Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 September 12

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 11 September	13 September >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Excellent work done by User:Michig and User:Walter Görlitz to find additional sources, established notability. Clear keep (non-admin closure) scope_creep^Talk 11:22, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Case (musician)[edit]

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

Previously deleted in 2012. No followers in Spotify, Soundcloud. No coverage. I can't see a case for historical importance. scope_creep^Talk 10:44, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:53, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:53, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Except he does have coverage - an Allmusic bio cited in the article for starters (which describes him as a "leading UK garage DJ"), and he has had a top 40 hit in the UK (edit: actually three top 50 singles in the UK - see [1]), also sourced in the article. How many Spotify or Soundcloud followers someone has has never been an accepted measure of notability. There is also more coverage around, e.g. from the BBC, NME, The Guardian, and Billboard (...Ed Case, whose remix was responsible for Gorillaz's worldwide hit "Clint Eastwood"...), so I don't see any valid arguments for deletion in the nomination. --Michig (talk) 17:58, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Michig: Well done for finding that. scope_creep^Talk 18:19, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the significant coverage in multiple reliable sources shown above which enable a pass of WP:GNG and the charting singles that pass WP:NMUSIC criteria #2 (only one criteria needed), thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 19:09, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I will add that https://www.officialcharts.com/artist/9232/ed-case/ indicates two top 40 results in the UK. Snow close? Is scope_creep interested in withdrawing? Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:53, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yip, count me in. I'll withdraw tomorrow. scope_creep^Talk 00:46, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn scope_creep^Talk 11:20, 14 September 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 07:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Charles A. Cofie[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Seems to be a business man. Non notable. scope_creep^Talk 22:20, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:54, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:54, 12 September 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 — Amakuru (talk) 12:30, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No Letting Go (Dirty Werk Song)[edit]

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

No claim of notability of the release. Clearly lacks WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 22:18, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:56, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - can't even redirect as the artists Dirty Werk don't have an article or discography - does not meet any of the criteria of WP:NSONG - Epinoia (talk) 16:26, 19 September 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. If anybody wants to add information about Mustapha to Louis Farrakhan, they're free to do so. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:49, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mustapha Farrakhan[edit]

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

Mustapha Farrakhan has a very famous father and a notable son, but apart from one story from 2013 about collecting a paycheck despite not working, there are no other reliable sources about him. If that's the only reliable source, which it is, there are BLP concerns. Even with that one source, the subject still fails the GNG due to a lack of SIGCOV in reliable sources. schetm (talk) 21:44, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. schetm (talk) 21:44, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. schetm (talk) 21:44, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Louis Farrakhan. Agree with nom that most coverage in reliable sources revolves around the police controversy with no follow-up reporting, as in WP:BLP1E. Just being the son and likely successor of Louis Farrakhan is not enough per WP:INVALIDBIO and WP:CRYSTAL, so I don't see the justification for a standalone article at this point in time. StonyBrook (talk) 03:13, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep UPI, AP, and the Chicago papers were all over this guy on corruption charges because he had a job at the police department where he did nothing except escort Daddy around town in police cruiser. The story in the Chicago Tribune was a finalist for a Pulitzer.Strandvue (talk) 12:22, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doing nothing except escort Daddy under color of an official police position and having a flash of reporting about it doesn't qualify someone to have an encyclopedia article written about them. The Pulitzer article was not about Farrakhan specifically but Harvey police corruption in general. StonyBrook (talk) 22:00, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple sources describe Mustapha as likely successor to Dad, Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, which probably explains why the police "job" was covered nationwide and revisited in the article about police corruption that was short listed for a Pulitzer. Oh, and your statement that there was "one mention" is problematic because there were multiple stories in media nationwide in addition to coverage in all of the Chicago media. Also, while the Pulitzer story was not only about Farrakhan, it certainly went after Farrakhan. Strandvue (talk) 01:07, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the corruption central to this person having a postion on the police department is worth more coverage, but lacks it. There are also connections between his Fruit of Islam organization and the Women's March and many of its leaders that are truly outrageous to many Jewish women, but he has not gotten actual coverage in that controversy, so it does not actually add to his notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:03, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article is very negative in tone WP:BLPBALANCE and based on allegations WP:SUSPECT - even if the allegations are true, there doesn't seem to be anything to establish notability per WP:ANYBIO - Epinoia (talk) 16:37, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above two comments. — Amakuru (talk) 12:36, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Louis Farrakhan. Hyperbolick (talk) 19:05, 20 September 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 — Amakuru (talk) 13:10, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pedestrian etiquette[edit]

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

This page has hardly any sources, and truly seems like original research. Topic being discussed is subjective, yet point of views abound in the article, as it reads and seems like a do's and don'ts list. SuperWikiLover223 (talk) 20:45, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew D. (talk) 10:16, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Violates WP:POV and does not belong in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a guide. AmericanAir88^(talk) 21:01, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR. Pedestrian safety currently redirects to Road traffic safety, but could be a standalone article. However, I doubt that anything useful could be salvaged from this one. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:30, 12 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Per WP:BLUE, there's nothing original here. The topic is notable – see Instructing the Masses in How to Walk, for example. The page just needs improvement per our editing policy and this is not done by deletion – see WP:ATD, WP:BEFORE; WP:NOTCLEANUP; WP:PRESERVE; &c. Andrew D. (talk) 09:05, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Compiling a semi-random collection of rules (no spitting? adults to the curb when a group of schoolchildren approacheth?) constitutes OR IMO. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:19, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

comment There is surely a pertinent redirect?. As an article , this is wp:NUKE.TheLongTone (talk) 11:35, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to violate WP:OR as has already been stated. Wikipedia is not a guide, nor should it be used as a random collection of subjectively defined common-sense courtesies which are also reported in a way that violates WP:POV. The idea that this entry may be okay because of WP:BLUE fails to recognize that something as obvious as the sky being blue is not equivalent to a random list of do's and don'ts.Grapefruit17 (talk) 14:26, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per above concerns of WP:OR, WP:POV and WP:NOTGUIDE. The title could potentially be a valid redirect, as suggested, but this article does not need to be retained in any form for that to occur. Rorshacma (talk) 16:17, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:49, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:49, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename Distracted walking. Plenty of sources exist for this topic, especially with all the people texting while walking nowadays. Agree as per the above that the article should be covering a recognized phenomenon instead of reading like a how-to guide. StonyBrook (talk) 04:08, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You are essentially arguing to create a completely different article, though. The current article is not about "Distracted Walking", and only one of the entries in it are even close to the topic. Creating an article, on that topic and with those sources, would basically require renaming the article and completely rewriting it on the new topic from the ground up. That would be no different than just creating a new article on that topic from scratch, which does not necessitate the keeping of the unsourced information from the present article. Rorshacma (talk) 05:42, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is not the place to recreate a listicle with OR descriptions. Reywas92^Talk 08:25, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the article needs a complete rewrite and probably fails several Wikipedia guidelines in its current form, but I suspect there is some notability in the topic - compare Trail ethics for example. Bookscale (talk) 10:46, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Potentially notable topic, but the article in its current state needs to be WP:NUKED. –dlthewave ☎ 02:10, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looking through the Google news search results I find a lot of coverage about this. Do different reliable sources disagree on things, or are there some things that they all agree upon that could be put and referenced in the article? Dream Focus 00:22, 20 September 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) 06:08, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Meisam Rafiei[edit]

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

Taekwondo competitor who's claim to fame is being denied entry into the U.S. because of Donald Trump's travel ban. Although he has competed at the senior world championships, his highest world ranking ever apparently was 59th, which does not show notability. He is currently ranked 73rd. Clear case of WP:BLP1E and definitely fails the notability standards for martial artists at WP:MANOTE. Sandals1 (talk) 19:23, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sandals1 (talk) 19:23, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Sandals1 (talk) 19:23, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 20:06, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's a borderline case, but after researching this he isn't notable enough yet as a martial arts practitioner and does has reliable sources but fails WP:BLP1E Mujinga (talk) 22:16, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the previous editors. I don't think he meets WP:MANOTE and I didn't see the coverage I believe is required to meet WP:GNG because I believe it's all about one event (which means WP:BLP1E applies). Papaursa (talk) 20:17, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 21:56, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Diaz[edit]

