Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 September 25

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 24 September	26 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 Delete. JGHowes ^talk 01:37, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kartiki Gonsalves[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NBIO. Coverage in independent sources is sparse, with the most significant coverage being this softball interview. I wasn't able to find more independent coverage online. Awards won are non-notable brand ambassadorships that don't meet WP:ANYBIO. This article has been draftified twice, by Onel5969 and Gpkp, and both times the initial editor, Rishabh Dharmani moved it back to mainspace without significant edits or further comments. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:49, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:49, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:49, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:49, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:49, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I draftified it in the hopes that it might be worked on and developed to show notability. But I can't find how they pass WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:55, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet WP:NBIO. Violation of AfC process by draft/article creator. --Gpkp [u • t • c] 08:36, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:GNG, as well as WP:NBIO. Just another camera(wo)man with job. Having a job doesnt make you notable for wikipedia. Giving a lecture once in while at well known institutes doesnt make the person notable either. Subject doesnt have significant coverage in reliable sources. Also, there were like 3-4 hits for reliable sources, but it was because the subject was credited as "photographer". No in-depth coverage of the subject in reliable sources. Also, violation of AfC process. She looks kind of beautiful though. —usernamekiran(talk) 20:59, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Being a camerawoman does not make anybody notable, fails WP:GNG, Alex-h (talk) 10:51, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article from the Economic Times is valid, But only one reliable source with in depth coverage is not enough to meet our general notability guidelines or justify inclusion. Articles written by the subject herself or non RS sources do not count. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 11:50, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 02:48, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. (non-admin closure) --- Coffeeandcrumbs 03:47, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hermès.svg[edit]

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

Nonfree image Bryce M (talk) 23:10, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. This is the wrong venue for arguing that an image should be deleted. Moreover, the image is a perfectly valid instance of fair use of a logo. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:43, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:52, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:52, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Indeed, wrong venue, and image is appropriately licensed already. Nate • (chatter) 07:43, 26 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. JGHowes ^talk 01:22, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hadley Corner[edit]

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

This is not a regional or otherwise significant mall, but a small WP:MILL shopping center with a Home Depot and several other small stores. Nothing suggests it meets the GNG. MB 22:11, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. MB 22:11, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. MB 22:11, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Voted to delete a decade ago, and nothing's changed (this being why I'm really starting to hate "Oh, might as well keep and give it time to improve" votes, given the overwhelming experience that the articles almost never do). This is just a small strip mall in a mile-long heavily-built-up stretch (the street being adjacent to UMass), with two full scale shopping malls across the street. Such references that exist are fleeting and not indepth, and I assert this fails the GNG. Ravenswing 14:15, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree that the refs are fleeting and lack depth. Rockphed (talk) 14:56, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG. WP:ROTM strip mall. Acnetj (talk) 00:44, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't show enough notability. Barca (talk) 22:28, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 02:53, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Meets WP:NALBUM, and the wikiproject guidance cited in the nomination has recently been withdrawn. RL0919 (talk) 01:55, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mahler Symphony No. 4 (Claudio Abbado 1978 recording)[edit]

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

Fails all of the criteria of WP:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Notability of recordings. -- Softlavender (talk) 20:32, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:34, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable recording.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:16, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. note that it also fails WP:NALBUM and WP:COPYVIO. The main bulk of the article consists of long paraphrases of critics reviews - these are certainly violations of copyright.Smerus (talk) 06:56, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

