10, 22 September 2019 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:26, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:26, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article states she is in the NMAI collection (Smithsonian Institution) however a search of the collections turns up nothing. Netherzone (talk) 21:04, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Changed to Delete per Netherzone's research. GNG fail. Neutral There is some coverage in reliable sources, but it's borderline in terms of notability as the sources are very local. Some include: an article in WTHR Indianapolis gives a detailed profile, the Bozeman Daily chronicle, the Great Falls Tribune, the Helena Independent Record and so on. Checked the Smithsonian, and as Netherzone says, could not find her in the collection.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:52, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Any artist who has ever had an art show will have newspaper coverage of that show. WP:Artist #4 states, "The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." The exact number of major permanent collections isn't stipulated, but it's got to be more than two. Yuchitown (talk) 22:24, 22 September 2019 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

Several actually means two or more. But it's not a concern here really, because we cannot so far confirm even one.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:54, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Artists have shows, but not all shows are significant exhibitions. As to significant critical attention, the profile in the WTHR is not a review, but it does mention that she is included in a two-day art "festival", which, if modeled after the juried Santa Fe "Indian Market" consists of outdoor rented vendor booths. I would not consider that a significant exhibition like a one person show at a museum. The Bozeman Chronicle article is a profile not a review (not significant critical attention), as is the G.F. Tribune. The Helena Ind. Record article has two sentences on this artist. I don't know that this artist has met any of the criteria for notability yet. Netherzone (talk) 14:22, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Any artist who has ever had an art show will have newspaper coverage of that show. Not true. -- Hoary (talk) 21:42, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I found another profile on her by the Yellowstone Nat'l Park Lodges, however it is not a critical review but more of a promotional profile. Also continued to look for evidence of museum collections, and came up cold. I have to say delete on this one, as she does not seem to pass WP:ARTIST nor WP:GNG. Netherzone (talk) 18:25, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Here's a few more independent sources that I believe bring her up to the standards of WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. She's the main subject of two of the independent articles, and the others are reviews of her work in shows (usually alongside another artist): [27], [28], [29], [30], [31] .4meter4 (talk) 00:14, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to give more time to evaluate the sources listed by 4meter4.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ST47 (talk) 19:37, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:56, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:56, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Second relist, to allow time for more analysis of the sources presented later in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:05, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think there is a real vibe. Micro article, perhaps too soon, but I think what she has done makes her is notable. scope_creep^Talk 00:49, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Every exhibiting artist on the planet is going to have *some* newspaper coverage. How does this artist meet the qualifications for WP:Artist #4, "The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums"? Yuchitown (talk) 17:36, 11 October 2019 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

Delete Not enough for GNG. Johnbod (talk) 11:58, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 07:31, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mechanisto[edit]

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

Article on apparently non notable software. Survived AfD in 2006 but still unsourced today. Mccapra (talk) 04:32, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 04:32, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 04:32, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 04:32, 8 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 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:48, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This article survived a PROD in 2006, not an AFD. flowing dreams (talk page) 05:53, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As stated in WP:V, content without source may be challanged or deleted. There are lots of Google hits, but they are all Wikipedia derivatives. 13 years of undeserved presence on Wikipedia has done a lot of damage already, figuratively speaking. flowing dreams (talk page) 05:43, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 07:30, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Narintorn Chadapattarawalrachoat[edit]

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

Notability Evrdkmkm (talk) 02:28, 8 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 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:40, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:42, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:42, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:44, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable beauty queen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:29, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 07:32, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Monika Schultz[edit]

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

Article nominated for deletion on the very inclusive Polish Wikipedia, and I have to say I concur the subject doesn't pas WP:NBIO. Sources are all primary. Working for NASA is not sufficient (WP:NOTINHERITED), nor all aquanauts notable by definition. She participated in NASA's NEEMO training, that's not sufficient ot make her notable, and this is reinforced by the lack of outside coverage of her outside several documentation writeups in NASA documents. Bottom line, she has a "cooler" engineer career than most, but still not notable. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:08, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:44, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:44, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - In my WP:BEFORE I found two references (1 2) but neither rises to the level of significant coverage. Fails WP:BASIC. FOARP (talk) 09:23, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:28, 9 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.