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

WP:PERP not met. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:02, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:02, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:06, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:06, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:06, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:08, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:08, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A biography of one arrest that fails WP:BLP1E. I can't find evidence of independent notability as a social media "influencer" to satisfy WP:ENT. Most important, this is a WP:BLPCRIME violation with no biographical depth. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Gene93k....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:19, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the argument of Gene93k Mujinga (talk) 22:17, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not really independently notable outside of a couple of incidents. We're not a police blotter. Bearian (talk) 18:30, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant coverage. Barca (talk) 13:24, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete there are so many violations of wikipedia policies in this Earnsthearthrob (talk) 18:25, 19 September 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 08:54, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Syemca[edit]

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

Notability concerns - finishing in 3rd place on The Voice Nigeria is not sufficient, and references are either about the show or speculate as to his lack of prominence. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:52, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:52, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:52, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete The article is not just about a contestant, and so other notability criteria must be considered. With the sources provided, one is about the subject and a second has some coverage, the others are passing mentions of the subject. I did not search further, but if more sources that detail the subject can be found, I would consider a keep. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:30, 12 September 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 — Amakuru (talk) 13:20, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jnan Pujari[edit]

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

Not notable. He was born, got a degree, won a minor award, that is all. Hyperbolick (talk) 19:27, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:37, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:37, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are multiple hits in a google book search, unfortunately only in snippet view. A general search shows national news coverage and plenty else so he’s really not just like a guy who got a degree. Mccapra (talk) 20:00, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Does "multiple hits in a google book search" make one notable? Seen exactly that view dismissed in recent AfDs. Does not by itself indicate whether those hits were from passing mentions or from more in-depth paragraphs of coverage, no? Or whether those books were perhaps self published, or not independent? Hyperbolick (talk) 20:13, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well take a look and see what you think. It’s not possible for me to say if they’re just passing mentions, but there’s quite a few of them. As the subject of the article is an Assamese writer it would be helpful to check for Assamese sources, which unfortunately I’m not able to do. Mccapra (talk) 21:14, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - If all the mentions are about/regarding/because of the award, then BLP1E (one event) applies. —usernamekiran(talk) 02:09, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Usernamekiran and why did he get the award ? It was not given cuz he won lottery or something. It was given for his notable work that made the subject notable.--DBig Xrayᗙ 07:06, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG, WP:NAUTHOR #4. Unlike what the nominator thinks, Sahitya Akademi Award is a major award for excellence in Indian language. Sahitya Akademi, India's National Academy of Letters, annually confers on writers of the most outstanding books of literary merit. In the Assamese language category, the subject won the award for his literary works.[2] It is expected that people will be looking for his article. Hence I dont agree that this be deleted. --DBig Xrayᗙ 07:04, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(Article creator !vote)Keep - Sahitya Akademi Award is the highest award in India, for literary excellence, in a particular language. ∯WBG^converse 07:23, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, most journals dealing with Assamese literature is offline, courtesy systemic bias and shall not be expected to be easily accesible.∯WBG^converse 07:27, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That most journals in the language may be off-line is not any kind of proof that any of those journals contain anything about this person. Where is the proof? Hyperbolick (talk) 13:34, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

keep passes WP:NAUTHOR as awardee of Sahitya Akademi Award; also per rationale provided by DBigXray. —usernamekiran(talk) 08:26, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:Definitely pass WP:ANYBIO (criteria 1:-The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times.), WP:NWRITER since the person achieved a Sahithya Akademy award (one of the prominent award on literature in India.)--PATH SLOPU 08:28, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rather obvious keep. The award is enough for notability; there are enough sources to cover basic biographical information. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:04, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - won one award, but no notable body of work that has made an impact per WP:POET - no reviews or writeups or profiles in major literary magazines - no significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources per WP:BASIC - the evidence of notability is just not there - Epinoia (talk) 04:27, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - winning an award does not automatically confer notability - Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Additional criteria, under which winning an award is a criterion (WP:ANYBIO), says "meeting one or more [of the criteria] does not guarantee that a subject should be included" - Epinoia (talk) 16:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 15:29, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Hawaiians (German band)[edit]

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

Their name makes searching difficult, but I can find practically nothing on this band beyond routine social media and retail/streaming entries, and nothing non-trivial that qualifies for WP:NBAND. Also note that there was at least one other band of the same name in the 1960s. One of their songs was played on television, but even that fact is only mentioned at IMDB and various pop culture listcicle sites. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:09, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:09, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:09, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet any of the 12 criteria of WP:BAND - does not meet WP:GNG, no significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources - Epinoia (talk) 04:06, 19 September 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. Fenix down (talk) 14:37, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CAF Nations League[edit]

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

Fails WP:V, no evidence to suggest this international sports tournament actually exists. According to the article, the tournament was to be announced in December 2018 but there has been no official announcement. The only information I can find online are blog posts of people speculating what a "CAF Nations League" could look like. BLAIXX 14:57, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. BLAIXX 14:57, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. BLAIXX 14:57, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is WP:TOOSOON to pass GNG Seasider91 (talk) 17:40, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete WP is not meant to spread rumors, especially from blogs. See WP:NOTRUMOR NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 22:28, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Until we get more information about this league, I would say this falls under WP:TOOSOON. HawkAussie (talk) 02:03, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON Taewangkorea (talk) 02:45, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:46, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - TOOSOON. Giant Snowman 09:51, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not that concerned this article was created since it did get picked up by a couple papers, but it was never formally announced. We can recreate it if CAF decides to go this route. SportingFlyer T·C 17:34, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 15:30, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shahram Jahansooz[edit]

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

This article was created through undisclosed paid editing and the changes since the last edit by the UPE user are minor. huji—TALK 13:18, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. huji—TALK 13:18, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:42, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, accomplishments seem not to reach notability. Hyperbolick (talk) 19:42, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, resume / business directory entry. Guy (help!) 20:23, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would tend to say delete for all of the above-mentioned reasons, but I do not read Persian so I cannot assess the sources in that language.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:48, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of notability Hispring (talk) 12:00, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm going to have to say "delete" on this. Between the fact that the creator is a paid editor, to the fact that the artist's accomplishments are puffed up and promotional, for example photo festivals are not the same as important exhibitions. The article is poorly sourced, and what is there is unclear if it is significant coverage, as quite a few of the citations lead to press releases, listings, one-day shows, or 404. The Honors-and-awards are not notable, and the artist is not represented in any permanent museum collections. The subject of the article may take nice photos, but there is something questionable about a lot of the content here, which leads me to conclude that they do not meet WP:NARTIST nor WP:GNG requirements. Netherzone (talk) 17:50, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:CREATIVE. Specifically, the subject has had no solo exhibits in art gallery capitals, except a single 8-day show in Tokyo. Bearian (talk) 18:32, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 15:28, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bahman Kazemi[edit]

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

The article was created through undisclosed paid editing and the changes since then are all minor. huji—TALK 13:14, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. huji—TALK 13:14, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:43, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:43, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: for a fuller background to Huji's nomination, see their AN post. Bishonen | talk 01:50, 13 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Comment: finding sources in Persian:

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

Farhikht (talk) 13:08, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As a composer or singer he is clearly non notable. He has published some books on Iranian ethnic music, none of them are influential on the field. Isn't member of a prestigious society. Fails WP:NACADEMIC. (Also noted that, contrary to what the article claims, those books are not published by Iran's Academy of Art Press but by a publishing house affiliated to the Academy.)Farhikht (talk) 17:53, 14 September 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. Fenix down (talk) 14:38, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tong Le[edit]

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

This player has only played seven minutes of football which despite passing WP:NFOOTY would probably fail WP:GNG.