copyvio concerns can be removed, this has happened. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:08, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, although technically meeting no. 1 of WP:NALBUM - "subject of multiple [ie. 2 or more], non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble who created it." as article (now after possible copyvio being removed) lists reviews by Gramophone and Sound & Vision, past consensus amongst classical album wikieditors appears to require more. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:59, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NALBUM. The article's COPYVIO issues have now been addressed - brief review excerpts will be supplied in due course. Abbado is generally regarded as one of the most important of Mahler conductors.Niggle1892 (talk) 16:48, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NALBUM criteria 1. The album was reviewed in The New York Times (see here), and in Gramophone (see here). Additional offline reviews can be found in High Fidelity, Volume 29, Issues 1-6, 1979, "Abbado's Revelatory Mahler" by Abram Chipman; High Performance Review, 1984, Volumes 3-4, Page 124; and The New Records, 1978, Volume 46, Issue 9, Page 3.4meter4 (talk) 21:36, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rollidan (talk) 22:07, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please see also Lewis M. Smoley's Gustav Mahler Symphonies, 1996, p. 81; Lewis M. Smoley's The Symphonies of Gustav Mahler, 1986, p. 50; Fanfare, Vol. 8, Issue 5, 1985, p. 160; Gramophone Classical Good CD Guide 1998, 1997, p. 530; Gramophone Classical Good CD Guide 2002, 2001, p. 555; Gramophone Classical Good CD Guide 2003, 2002, p. 570; The Penguin Guide to Recorded Music, 2008, p. 744; Records in Review, 1980, p. 187; High Fidelity/Musical America, Vol. 30, Issue 1, 1980, p. 73; Hi-Fi News & Record Review, Vol. 26, Issues 7-12, 1981, p. 67; The Penguin Cassette Guide, 1979, p. 317.Niggle1892 (talk) 23:24, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, shows to easily meets WP:NALBUM with the more reviews listed above. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:58, 26 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) 02:06, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of sources of Korean culinary history[edit]

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

This list is nothing but a statement of few blue links that are cookbooks. Most descriptions are absent and the references are primary. The list serves no purpose to the encyclopedia, proven by its orphanage. AmericanAir88^(talk) 21:51, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88^(talk) 21:51, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:23, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 01:40, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 01:40, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NOM. Many in the list are lifted from a dead link source (Ref 2) that had a similar list but not purporting to be sources of Korean culinary history, more along the lines of 'here is a list of early cookbooks, and since women were the ones who traditionally cooked, we can learn about the home life of women from them', which is not really the same thing as culinary history. Agricolae (talk) 19:49, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is a list of mostly NN cookbooks. We are not a webhost nor a compendium of lists. Bearian (talk) 18:37, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. In addition to the arguments for notability given in the discussion, the nomination was based on an erroneous assumption: the previous A7 deletion was for someone else, a musician, not the subject. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:28, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Plummer[edit]

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

Deleted previously due to A7. I still don't see what makes this person of particular importance. The Awards and Honours section isn't particularly impressive - not indicating notability. Thanks, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 21:13, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep The IEEE Founders Medal, IEEE Andrew S. Grove Award, and IEEE J. J. Ebers Award are notable and meet WP:NACADEMIC, point #2. Plummer's election as fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and member status within the National Academy of Engineering grants him notability under WP:NACADEMIC, point #3. He also fulfills point #5 as the John M. Fluke Professor of Electrical Engineering at Stanford University and former Frederick Emmons Terman Dean of the School of Engineering. Vycl1994 (talk) 21:46, 25 September 2019 (UTC) edited 22:15, 25 September 2019 (UTC) and 22:58, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Plummer is a named chair, so he fulfills the notability requirement in WP:NPROF. Mcampany (talk) 22:03, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:29, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:29, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per all of the above comments. Passes several criteria of WP:PROF, including WP:PROF#C3 and WP:PROF#C5. Nsk92 (talk) 22:57, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging the nominator @Willbb234: in case they might consider withdrawing this nomination. Nsk92 (talk) 23:36, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. @3shoggoth: please note that, despite ending up on the short end of this debate, your comments and contributions are indeed welcome. Your argument that the subject's work will grow and a wiki article is inevitable in any case is what's known in wiki-jargon as the WP:TOOSOON argument. Should it eventually come to pass that there's additional coverage, a new article about the subject can always be written. The existing version could even be used as a starting point, by eventually making a request at WP:REFUND to have the old text restored and moved to draft space. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:58, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Hoffer[edit]