I am also the following article for the same reason:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 13:06, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 13:06, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 13:06, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Player made one professional appearance in the top division of Portuguese football. If this appearance had been in, say, 1970 - fair enough. But he played in 2019 and will most likely play another professional game, if not move to another professional league. Passes WP:FOOTY. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 13:35, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Davidlofgren1996 and Subject has played on 5 May 2019 and passes WP:NFOOTY.Subject is 26 years.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:44, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:Definitely pass WP:NFOOTBALL. The player has played in the Primeira Liga.PATH SLOPU 08:32, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:46, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Tong Le passes WP:NFOOTBALL and has an ongoing career. If he makes no further appearances we can re-consider. Also procedural keep Tong Lei on the basis that the bundling was wholly inappropriate. As it stands he also passes WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 09:51, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Tong Le isn't currently at a team at the moment so an ongoing career might not be likely, Tong Lei yeah ok he might get some more game time in the top flight if his team make the top division in China again. HawkAussie (talk) 22:56, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Aside from the recent NFOOTY pass, Tong Lei likely satisfies GNG: [3], [4], [5]. Major language barrier, which I don't think gets treated correctly at AfDs. How can we judge something the majority of us have absolutely no clue about? Not saying it warrants a straight keep, but it's something that should always be thoroughly checked. Latter part goes for Tong Le too. I also think AfD bundles are inappropriate, AfDs are rarely the same - just my opinion though. R96Skinner (talk) 01:04, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not that this !vote will make a difference but keep Tong Lei who meets GNG with 66wz and kknews, delete Tong Le who doesn't meet GNG, the only coverage in Portuguese-language media I can find online is brief mentions in (primary source) game reports (and, of course, one NFOOTY appearance doesn't outweigh the lack of secondary sources–I wasn't going to leave that part out ). – Levivich 02:54, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 15:28, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman bin Muhammad Al Saud[edit]

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

I believe this is essentially a recreation of a previously deleted article located here. It was created only a week or two after its deletion, by the same author, and I don't think any meaningful improvements were made to the sourcing. It reads like a CV if anything. If you go to the creator's user page, it's the same as this article. So this seems to be a vanity page with no real notability. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 12:52, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, this does not appear to be the same person as Abdulaziz bin Salman Al Saud, the son of the Saudi King who was recently appointed Energy Minister. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 13:21, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:55, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:55, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable for anything other than being a member of a very important, but very extensive family. The article is also poorly written with the bit from the Hobbies section in particular almost reading like parody: "He likes different cultures and wants to bring harmony among different cultures, religions and nations. He is also fond of art. Prince also love animals and he has hundreds of camels." PraiseVivec (talk) 14:41, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - having checked, i agree with the reasoning above Mujinga (talk) 17:06, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of reliable sourcing. If he were really notable, we'd see more news coverage, at least, not just blogs. Bearian (talk) 18:34, 16 September 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. Certainly no consensus to delete. This could be closed as "no consensus" but I believe there is enough consensus to keep that I am closing it as such. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:31, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Massachusetts Area South Asian Lambda Association[edit]

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

nonnotable organization Staszek Lem (talk) 01:17, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:01, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:01, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:01, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - Gupta's book contains enough content scattered around what their members said to qualify, in my opinion. The bay windows (also shows up elsewhere, like here) also has some non-quote content. Other sources are generally only mentions. I'm actually surprised it had this much. I was considering weak delete, given it needs to meet WP:NORG, but decided to opt for neutral instead. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:36, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 01:45, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. There's relatively extensive coverage in Hawaii University Ethnic Studies and Women's Studies prof. Monisha Das Gupta's Unruly Immigrants: Rights, Activism, and Transnational South Asian Politics in the United States (Duke University Press, 2006, ISBN 978-0822338987). Beyond this, there's little more than listings in various help and orientation sites, plus this coverage in a blog. Barely touches the notability hurdle. -The Gnome (talk) 10:48, 12 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) 🐱 12:22, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per WP:NORG, we need "significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable secondary sources" for this to be notable and while it has many trivial mentions, (including one naming it among the three most important Asian-American LGBT organizations^[1]), it seems difficult to find any significant coverage in another source other than Unruly Immigrants. This article from Boston Spirit make several mentions of it and briefly discusses the organization's relation to Islam, but I'm not sure it can be considered "significant".^[2]. However, the WP:NORG also mentions that "The word "multiple" is not a set number and depends on the type of organization or product. Editors should recognize certain biases" and that depending on their profile, some organizations "might establish notability with just one or two quality sources". Given the very specific area of interest of this organization (LGBT Asian immigrants in New England), I'm going to argue that this is one of those cases where Unruly Immigrants is enough to prove MASALA's notability. PraiseVivec (talk) 15:23, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Alam, Mohammed Badrul (2015). "Chapter Eight. Back to the Roots: Engagement of the Indian Diaspora in the United States and India". In Rahman, Md Mizanur; Hussain, Zaara Zain (eds.). South Asian Migration: Remittances and Beyond. Newcastle upon Tyne, England. p. 174. Retrieved 12 September 2019.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
^ Lopata, James (10 September 2008). "Gay Muslims Find Hope in New England". Boston Spirit Magazine. Retrieved 12 September 2019.

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 Marvel Comics characters: G. Tone 15:27, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Galaxy Master[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional character TTN (talk) 12:10, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:10, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:10, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As written, fails Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:18, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: G. BOZ (talk) 13:57, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no information from reliable secondary sources, nothing to preserve. --Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 14:08, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Marvel Comics characters: G for the reasons listed at WP:ATD-R.—S Marshall T/C 15:12, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Non-notable fictional character. Agree with user above. Redirect to List of Marvel Comics characters: G. LefcentrerightTalk 20:02, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with merge. Merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: G as per the context i n WP:MERGEREASON.--PATH SLOPU 08:40, 13 September 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:50, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Poletto[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. No real coverage. scope_creep^Talk 11:18, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk)( 11:20, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:20, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NBIO. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:18, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi scope_creep^Talk so nice of you to reach out and open a discussion on the Joe Poletto editing I did. I have some doubts as to why my sources/references are not good enough to validate the text and provide notability. (They are: People magazine, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, Adweek, Sactown Magazine. New source to add to improve notability, readability from the LA Times - '97 - https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1997-nov-17-fi-54712-story.html) I reviewed the requirements for notability again, and also have seen many CEO pages, which are the outlines for what I have done. Would it help if I changed the page to a Stub?EllenZoe (talk) 18:39, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @EllenZoe: I would leave the sarcasm at the door. Its seen as a form of personal attack and some admins don't take kindly to it. I don't mind it. I reviewed the article and didn't think he was notable. The ref article mentioned is a name drop. I really don't see it here, and honestly want the article deleted. scope_creep^Talk 13:12, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

scope_creep^Talk I apologize if the tone of the writing implied any sarcasm. I was truly sincere in my wanting to learn what I did wrong with the Joe Poletto page. I didn't know, but now do, that using an article with just a name mention is not substantial enough of a source. I still would be interested in changing the page to a Stub if that would keep it from being deleted. EllenZoe (talk) 13:40, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't know. scope_creep^Talk 13:44, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @EllenZoe: I was thinking when something is at Afc and it gets to this stage, the reviewing editor usually ask for WP:THREE. If you can find three references that will prove notability and put them close to the top and get rid of everything that can't be proved, it shows the editors here that the article is undergoing some improvement to make it notable. Hope that helpsscope_creep^Talk 13:56, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep:Good morning Reworked and rewrote the entire Joe Poletto article, putting best sources up top, taking out the more adverorial text, I hope, and eliminated all the business mentions. I hope that helps keep the page now. If there is anything further you think I can do please let me know. EllenZoe (talk) 14:30, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The 1st and 2nd ref's are name drops. 3rd is a name drop. 4th is a name drop. 5th is a name drop. It still doesn't satisfy WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. There is no independent references that cover him in depth and are WP:SECONDARY refs. It is just no there. scope_creep^Talk 14:36, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft. Hyperbolick (talk) 19:07, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OUTCOMES. Absent clear notability from significant coverage, we tend to delete producers. This guy looks run of the mill. Producers will get "name drops" in reviews, but that is merely basking on the musical artists' glows. Bearian (talk) 19:23, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 15:27, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jo M. Sekimonyo[edit]

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

A guy who has written a few books. No real evidence of notability for him or his books. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:02, 12 September 2019 (UTC) — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:02, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Might not pass as notability. There are just few referenced pages Mustapha dare (talk) 09:49, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:38, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability standards, article is also likely written by Sekimonyo himself. Best, GPL93 (talk) 11:59, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 15:25, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Premier Private Jets[edit]

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

Not notable. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP, especially with respect to WP:CORPDEPTH. — Newslinger talk 08:58, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis of sources:
1. Manta.com: Insignificant and indiscriminate directory listing.
2. Stuart Magazine: Sponsored content, not reliable or independent.
3. Premier Private Jets: The company's website. Not independent.
4. CHEQ Operator Registry: Insignificant directory listing.
5. Aviation Pros: Press release. Not independent.
6. Inc.: Insignificant listing with #2,262 ranking.

I found no sources outside of the ones cited in the article that would support Premier Private Jets's notability. — Newslinger talk 08:58, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 09:00, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 09:00, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 09:00, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 09:00, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominiation. In its original state, the article could have been speedied G11. With all of the spam cleared out, there's little left. I can find passing mentions of the company in their local press and a few aviation mags, but no substantial coverage per WP:CORPDEPTH. Tracy Von Doom (talk) 09:50, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notability not established Mujinga (talk) 22:22, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no significant independent news coverage. I also searched on newspapers.com for any articles that may have been written about the company in newspapers that aren't necessarily online and came up empty, although the name is comprised of very common words that generate tons of false matches. I also searched by the name of the company owner and also came up empty. RecycledPixels (talk) 15:48, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages or a platform for promotion. I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:46, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 15:25, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hassan Siddiqui[edit]

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

Almost the definition of a one event. Not significantly notable and unlikely to have any enduring notability. QuiteUnusual (talk) 08:27, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:37, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:37, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with the nom that this fails WP:BLP1E. Whatever coverage exists is only covering the event and not the subject in detail. --DBig Xrayᗙ 08:02, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MIL and WP:MILL. He shot down one plane. So what? Bearian (talk) 18:35, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:BLP1E, known for only one event - no significant coverage in multiple reliable sources as required by WP:BASIC - Epinoia (talk) 03:56, 19 September 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 08:24, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Entropia Global[edit]

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

Per WP:NCORP. A clear case of WP:PROMO. No independent citations and most of the rewards are non-notable. (Also possible COI per discussion here:[1]. The author was suggested to wait until someone without CoI comes to create the article, but she did anyway.) Bishal Shrestha (talk) 07:59, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:14, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:14, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Probably promotional article. Should be deleted. Mustapha dare (talk) 09:52, 12 September 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 08:24, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Financial Centre of the Americas[edit]

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

No working references. May not exist. Largely futurology from 2006. Rathfelder (talk) 07:19, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 07:19, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Few references I see are about this being 'a planned project'. Likely failed, and likely never achieved notability. Fails WP:NORG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:53, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:22, 14 September 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 08:23, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

George W. Washington[edit]

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

Totally unsourced, but non-notable even if true. Being a delegate to a party national convention is not sufficient to pass WP:NPOL. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:24, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:51, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:51, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Shouldn't really be on Wikipedia Mustapha dare (talk) 09:54, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural note. This article started as a redirect in 2005; I think I was probably cleaning up page-move vandalism. It was converted into an article (not by me) in 2013. Later that year it was proposed for deletion; which was summarily rejected by the author. The article had been misidentified as that of a living person and thus subject to BLPPROD. Probably shouldn't be considered a valid PROD under the circumstances. Mackensen (talk) 11:24, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can find no documentation of this person other than a name on a list of conventional delegates. This person seems not to be a docummented historical figure. Clearly, this is not an alternative name for George Washington, and that almost certainly was page move vandalism. Equally clearly, though, we don't need the administrator deletion tool in order to redirect to Washington Bottom Farm#George W. Washington, who came up several times when I looked for anything about the convention delegate. Uncle G (talk) 13:04, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Given that, I am in favor of redirecting per Uncle G. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:38, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Mackensen for notifying me of this discussion. I think this guy is pretty non-notable. I thought I'd be able to find more on him when I created the stub, but I didn't. Deleting it makes sense to me. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:11, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced. This George W. Washington is associated with Alabama, the Washington Bottom Farm is associated with Virginia/West Virginia. Better to delete the underlying material and if there is a desire, create a new redirect to Washington Bottom Farm. --Enos733 (talk) 16:49, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Buut by redirecting, there would no longer be a reference to the Alabama person, typing in "George W .Washington" would simply take you to the VA/WVA person. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:39, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - My understanding is that a straight redirect retains the history of the underlying page. --Enos733 (talk) 18:14, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sure, but that's the ''history, not the article that the public sees. Who cares if they look under the carpet? What's there isn't unfit for public viewing, it's simply not notable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:36, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no reason here to delete the edit history before enacting a redirect. Uncle G (talk) 07:26, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This person is pretty non-notable. - MA Javadi (talk) 17:06, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Washington Bottom Farm#George W. Washington. The two topics are not related so deleting before making the redirect sounds more reasonable. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 01:53, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- But isn't more reasonable, redirects being enacted this way every day without the involvement of deletion at all, and is not supported by Project:deletion policy. There has to be some reason for removing the edit history. Uncle G (talk) 10:31, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - If the edit history pertains to a completely different person than the redirect is being repurposed to represent, then that's a solid and airtight reason for deleting the edit history first. But at any rate, it is not actually true that the onus is always on the "delete and then recreate a redirect" arguers to demonstrate a reason for removing the edit history; Wikipedia does not have an invariable rule that redirect-without-deletion is necessarily preferred over delete-and-then-recreate-a-redirect, but rather it's completely contextual to the situation at hand. In a case like this, where the edit history and the redirect target represent two completely different people who merely happened to have the same name, the onus is on the "redirect without deletion" arguers to demonstrate a reason why there would be any value in retaining the edit history. Bearcat (talk) 21:14, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Simply having been a delegate to a political party convention is not in and of itself a notability criterion, and this article cites exactly no reliable sources. Bearcat (talk) 16:33, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete delegates to political conventions are not default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:31, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delegates to conventions are not inherently notable per WP:NPOL. Bkissin (talk) 17:49, 17 September 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:23, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yung Miraboi Mark[edit]

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

Still not entirely convinced that this is notable based on the previous discussion. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:43, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:43, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:43, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Almost all subject reference are from reliable source such as Vanguard (Nigeria), The Punch, The Sun (Nigeria), Daily Times (Nigeria), The Daily Independent (Lagos newspaper) many but few to mention from my point of view independent of the subject but not mere mentions which passes WP:GNG also considered in WP:ENT much but might not know in other hands from my point stated article has to be keep thanks --Hyttgf975 (talk) 00:01, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hyttgf975 is the creator of the article. Hyttgf975's contributions to Wikipedia have been confined to this article. -The Gnome (talk) 21:03, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's a lot of cleanup work to do here, but of course that's not a reason to delete. The sources indicated seem sufficient to support passage of WP:GNG. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:10, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete per nomination.~~The sources cited are typical cruft and advertorials in local media. The reasoning given for the recent deletion of the text's previous incarnation stands. It all has the acidic aroma of promotion. -The Gnome (talk) 21:03, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My commentary above stands in full but, for better or probably worse, and on account of additional sources busying themselves with the article's subject, assessed cumulatively, said subject does pass the notability hurdle. Therefore, my suggestion cannot but change to Keep. The text remains in dire need of a serious clean up. -The Gnome (talk) 08:32, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:13, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No need to delete the article's page. Thou, cleanup is really required, but the person passes notability. Mustapha dare (talk) 09:10, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mustapha dare has made few contributions to Wikipedia, all after this AfD was initiated. -The Gnome (talk) 10:25, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Mustapha dare. You claim that the subject "passes notability" without offering any sources beyond the current, discredited ones. Yours is a simple assertion of notability; but see WP:ITSNOTABLE. Also, look up the arguments in the previous AfD. -The Gnome (talk) 10:25, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Those source are not discredited because their from reliable source, also SEE WP:SOURCESEXIST--Hyttgf975 (talk) 10:35, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure you understand what WP:SOURCESEXIST says, Hyttgf975.