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

Does not meet criteria of WP:GNG or WP:NCREATIVE. The majority of the sources provided are not about him, rather they are about films, and he's only mentioned in the articles. I can't find significant discussion of him in reliable sources. ... discospinster _talk 20:20, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 20:20, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 20:20, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Directing" an English dub of a movie is not the same thing as directing a movie. The obscure comic book that he co-authored isn't notable either. Sonstephen0 (talk) 22:04, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:31, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:31, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:31, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:31, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "English dub director" is nearly the definition of not notable. None of the sources say anything about Hoffer, except that he was, indeed the English dub director. He does not come close to satisfying any of our sets of criteria for notability. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:17, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Okay hi! I'm not sure if I'm doing this right. In the spirit of 'don't be afraid to participate' I'll jump in here with more of my reasoning. ADR direction may be more like theatrical/performance direction than animated film direction, but it certainly falls under the purview of directing and what a director does, and the subject is being attributed with such, for significant animated film titles, by multiple sources. So these deletion votes read to me like a strange bias or misunderstanding. The subject is also attributed by multiple sources as being a director of theatre, with some reviews already included in the article of subject's directorial ability (not just cursory mentions of subject, as suggested by initial reviewer). Related to that I would say that reviewing a director's work is in and of itself discussion of a director. In any case there is a distinction between fame and notability, and I believe according to WP:GNG (there is significant coverage, reliable integrity, plenty of sources) and WP:NCREATIVE (I would argue subject is regarded as important as a creative professional, just in a smaller sphere) the subject meets the criteria to at least not be deleted -- the article can be improved upon with additional sourcing, admittedly, so I'd like to advocate for keeping the article with a note to improve verification of sources (or some equivalent). Far less supported wikis (including ref'd wikis like John Lavachielli) are currently live and accepted. I think we need to do better than saying 'they're not notable' -- well, okay, but according to what criteria? Because I've done the work sourcing the existence and merit of the subject and just saying 'it isn't so' seems fallacious, and also prevents me as the creator from crafting better work for Wiki because it's a non-starter kind of comment. I strongly suspect the subject's work will grow and a wiki article is inevitable in any case, though that's neither here nor there. Thank you for your consideration! -- 3shoggoth (talk) 00:07, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 03:10, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per 4meter4. This isn't about the significance of dub directors, but WP:SIGCOV. Daask (talk) 20:23, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:18, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brady_plc[edit]

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

Brady plc does not meet Wikipedia's GNG. Although they are a publicly traded company, that alone does not make them notable.

"There has been considerable discussion over time whether publicly traded corporations, or at least publicly traded corporations listed on major stock exchanges such as the NYSE and other comparable international stock exchanges, are inherently notable. Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case." WP:Listed

They have very minimal press coverage. They have a few articles from unreliable third party sources, a lot of press releases, and directory listings / profiles. Other than that, they have nothing. The article also has edits from a banned user named Brady plc, who is clearly a SPA. I don't see how this obscure company meets Wikipedia's notability standards. Sonstephen0 (talk) 19:37, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:57, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:57, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - very shallow bits of listings, and lacks significant coverage in depth. Bearian (talk) 18:38, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete . Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 03:11, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. bd2412 T 22:52, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MANI Inc.[edit]

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

Blatant WP:PROMO; no reliable coverage. Claimed award is not notable. Fails WP:NCORP. Jalen Folf (talk) 19:52, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jalen Folf (talk) 19:52, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Jalen Folf (talk) 19:52, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable, promo, no significant WP:RS coverage (all I found were company profiles and press releases). creffett (talk) 02:12, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with comments - 1) what's going on with the page moves and rewrites? It seems like a user is trying rewrite an existing page to get around having multiple drafts declined via AfC?? 2) delete per nom/Creffett. I just looked at the first two pages of google.co.jp searches to confirm there wasn't much coverage, and most pages seem to be the non-notable award, stock prices, patents, or general company info. originalmess^{how u doin that busta rhyme?} 03:45, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The page moves were discussed by the user under COI on my Talk page as a desire to have an article for one company over this one, which in turn has resulted in this repurposing. The other company, KAGLA Vaportech Corporation, is not notable either for the exact same reasons, except this version does not appear to claim an award won by KAGLA. Jalen Folf (talk) 03:50, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, thanks for the clarification! originalmess^{how u doin that busta rhyme?} 04:01, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. - MA Javadi (talk) 21:17, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Barca (talk) 22:38, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. It seems to be a machine translation of another website, possibly in violation of copyright. Bearian (talk) 18:40, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lest there be any accusations similar to one made in the discussion, I note that my husband doesn't think I am homophobic. In any case, a lack of sources demonstrating notability are the key here, not the nature of the subject. RL0919 (talk) 02:04, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bravo Delta[edit]