-The Gnome (talk) 19:51, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep subject has enjoyed significant coverage since last AfD. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 05:09, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. The song has now charted. There is no point in continuing discussion. (non-admin closure) Jalen D. Folf (talk) 23:54, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Saint-Tropez (song)[edit]

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

Never released as a single; never charted. Only notable contribution from this song is a single music video. A majority of the sources on the article refer to Hollywood's Bleeding and either mentions the song in passing or doesn't mention it at all. Fails WP:NSONG and WP:GNG. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 05:05, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 05:05, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:13, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Saw the video and it has up to 1.2M views on YouTube in just 12 hours. The song is by a notable musician Post Malone and shouldn't be deleted. With the views alone and the notability of the artist, it sure passes WP:NSONG. Mustapha dare (talk) 09:29, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although I do believe that article was created a little early. At this point the song is set to chart within the top 25 of the Billboard Hot 100 on Tuesday and is guaranteed to make the top 20 on the Australian charts tomorrow. Meeting the requirements for notability if it does. There are also various articles discussing the release of the song's music video as well. With a majority of the sources on the article being about the video and only talking about the specific song as well. DovahDuck (talk) 11:31, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As noted above, the song will almost certainly chart. That said, is it really worth having it’s own article at this time? There’s very little content, and none that’s noteworthy. It was ranked #16 best song on this album. That’s not noteworthy in the least. There’s a sentence that basically boils down to “The song is about feeling unfulfilled”. And some basic observations on the music video’s existence. I’m leaning towards redirecting unless there’s anything of substance to add here. The current info easily fits on the album article. Sergecross73 msg me 13:36, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The song will chart soon making it notable and the music video. Billiekhalidfan (talk) 21:17, 12 September 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:23, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seyhan Soylu[edit]

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

The subject doesn't seem to be notable and the article has been unsourced for a long time. Keivan.f^Talk 23:49, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:22, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:22, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The one source in the article is significant coverage. Beyond that, sources are in Turkish. A simple google news search returns a lot of hits for her name. It's tough using machine translation but there is this CNN Turkey item and this item abouther running for some sort of political office. Somebody proficient in the Turkish language would likely be able to better sort through search results for better sources. -- Whpq (talk) 01:06, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We could use the Turkish Wikipedia article for that but no such article exists. -The Gnome (talk) 20:51, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete since subject fails WP:NACTOR and WP:CREATIVE. The single available source is a Spiegel article about a show and not the subject. -The Gnome (talk) 20:51, 11 September 2019 (UTC)~~[reply]

Following the significant improvement of the article's citations undertaken by Mccapra, I'm compelled to change my suggestion to Keep. -The Gnome (talk) 19:48, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Whpq raises good points that argue for inclusion. I'd add that for someone who identifies as non-binary on the gender spectrum in some way (cross-dressing openly counts in my book) in a country like Turkey to achieve a professional status that allows for journalistic coverage and political candidacy implies its own notoriety. The lack of an article at Turkish Wikipedia is a non-factor precisely because of the aforementioned cultural considerations, IMO. — ⚞ 🐈ℛogueScholar ₨Talk🗩 ⚟ ^My recent
_mischief 03:58, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, RogueScholar. Essentially you're arguing that there must be sources and that the article's subject is notable by default. But this line of argument cannot be used in AfD discussions. -The Gnome (talk) 10:33, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:48, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can see plentiful sources in Turkish. Mccapra (talk) 06:23, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Mccapra. Care to present here and or add to the article these "plentiful sources", please? It'd help the AfD a lot. So far, we have a single, non-source cited.-The Gnome (talk) 10:33, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK I'll compile a list. Mccapra (talk) 10:57, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go:

National Daily Hurriyet has 180 news items including Seyhan Soylu, including this and this

National daily Cumhuriyet has this

National daily Milliyet has archive articles on her going back 32 years here

Other news items about her include this and this

There are numerous book references as well, many of which seem to be about her political activities, but as they are in snippet view it is hard to evaluate them. Mccapra (talk) 11:47, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank for the effort, Mccapra. Seeing as you obviously are conversant in Turkish could you now incorporate these sources into the article? -The Gnome (talk) 14:18, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm, maybe. That's quite a lot of work I hadn't counted on doing, so yes probably, but not any time soon. Mccapra (talk) 16:34, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I’ve put in the main ones. Mccapra (talk) 19:26, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) SD0001 (talk) 17:18, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agnes Taubert[edit]

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

~~This may be enough in deWP, but I don't think it is here. DGG ( talk ) 04:32, 12 September 2019 (UTC)~~ my error. Withdrawn. DGG ( talk ) 17:16, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:48, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:49, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:49, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No valid rationale provided for deletion. Mccapra (talk) 03:16, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Frederick C. Beiser discusses her works in three of xyr books, including a few facts here and there not in this article (including that Taubert's critics mistakenly used "er" for her, since her byline used the initial "A."). ‎Manuel Pérez Cornejo mentions Taubert (on pages 8 and 15) in xyr introduction to the translation of Julius Bahnsen's Der Widerspruch im Wissen und Wesen der Welt. This is certainly not an unknown historical person, and she is known for her work, which is cited quite a lot. The thing about the name was still going strong a century later. Wolfgang Schömel's Apokalyptische Reiter sind in der Luft confidently declares her to be a pseudonym on page 196 in 1985, one sentence after calling her "Ehefrau". Uncle G (talk) 08:58, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are other sources as well as the three Beiser books, which do have quite a lot about her - Weltschmerz in particular discusses her on 5 pages, and he describes her as having "a fearsome intellect and will / fearsome polemical talent all her own", and talks about her views: "she admitted that disappointment among the masses was indeed one reason for pessimism. She disagreed with Volkert, however, that one should try to encourage optimism, to give the masses hope to change their situation ...".

I find snippet views on Google Books of publications including:

Die Gesellschaft, Volume 3, a reprint (from when?) appears to have a piece by Hartmann, as the visible text says "Im Jahre 1871 verheiratete ich mich mit Agnes Taubert, der Tochter eines alten Freundes von meinem Vater, des pensionierten Artillerie-Oberst Taubert. Unter der Chiffre A. T. oder unter dem Namen A. Taubert hat dieselbe sowohl vor wie ..." which suggests that she was writing before her marriage, as well as afterwards;
1912, Foundations of the History of Psychology: Founders of modern psychology [6], which on p 184 starts "Agnes Taubert, the daughter of an artillery colonel", and has more on p 207;
1918, this Dutch book, De Vrouw, de vrouwenbeweging en het vrouwenvraagstuk, Volume 2, has at least a paragraph about her (no more is visible in snippet view) [7], which says something like (per Google Translate, I don't know any Dutch): "Agnes Taubert, his first wife, after many internal struggles, had freed herself from her strict religious beliefs to become a fervent supporter of his philosophical beliefs. In those early years of fierce struggle, she supported her husband awake: she repeatedly repelled the attacks on von Hartmann".
1926-1950, at least, her work Der Pessimismus und seine Gegner is included in the Encyclopædia Britannica: A New Survey of Universal Knowledge entry on Pessimism [8], [9];
1930, Contemporary Thought of Germany, Volume 1, "Agnes Taubert has attempted to show how Hartmann's teaching can be turned into a powerful lever for the regeneration of the world" [10];
1948, A Critical Evaluation of Pessimism, which on p 27 says "He married the famous Agnes Taubert, herself an ardent pessimist and ...", but nothing is visible in the snippet view [11];
2002 Melancholiana: Verzeichnis einer Bibliothek has a very short entry on her [12];
2008 A Swedish source [13] mentions a book by Dahlkvist which has a chapter on Agnes Taubert (this may be Nietzsche and the philosophy of pessimism : a study of Nietzsche's relation to the pessimistic tradition : Schopenhauer, Hartmann, Leopardi, 2007?)