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

Current sourcing is not RS - a UGC source (Internet Adult Film Database) and a commercial (adult) site where you can hire the subject's services - unreliable and dependent. I can't find any better sourcing that would establish that the subject meets GNG - I confess that his highly generic name made searching for sources difficult, and will withdraw the nomination if better sourcing can be found. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:49, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:49, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:49, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:49, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:49, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bravo Delta is a famous porn actor. As evidence, I am sending you the following links: [1] or [2] --Farid (talk) 20:55, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IV is an interesting discussion about whether or not interviews contribute towards notability of their subject. Both of these examples, on websites of questionable reliability, use a simple series of canned questions and allow the subject to response to them - they are essentially primary sources. WP:GNG calls for reliable, secondary sources - these do not fit that bill. GirthSummit _(blether) 21:39, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's a nothing of an article saying no more than the guy exists, and the second source pretty much makes the article spam. So delete per WP:N and WP:G11. SpinningSpark 21:52, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

you are just homophobic and that’s why you want to delete the article --Farid (talk) 09:18, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Farid, that is an outrageous personal attack, in direct contravention of WP:NPA. If you knew me better you would know that it is ridiculous to suggest that I am a homophobe, but the fact that you do not know another editor is not an excuse for you to level personal attacks at them. My AfD nomination record is public, as is my contribution history - you are welcome to review my history to see whether you can find any evidence at all of homophobia - it shouldn't take you long to discover that my last good article was a biography of a gay woman. I nominated this article for deletion because that's what I do as an new page patrol reviewer when I come across an article without sources that establish notability according to our guidelines. I ask that you strike that accusation. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:19, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough sourcing to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:27, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the recently depreciated pornbio and lack of WP:RS. As spinning spark has suggested delete per WP:N and WP:G11 Wm335td (talk) 19:28, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Greta Thunberg. Based on my reading, the key arguments in favour of deletion are that the subject has no significant coverage by itself, just trivial ones that mainly refer to his relatives, and that the works they appeared in are not significant enough to satisfy WP:NACTOR. The keep arguments point to the reference section, that he's the father of a notable person and assert that the subject has had notable roles in acting and (co-?)authoring a book. There is also a merge argument predicated on the fact that the subject is mostly known for having a notable daughter and could have a place as a section on her article.

On balance, the consensus is in favour of removing the article. It seems like this discussion is seeing an unusually large amount of people rebutting each other's points but the delete camp is much better grounded in policy and guideline:

Not all things that make a valid reference also prove notability (c.f WP:SIGCOV), we generally do not consider having a notable relative as proof of notability, the concern that the acting roles aren't actually significant has not been rebutted.
Conversely, "per X" arguments are not by default invalid and the fact that the IP which nominated the article for deletion has not logged in does not invalidate their points (also, it seems like nobody was confused by them posting as an IP).
The discussion on the book is more borderline since apparently the text of the guideline and the way it's applied in practice are not entirely consistent, but it seems like the argument is again leaning towards removal due to e.g concerns that it isn't really a significant book.
A headcount of 6 keep, 8 delete and 3 merge also endorses the removal of the article, although that is not a consensus in and of itself.

Regarding the merge-or-not arguments there has been a bit of a back-and-forth but a number of examples have been cited of biographies that discuss their subjects' relatives and no policy or guideline to the contrary has been mentioned, so it seems like the discussion is leaning towards merge being allowable. I am not sure what Miraclepine was advocating for - if anything - so I did not consider it.

That leaves only the question of merge-or-delete. The delete argument is more numerous but their stances do not automatically imply that they consider the content totally unusable, while the merge argument makes a case that the content is still usable elsewhere. In my assessment the best way to satisfy both aspects is a redirect, so that the article is removed (thus satisfying most of the delete concerns) but content still available for copying through the history (thus allowing for the merge proposals to work).

PS: I see that there was a previous AFD that was withdrawn despite having received some concurring opinions; I've reformatted that close as the {{hab}}/{{hat}} method does not work at AFD and didn't do anything about the procedural irregularity as this second deletion discussion was ongoing by that time. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:11, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Svante Thunberg[edit]

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

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

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

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

AFD nominated on behalf of 110.165.186.42 --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:24, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:AFDHOWTO, I'm requesting help with nominating the Svante Thunberg article for deletion (since I don't use an acccount).

My motivation for the nomination is that this article seems to fail the basic criteria. There doesn't seem to be any significant non-trivial coverage of Thunberg. I checked on the Swedish Wikipedia page and even there, all the links are just "databases" proving he's appeared in this or that stage show/movie/TV show, or articles about either his wife or daughter (both who are clearly notable). He's appeared in some productions but it's not clear to me that the roles he played in them were "significant" (per WP:NACTOR). I tried looking him up on Google and while I get hits for several news articles where his name appears even before Greta became famous, they all seem to be trivial mentions as "Malena Ernman's husband"). A google news search for

"svante thunberg" -"greta" -"malena"

receives 1 casual mention of another man sharing his name/surname complaining about traffic noise in Stockholm. ([3])

A google search for

"svante thunberg är" or "svane thunberg har" (i.e. "... is" "... has") -"greta" -"malena"

receives two mentions of other people sharing the same name, one inventor, another unclear, no mention whatsoever of acting.110.165.186.42 (talk) 08:35, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to add that this nomination isn't about trying to "get to Greta" so I hope everyone will keep a cool head. Greta and her mother Malena are obviously notable, but I don't see a case for Svante's notability and I've made a good effort to find any evidence that he might actually be, but failed..110.165.186.42 (talk) 08:40, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article had previously been nominated by User:Andy_Dingley acting on behalf of 110.165.186.42, but Andy withdrew his nomination.

I have copied some of the IP's comment from the old nomination:

Comment The sources in the article are currently as follows:

1) An article about his daughter where there's a trivial mention of him and his wife becoming vegans because of her. Not significant. Trivial.

2) an article about his daughter which mentions in one line her father was with her on the trans-Atlantic boat trip. Not significant. Trivial.

3) and 4) are from the Swedish population registry. Obviously trivial.

5) is a database of the imdb type, but for Swedish theatre "Dramaten", showing Thunberg has appeared in 3 2 plays, in one as as an extra and a choir member, and once as a character called "Ettan" in Peter Pan (unclear which character this is, but most likely not a major one. No mention of a character called "Ettan" in the Swedish Peter Pan Wiki article). Judging from this source, he does certainly not seem to have ever be an established theatre actor.

6) is a newspaper article not available online and unverified, with the title: "Åtta av 567 fick chansen", "Eight out of 567 people got the oppurtunity". It seems to have been an article mentioning he was one of few accepted either to Gothenburg university or Dramaten. Trivial.

7) 8) 9) Imdb and Imdb type entries without any further comment or text on the actor whatsoever. Trivial

10) 11) interviews with Thunberg's wife where he is mentioned several times. His wife (Malena) talks about her home life and mentions how her husband gave up his career to take care of the children while she's on tour (as an opera singer). The most signifcant coverage of the bunch, but still entirely in relation to his wife, and certainly not evidence he had a notable career as an actor.