I have not yet included anything in the article except a quote from a review of one of Beiser's books, which describes Taubert as "one of the first women to have a prominent role in a public intellectual debate in Germany." I do think that, with access to a good library of philosophy and the history of philosophy, it would be possible to add quite a bit more - the chapter in the Dahlkvist book would probably be a good place to start. And I think even these snippets show that there is sustained coverage, more than trivial, and not just saying that she was someone's wife, but describing/explaining/discussing her views and works - enough to meet WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. RebeccaGreen (talk) 22:45, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. RebeccaGreen (talk) 22:56, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I tend to be a bit on the deletionist side, but this AfD is ridiculous. I never heard of her before, but then I haven't heard of her husband either, because I am not interested in philosophy. In any case, anyone who wrote 2 books that are still available 150 years later in three academic libraries in a single city alone (Berlin) is very likely to be notable. (Between Berlin State Library and the various central and decentralised libraries of Humboldt University and of Free University of Berlin there are 4 copies of her 1872 book and 5 copies of her 1873 book. The 1872 book has also been digitized in Berlin. And it's not just Berlin. Munich (at the other cultural end of Germany) also has 2 copies of her second book. She also made it into a printed collection of historical short biographies from her state. (Wer war wer in Mecklenburg und Vorpommern - Who was who in Mecklenburg and Vorpommern; Mecklenburg and Vorpommern are two historical regions that now make up the north-eastern most state of Germany.) It also stands to reason that a woman writing two philosophical books in 1872/73 would automatically have been a celebrity at the time. Some people overdo it with the feminist rewriting of history, but this AfD looks like the opposite problem. – And just in case it still needs saying: Notability is not language or culture dependent. If someone is notable in the Basque country and all sources are in Basque, it's difficult to write a proper English article, but the person is still notable for the English Wikipedia. Hans Adler 18:44, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the comments above. Notability is established by the well-sourced "was a major influence on the pessimism controversy". That controversy is largely forgotten today but being notable at a particular time establishes notability. Johnuniq (talk) 01:18, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. My error. AfD request withdrawn. DGG ( talk ) 08:20, 15 September 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 to recreation in the future if more sources arise or she is elected to higher office.. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:19, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maebe A. Girl[edit]

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

Semi-advertorial WP:BLP of a person notable only for serving on a neighborhood council and being an as yet non-winning candidate in a future political party primary. Neither of these are notability claims that pass WP:NPOL, but the sourcing is not making a strong case that she's much more special than everybody else who's done the same things without getting into Wikipedia for it. The seemingly strongest source here, The New York Times, doesn't even mention the subject at all, but is here merely to tangentially verify a stray fact about the incumbent congressman she's primarying; four of the other eight are primary sources which are not support for notability at all (YouTube videos, the subject's own bylined writing, the subject's own campaign website, etc.), and the stuff that is media coverage about Maebe A. Girl is just routine campaign coverage in LA. And no, "first drag queen elected to public office in her state" is not a notable historic first in a state that's already had enough LGBTQ officeholders to fill a Pride parade: "first member of an underrepresented occupation to do a not otherwise notable thing" is not an "inherent" notability freebie that entitles a person to a Wikipedia article in the absence of much more substance and sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 04:00, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pass The name and the consequent Wikipedian name format in the article make for hilarious reading. One of the most humorous articles we have. Other than that, I'll leave the serious matter of deletion up to people with more political (s)expertise than I enjoy myself. Best wishes to one and all, --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:15, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 04:00, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 04:00, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 04:00, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lean Keep Advocate and Out sources nudges her over GNG. Rab V (talk) 09:42, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, they really don't. Those are sources that routinely cover almost any queer person in the United States who accomplishes anything at all — so while they would be perfectly fine for use if Maebe A. Girl had a much stronger notability claim than she does, they aren't enough coverage all by themselves to magically make a neighborhood councillor so much more nationally notable than most other neighborhood councillors — at best they just make her a WP:BLP1E, as there's no evidence of ongoing nationalized coverage being shown at all besides the 1E novelty factor of a drag queen winning an election to a non-notable office. GNG does take into account the context of what a person is getting coverage for, and serving on a neighborhood council is not an "inherently" noteworthy context for which just two sources would be enough. Bearcat (talk) 18:15, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have found a few other sources, though they are mainly local. "Would you like a side of camp with that? Echo Park restaurant now serving dinner and a drag show", The Eastsider, Feb 9, 2017 [14], has her birth name, that she was on the regular staff of The Park Restaurant, and did a monthly dinnertime drag show there called Dress Hall, with another drag queen. They had been performing together in drag for a bit over 2 years, and Girl also performed at Exposure Drag, a weekly show at the Offbeat Bar in Highland Park. "The First Drag Queen Elected to Local Office Is Making a Run for Congress" on Route Fifty, August 21, 2019 [15], says she started performing in drag five years ago, and her work became more political after the 2016 election; she describes herself as transgender and genderfluid, is trying to establish a drag queen story hour and LGBTQ lecture series at the local library and sits on the council homelessness committee. "Pride in Our People: Profiles in Local LGBTQ Activism" in LA Weekly, May 30, 2019 [16], also gives her birth name, and says she is forming a council committee focused on LGBTQ-related issues. "The most amazing brunches in LA hotels, from Bloody Mary menus to pool parties" in the UK Telegraph, 28 June 2019 [17] says she hosts a Wigs & Waffles Drag Brunch on Saturdays at The Standard, Downtown. The Los Angeles Magazine source which is already in the article has more info too: she volunteered in Chicago as an overnight supervisor at the Lincoln Park community shelter. Searching on the birth name and Chicago also finds some passing, promotional or local Chicago coverage, of tours they ran (of pizza [18] and of architecture [19]), work as a hotel concierge [20], and running for mayor there in 2010 [21].

I don't think that any of the sources are enough to meet WP:GNG yet, though. The Advocate article says "In a statement sent to The Advocate, she highlighted the ....", so that's pretty well based on a press release. The Out article says "Los Angeles-based drag performer Maebe A. Girl ... has been elected to the Silver Lake Neighborhood Council, The Advocate reports." So it's based on The Advocate, which is based on a press release. The Los Angeles Magazine article is better, The Eastsider is good, and the Q Voice News looks OK - but all are local. Route Fifty is national, "a digital news publication from Atlantic Media’s Government Executive Media Group" which "covers a variety of topics under the larger state, county and municipal government umbrella", and it was written by the assistant editor. But that's the only national coverage I'm aware of, and it's not a type of media I'm used to, so I'm not sure how to assess it. I think this may be WP:TOOSOON, but will consider it more before I !vote. RebeccaGreen (talk) 21:00, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being a member of a neighborhood council is a default show of non-notability, and they are not notable as a performer either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:51, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat. No significant coverage. Way WP:TOOSOON. -Crossroads- (talk) 22:14, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP This drag queen is notable for getting elected to city council. There is potential for this person to move up the ranks of importance. She is definitely someone to keep an eye on...has a long career ahead of her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RachelWex (talk • contribs)

For one thing, she was not elected to a city council; she was elected to a neighborhood council, which is a level of office below the city council and not a level of office that passes WP:NPOL. For another, we don't keep articles about people based on assumptions about their potential to move up the ranks of importance in the future; we keep or delete articles based on what's already true today. If she does move up the ranks to hold a notable NPOL-passing office in the future, then that will be the appropriate time to start an article about her — but we don't keep articles about neighborhood councillors just because there's a possibility that they might win election to a more notable office in the future, because they also might not. If they do win election to a more notable office in the future, then great, once that's happened they get to have an article — but notability is based on what's already true today, not predictions about what might become true a year or five years or ten years from now. Bearcat (talk) 15:29, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bearcat. WP:TOOSOON. The Advocate and LA Magazine articles serve as a good base to meet WP:GNG, but are not enough to show notability for a neighborhood council member. --Enos733 (talk) 04:12, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2020 United States House of Representatives elections in California#District 28. If you want to talk about their possible primary challenge to Schiff, it can be done there. If they end up winning the primary, we can re-assess, but we are not giving WP:UNDUE weight to unelected political candidates. Bkissin (talk) 17:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rab V. Saying that national publications don't confer notability is silly. Would you also disqualify Sports Illustrated because they "routinely cover almost any sports person in the United States who accomplishes anything at all"? Gamaliel (talk) 00:45, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If Sports Illustrated were covering somebody in the context of winning the U.S. Open or being on a Stanley Cup championship team, then of course that coverage would speak to notability. But if it were covering somebody in the context of being on a little league team in Peoria IL, it would not. It's a question of the context of what the person is being covered for, and being elected to a neighborhood council is not a notable context. Bearcat (talk) 18:57, 18 September 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 08:13, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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. Fenix down (talk) 07:12, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tobias Bech[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY as he has never played in a fully professional league per Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues. Not thrilled about nominating this but bringing to AfD in order to determine whether he passes WP:GNG with his youth debut record. SportingFlyer T·C 03:23, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 03:23, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 03:23, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep From what I see, he took the pitch just yesterday for Viborg, so in my book that makes him a pro. Disclaimer: My Danish is non-existent and compounding the issue is the fact that I take personal exception to any sport calling itself football that doesn't use a prolate spheroid to determine possession. That said, I concur that this is a wobbler, but the tie goes to inclusions for me. Unrelated: Being ignorant about Danish names, I can only observe that some sources refer to him by the article name, and still others as Tobias Bech Kristensen, so a review by someone with a depth of familiarity with Danes/Danish football as to whether the article merits a move to the longer name would be wise, IMO. — ⚞ 🐈ℛogueScholar ₨Talk🗩 ⚟ ^My recent
_mischief 03:44, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RogueScholar: Viborg do not play in a fully professional league, which is our requirement for inclusion at WP:NFOOTY for soccer - naturally any AFL player should automatically be notable :) SportingFlyer T·C 03:47, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer: You're right, of course, but looking at the spirit of the policy I don't think it's out of line to note that's only the case after relegation a couple years ago, and that they're currently within three points of a promotion slot back to one of those fully-professional leagues. The squad has played two of the last five seasons in the Superliga and with a better than even proposition of it being three of six in ~8 months, this could be deleting a page with no serious content issues save size, only for it to be recreated and pass another AfD in under a year's time. I apologize if my willingness to look beyond the stated policy is inappropriate in a colloquy of this nature or if my attitude betrays a lack of respect for the consensus that underpins the policy; I'm trying to expand my participation beyond article improvement and get some bona fides in the "WikiNuts'n'Bolts" competencies like AfD, but can't betray my inner nature as a genuine inclusionist. — ⚞ 🐈ℛogueScholar ₨Talk🗩 ⚟ ^My recent
_mischief 04:36, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:14, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RogueScholar: No worries. Just want to point out soccer has a large number of biographies (second most per capita behind gridiron) and it's very difficult to be kept if you don't technically pass the guideline, and we're also now going through and scrubbing articles which do pass the guideline, but where sources aren't immediately obviously found. Bach is very young and could pass the guideline relatively quickly, especially if he stays on the team if it were to be promoted again, but for now this is WP:TOOSOON, and the article is easily recreated if he does pass the guideline in the future. My only hesitation is that this is a better written stub than several recent articles I've accepted at AfC recently which are definitively notable. SportingFlyer T·C 05:29, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer: My reaction to hearing that soccer has so many biographies is genuinely "Awesome! I hope they have twice as many next year, provided they're factual!," though I have come to realize that mine is apparently a minority opinion here.
(I'll try to behave here and keep it topical, not political.)
I fully concur with you that what exists currently is a "notably" high-quality article when viewed among the cohort of Stub/Start-Class sports biographical articles. The information appears to be unflinchingly factual, and shows a commitment to quality on the part of the editors that I personally respect. And while I also greatly respect the time and energy it has undoubtedly taken you to have the level of experience to understand/reference all of the relevant content policies you've been kind enough to direct me to thus far, consensus does nothing to obviate their arbitrary nature, and in my heart it would be critically bad karma borne by all Wikipedians if the article were ultimately deleted. Considering it costs essentially nothing to let it remain (provided it's as factual as it appears after brief investigation) and the alternative is to lay waste to the incalculably valuable time (even if it's just measured in minutes) that others donated to breathe life into it, how can any of these policies ever accomplish anything good without some beneficent subjectivity on the part of those who apply them? I know that shouldn't technically come to bear on this discussion and so this will be my final comment regarding the matter, except to thank you for being so pleasant, informative and candid with me in this discourse. I honestly don't think I've ever had a WikiInteraction that involved three WP:YADAYADAALLCAPS links being included where I still hoped to have cause to interact with the other person(s) again someday, as I hope we do. You're a good egg in my book, no matter the outcome here. Best, — ⚞ 🐈ℛogueScholar ₨Talk🗩 ⚟ ^My recent
_mischief 06:23, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Fair nomination, but I believe there is enough out there for GNG: [22], [23], [24], [25], [26] R96Skinner (talk) 16:34, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:46, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - likely passes GNG based on sources found by R96Skinner. Giant Snowman 09:49, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG as per sources by R96Skinner.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:39, 18 September 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 08:12, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leonard Jones (American politician)[edit]

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

Minimally sourced biography of an eccentric political fringe candidate, not demonstrating that he has enough reliable source coverage to get over WP:GNG for it. This is referenced entirely to a single news article in a single organizational newsletter, which is not enough coverage to make a person notable all by itself if it's the only source you can show. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have a lot more coverage than this. Bearcat (talk) 03:15, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:15, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:15, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as article creator. I totally can't recall how I ended up at the original source (a blog website), but I was apparently editing the "List of people claimed to be immortal" article at the time, so it must have come up as part of that? Eh, 2008 was a different era on Wikipedia. Anyway, that source lists the book "Offbeat Kentuckians" as the source ([27]), but that doesn't appear to be a particularly high-quality source. The primary source articles seem to be legit enough to indicate that this article is not a hoax or a non-existent person, but I'll certainly grant that they are an exceedingly minor character, the equivalent of the TimeCube guy. I will say that "politician" is probably misleading disambiguation; while they apparently were a perennial candidate, their notability is specifically in being an eccentric / quack peddling biological immortality. I can't claim there's any huge gain to keeping this, but I also think it's pretty harmless as is. SnowFire (talk) 03:43, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:31, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not anywhere near enough sourcing to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:49, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a single source from an unreliable source. If he'd really been notable, he'd appear in political histories or folklore tales. Compare Emperor Norton. Bearian (talk) 18:39, 16 September 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 08:10, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Huey[edit]