12) Review (published in a Swedish newspaper) of the book he wrote with his wife and daughter. One mention of his "character" in the book, no further mentioning of him. It should be obvious that as it currently stands, the article does most definitely not meet WP:GNG and especially not WP:NACTOR or WP:AUTHOR.110.165.186.42 (talk) 13:12, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

--Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:26, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:24, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:24, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Ohnoitsjamie and BabbaQ: notifying voters in the old AFD. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:30, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:34, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see any sources that qualify as depth-of-coverage that are independent of his wife and daughter's notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:35, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:39, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:39, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the IP's assessment. I can't find enough coverage of Svante, only his daughter Greta. The scant coverage I found is list articles that could be discarded as trivial coverage. Also, there are passing mentions of the dad.
Neither of these allows Svante (NOT Greta) to pass General Notability Guidelines to allow the dad to have his own article.
Perhaps he should be merged into the article about his daughter ie Greta Thunberg --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:44, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Andy Dingley (talk) 18:51, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Dingley, why? Is there a source I missed that could take Mr. Thunberg past the WP:GNG guidelines? --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:00, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Wikipedia makes a practice of listing them here: Svante Thunberg#References Andy Dingley (talk) 19:02, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to make an argument countering the IP's careful analyses showing all of the references in your link to have only trivial coverage of Svante? I should also note that your previous withdrawal of the first AfD was out of process: AfDs can only be withdrawn when there are no opinions concurring with the request for deletion, and that one had two. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:26, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, please just provide a reasoning/guideline for your !vote. BabbaQ (talk) 11:02, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Well-known Swedish actor performing at what is often referred to as the "Swedish national theatre stage", combined with his appearance in television series Skärgårdsdoktorn. Independent of his wife's opera career and their daughter's climate actions. J 1982 (talk) 22:06, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
J 1982, got any sources to back this up? --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:20, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

J 1982, if what you're saying is actually true, it should be easy to prove. There's no support for what you're saying among the already present sources. 110.165.186.42 (talk) 03:19, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The assertion that he is an "actor performing at what is often referred to as the 'Swedish national theatre stage'" (which I take to mean Dramaten) seems provably false. According to Dramaten's official database, which claims to have the full data of every play featured there since 1906, Thunberg has only appeared in 2 plays, both in 1991, and in only of those did he play a named character. He wasn't exactly top-billed at that time either: https://www.dramaten.se/medverkande/rollboken/Play/1414 110.165.185.203 (talk) 04:13, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

J 1982 edited their comment to add this to an existing line: "combined with his appearance in television series Skärgårdsdoktorn". Thunberg appeared in a single episode of a soap opera. This hardly helps him pass the bar for WP:NACTOR. J 1982 should also address the fact that having appeared in 2 plays on Dramaten in 1991 is not the same thing as being an "actor performing at what is often referred to as the 'Swedish national theatre stage'"110.165.185.203 (talk) 16:13, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How come another IP just randomly turn up and add a comment. Stay with one IP if you can not bother to start an account. J1982s rationale for Keep is based Thunbergs work which is a part of the sourcing. Totally acceptable. BabbaQ (talk) 16:34, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Stay with one IP" is a meaningless exhortation. I'm not using several IP's - the one I use changes automatically from time to time, outside of my control. Besides, my new IP is almost identical to the previous one, except for the last few numbers. It's a complete non-issue. Don't attempt to make it into one. Let's discuss Svante's notability. "J1982s rationale for Keep is based Thunbergs work which is a part of the sourcing". I've gone through the sources with a comb and presented the results of that in a comment. There is just no non-trivial significant coverage of him and his acting career does obviously not meet WP:NACTOR. I've proven this with actual references to each individual source quoted in the article, while you've only made vague references to "it's in the sources", so far. 110.165.185.203 (talk) 00:24, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with the IP's assessment and haven't seen a good case made for this person being notable in their own right. Oska (talk) 23:01, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A ”vote per” !vote is basically null. You need to provide a guideline for your !vote.BabbaQ (talk) 10:59, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
BabbaQ, well Oska is agreeing with IP's assessment so IP's reasoning can apply here too. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:50, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BabbaQ, you're mistaken. See WP:PERNOMINATOR: "If the rationale provided in the nomination includes a comprehensive argument, specific policy references and/or a compelling presentation of evidence in favour of keeping or deletion, an endorsement of the nominator's argument may be sufficient."110.165.185.203 (talk) 16:25, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless multiple new reliable sources turn up with significantly greater in-depth coverage of Svante himself than the ones analyzed in the nomination. I tried looking myself but didn't find them, presumably because (if they exist at all) they're hidden by all the articles about his notable relatives mentioning but not going into depth about him. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:51, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Alternatively, redirection to Scenes from the Heart would also be acceptable, if the article on the book is improved to use enough third-party sources to make its own notability clear. (I suspect the book is notable but the article on it in its current state does not reflect that.) Despite a lot of heat on this AfD, it still is the case that nobody here has provided evidence for Svante having separate notability from the book or other family members. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:48, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article subject has an established career in the field of acting with plenty of notable roles. Provided in sources. Also per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 11:01, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
BabbaQ, IP has said that his theater's role are not notable and he hasn't won any awards so WP:NACTOR cannot be used here. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:52, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"plenty of notable roles" - what do you base this on? Obviously not the actual sources in the article. Please name some of these notable roles!110.165.185.203 (talk) 15:51, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources for notability. Keep votes seem only to be based on the personal opinions of those editors. Known to the general public only through wife & daughter. With the enormous coverage given to his daughter at this time, it's especially and principally important that her father isn't baselessly name-dropped into English Wikipedia with an article of his own. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:46, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is not a !vote on Greta Thunberg. If Svante is mentioned in the same sources as Greta or not is completely irrelevant. Its POV at best and must be given little weight at closing.BabbaQ (talk) 12:59, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I, for one, do not know what is meant by this comment, finding nothing here about that (Svante is mentioned in the same sources as Greta) which would impact on this deletion. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:03, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Notability is not inherited. Even if every other member of his family was notable, he would still need significant sources about him to establish notability. Andy Dingley's dogged refusal to even comment on the quality of the sources leads me to believe his !vote is based purely on WP:ILIKEIT. Since the sources are all garbage, I think it is safe to say that he is as notable as I am. A redirect is inappropriate in this case because there are 2 equally valid redirect targets (his wife and daughter). Rockphed (talk) 15:13, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I PRODed the article in March and my PROD was reverted, making me think there was at least some consensus to keep, and that was 6 months ago, why wasn't there an afd much more quickly if he is unnotable? I very rarely vote to delete an article which has versions in multiple languages, it was just Swedish and English when I PRODed. His daughter is very famous and I note that with other very famous people we have articles on their parents such as Besarion Jughashvili and Ekaterine Geladze, Stalin's parents. I am sure there is room for additions such as his accompanyine his daughter on the yacht across the Atlantic, and it is unlikely that this is recentism, the article will become more not less notable over time. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 15:28, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
RichardWeiss, well notability is NOT inherited. Just because his daughter is notable, doesn't mean he is.

He must be notable on his own. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:31, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand your point. Nobody is isolated. I gave an example of people who were clearly not notable apart from their son. Philip May wouldn't be notable except for his wife either. Philip is notable because of his relationship with his wife, Thunberg because of his relationship with his daughter, he isn't even solely her father, he is her manager as well. So how is he any different form Melania Trump et al. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 15:36, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  RichardWeiss, see WP:NOTINHERITED, which said "The fact of having a famous relative is not, in and of itself, sufficient to justify an independent article. Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG. Newborn babies are not notable except for an heir to a throne or similar."
  
  So unless he's famous BECAUSE of his relationship, he doesn't have the merit of having his own article.
  
  But this doesn't apply in this cause since there's nothing noteworthy about him being the father of Greta. There are no articles covering him or his relationship to Greta. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:45, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  
  RichardWeiss asks "How is he any different form Melania Trump et al?", giving also the example of Philip May.
  