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

Advertorialized WP:BLP of a businessman and politician, not properly sourced as clearing our notability criteria for businesspeople or politicians. His notability claim as a politician is that he was an unsuccessful candidate in a congressional election, which is not a claim that passes WP:NPOL in and of itself -- and the sourcing for that comprises almost entirely routine local campaign coverage, much of which is deadlinked. As always, unelected candidates for office are not deemed to pass WP:GNG just because some local campaign coverage exists in their district's local media, because every candidate in every election can always show some of that: the notability test for a candidate requires evidence that his candidacy was much more special than most other people's candidacies, in some way that would satisfy the ten year test for enduring significance. But this is also not adequately demonstrating that he had preexisting notability that would have gotten him an article for other reasons besides the candidacy, as his business career is supported entirely by a giant reference bomb of primary sources rather than any real evidence that he was getting media coverage in that context before the candidacy happened. This is quite simply neither a well-written nor well-sourced article. Bearcat (talk) 02:58, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:58, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:58, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly not notable as a politician, and his other activities do not rise to the level of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:19, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Anybody going head to head with Janice Hahn is notable. Those who don't like all the puffery should just delete it (and provide reasons in the Edit summary). BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:08, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Candidates are not automatically more special than other candidates just because of which other person they happened to lose to. Regardless of who they did or didn't challenge, all candidates are still judged by the same standards as all other candidates — and those standards are based strictly on the depth of notability that the candidate themselves can or cannot show, not on the identity of their opponent. Janice Hahn does not have any uniquely Hahnian special ability to confer permanent encyclopedic notability on her election opponents, just because they were running against her — a person is not automatically more notable just because they were running against Janice Hahn than they would have been if they had run and lost in any other district in the country. Bearcat (talk) 14:17, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NPOL as a failed candidate for Congress (and the California State Assembly). --Enos733 (talk) 16:11, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL as a failed candidate, would not meet WP:NAUTHOR for self-published works and the direct-marketing businesses are not enough to pass WP:NBIO either. Bkissin (talk) 18:00, 17 September 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 08:07, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hilary Topper[edit]

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

essentially advertising for her PR practice. Reads like an autobio, with a section on her totally non-encyclopedic sports career, and paragraphs on individual non-notable podcasts. DGG ( talk ) 02:48, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. William2001^(talk) 04:06, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. William2001^(talk) 04:06, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. William2001^(talk) 04:06, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No pass of WP:Prof of course. Nothing in-depth for WP:GNG. Just promotional. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:31, 12 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 13:13, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not pass notability criteria. Another LinkedIn-type promotional/vanity article. Netherzone (talk) 14:41, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete Highly promotional with nothing to show any notability standard is met. Finishing 2599th (out of 2609) in a national triathlon doesn't show notability. Don't believe the GNG is met nor WP:NPROF or anything else.Sandals1 (talk) 14:58, 17 September 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 08:07, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomad (2020 film)[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON article about an as yet unreleased film, not yet reliably sourced as clearing the high bar needed to make a film notable this far in advance of release. Three of the four references here are primary sources (IMDb, corporate press releases) which are not support for notability at all -- and the only quasi-reliable source is Gizmodo, which is sort of okay, but not solid enough to get a film over WP:NFILM all by itself if it's the only not completely useless source you can show. No prejudice against recreation if and when release is imminent enough that better sources start showing up, but the sourcing shown here is not even close to good enough yet. Bearcat (talk) 02:24, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:24, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - at this stage there isn't significant coverage in reliable sources Mujinga (talk) 17:11, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable. Doing some research, it appears that the film's eclipse scene was covered in July-August 2019, but it has not truly been covered other than that. In other words, it does not reflect enduring notability, unlike other unreleased films that have a spread of coverage regarding its development and filming. No issue with recreation if the film gets coverage whenever it comes out. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:28, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with no objection to it being recreated once it gains more coverage in independent and reliable sources. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:13, 13 September 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 08:05, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Holly Sonders[edit]

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

not notable journalist without any major position . One very minor controversy, but nothing remarkable. DGG ( talk ) 02:22, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:53, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:53, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:53, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked to look again , because references were added. But this still seems to me essentially BLP1E, with all the coverage on a single event. I might be wrong, but others can judge for themselves. DGG ( talk ) 05:48, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK so she isn't Erin Andrews among other famous female reporters, but she has done quite a bit. She was a big star on the Golf Channel and has moved around Fox Sports covering Football (both college and pros) and Fox Sports though highly of her to have her sub on the Herd and Skip and Shannon: Undisputed. There's less content on other pages but they're safe and Holly's isn't. Dwightforrm ( talk ) 20:58, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. comment by Dwightforrm makes a good point: she's not famous.Strandvue (talk) 12:04, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm just tired of defending the pages I created. I found 12 sources on her (half of them after this notice) and it seems it's not enough. It's just frustrating. Dwightforrm ( talk ) 1:01, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Delete - no evidence of notability - two of the sources are interviews which are primary sources (WP:PSTS) - most of the rest are run of the mill coverage for a TV person, no indepth coverage or articles specifically about the subject - does not meed WP:ANYBIO or WP:BASIC as there is no significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources - Epinoia (talk) 21:54, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Deleted as G12 unambiguous copyright violation Barkeep49 (talk) 03:21, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David Stuart Smith[edit]

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

Biography (with some advertorial overtones) of a businessperson, not properly sourced as clearing our notability standards for businesspeople: the references here are all primary sources, such as the self-published websites of his own companies and a YouTube video and a legacy.com obituary, with no evidence of media coverage being shown at all. As always, people are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they existed -- the notability test is not the things the article says, it's the degree to which the things it says can or cannot be referenced to evidence that media devoted attention to him and his work, such as in newspaper or magazine journalism and/or books. Bearcat (talk) 01:24, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:24, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do you one better - it's a copyvio. Tagged for speedy deletion under criteria A7 and G12. creffett (talk) 01:39, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Already dealt with at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emmanuel Michael — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:30, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuel Nnamdi Michael[edit]

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

Inadequate evidence for notability . The "100 most " lists are a technique of PR, invented for that purpose. All the referencesare either PR or noticces or his own writings. DGG ( talk ) 00:20, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. DGG ( talk ) 00:20, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:29, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Read through the referenced pages and saw that he has been featured in local newspapers like The Punch. It might pass as notability considering he has also won some international awards Mustapha dare (talk) 09:46, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete & salt - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emmanuel Michael. Hi Mustapha; presumably you're a sock of User:Nnadigoodluck, the article creator? --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:57, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP-- I previously created the page and an IP tagged the page for speedy deletion, when AfD was still ongoing. I'll vote that it's kept and not deleted, since I've written it like an Encyclopedia and also, the article for sure passes WP:GNG and WP: NOTABILITY.NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 13:32, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete I'm not sure that DGG was aware when nominating this that it was the exact same article deleted previously under another name and that the closer specifically instructed the creator to contest it at WP:DRV if they chose, not just recreate it under another name. Even if not G4able, it's extremely promotional. Praxidicae (talk) 14:00, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:05, 12 September 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 cosmic entities in Marvel Comics. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:04, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eon (comics)[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional character TTN (talk) 00:09, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 00:09, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 00:09, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of cosmic entities in Marvel Comics. BOZ (talk) 00:21, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or turn into a redirect. Yet another of a plethora of non-notable fictional characters. There's already enough in the list article, no need to merge.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:03, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject is documented in works such as Marvel Universe. As it was a recurring character as the patron of more than one superhero, it's sensible to have a separate entry. Andrew D. (talk) 10:55, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's completely contrary to all policies and guidelines relating to fiction. It's a completely pointless opinion that adds nothing to the discussion. TTN (talk) 12:08, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't this source rather WP:PRIMARY? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:43, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of cosmic entities in Marvel Comics. Maybe add creator names and first appearance. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:37, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Argento. --Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 12:29, 18 September 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) 19:08, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MrChuy[edit]

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

Delete This individual is not a notable social media personality by any stretch of the imagination. KidAd (talk) 17:26, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:28, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:28, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, delete. Hyperbolick (talk) 19:50, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why sadly? KidAd (talk) 20:15, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lacks significant coverage; just a run of the mill Internet person. Bearian (talk)
Delete - the sourcing in the article fails to establish notability and I can find no other coverage that would. -- Whpq (talk) 16:07, 17 September 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.

[1] Alam, Mohammed Badrul (2015). "Chapter Eight. Back to the Roots: Engagement of the Indian Diaspora in the United States and India". In Rahman, Md Mizanur; Hussain, Zaara Zain (eds.). South Asian Migration: Remittances and Beyond. Newcastle upon Tyne, England. p. 174. Retrieved 12 September 2019.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)

[2] Lopata, James (10 September 2008). "Gay Muslims Find Hope in New England". Boston Spirit Magazine. Retrieved 12 September 2019.

[1]

[2]