  Well, if you go to Philip May's page you will see that it is closely linked to the article Spouse of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. May is recognised in this position officially and, overseas, diplomatically. The same with Melania Trump and the position First Lady of the United States. Obviously Parent of Climate Activist is never going to be a wikipedia article, so there's your point of difference. Greta's mother is notable in her own right and thus, rightly, gets her own article. There has not been a good case made for Svante's own independent notability and, to repeat, being a "Parent of activist" does not qualify him. Oska (talk) 01:57, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - And Stalin's parents? That was the first example I gave. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 07:54, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"why wasn't there an afd much more quickly if he is unnotable" - what a non-argument. See WP:ARTICLEAGE. For your other arguments, see WP:OTHERLANGS, WP:ATA#CRYSTAL, WP:WHATABOUTX and WP:NOTINHERITED.110.165.185.203 (talk) 16:02, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
IP, please use one IP. Right now you are editing from two individual IPs. BabbaQ (talk) 16:41, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
BabbaQ, perhaps his IP changed? Most IPs are dynamic. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:48, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- We should treat two IPs as two separate individuals. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 17:26, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Additional comment, as per Banana Republic just below me, he is ALSO notable as the co-author of this book. And he is famous because of his relationship to his daughter, perhaps not among Swedish people, who are int he ebst position to judge his pre-Greta's fame notability. I had heard of him through reading a number of what would be considered reliable sources simply reading articles about Greta, so for me his notability is absolutely linked-in to his daughter. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 17:29, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Cover (of the first Swedish edition?) of the one book Svane Thunberg has co-authored with his wife. The picture is of Malena Ernberg. The small line above her name is the title of the book ("Sånger från hjärtat"). The minuscule line below her name reads "& Svante Thunberg". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miraclepine (talk • contribs) 16:26, September 29, 2019 (UTC)
- Note that the "minuscule line" containing the co-author's name is the exact same font size as the book title. Banana Republic (talk) 16:56, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not. I compared the capital "S"'s in Photoshop and the font size used for the title is 30% larger than it is for Svante's name. Not that I think this matters that much to anybody who actually clicked through and checked the picture. 2001:240:2409:D0C1:C101:A261:F9E:3773 (talk) 10:12, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - - I'll take your word for it. The 30% difference was not perceptible to my eyes relative to the monster font used for the wife's name. The point is -- the size of the font does not matter, as it's not an indication of level of contribution. Banana Republic (talk) 15:42, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        "This is really getting surreal -- talking about the size of the font on the book cover is intellectually equivalent to talking about the size of his dick." [4] If you don't want to argue about the font size, don't make incorrect statements about it and there won't be any need for anybody to correct you. Also please read up on WP:SUMMARYNO.2001:240:2409:D0C1:34CD:6113:4943:DD4A (talk) 00:30, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Also, I don't know if this is the place to raise this, but Banana Republic, I think you should make an effort to use less aggressive summary edits. I'm thinking of "Add your comments as a comment, not in the form of a biased unsigned caption with the bullshit of "The minuscule line below"" [5] & "Are we going to also talk about the size of his dick?" [6]. There's no need for strong language, we're just discussing the notability of a certain person, and it's alright to disagree. 2001:240:2409:D0C1:C101:A261:F9E:3773 (talk) 10:49, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: While the subject of this biography clearly fails WP:ENT for his acting career, he seems to pass WP:AUTHOR for co-authoring the book Scenes from the Heart. Banana Republic (talk) 16:44, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- In my experience, passing WP:AUTHOR usually requires at least two books with multiple published reviews. In cases where there is only one book, we usually either delete or (if the book is notable itself) redirect to an article about the book. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:33, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't see a two book minimum requirement in WP:AUTHOR. Banana Republic (talk) 20:38, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - I was referring to typical outcomes of past AfDs, not to the exact wording of that guideline. If you want a policy or guideline that leads to this outcome, I think it's mostly WP:BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:53, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - Writing a book is not an event covered by WP:BLP1E. WP:BLP1E is for people in the news for a single event. Banana Republic (talk) 20:22, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        If the book is the only contribution of his for which we have nontrivial coverage, it's a single event and it is covered by BIO1E. Why do you think books should be treated specially in this regard? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:35, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Because they're covered by WP:AUTHOR. An author can be famous for a single noteworthy book. Banana Republic (talk) 22:23, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Well then you're going to have to present evidence that he's actually famous for this book and not merely that he was listed as an author for it in much smaller print than his co-author and that it got a few published reviews. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:36, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        The book is the basis of his daughter's international campaign. Banana Republic (talk) 22:43, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        You're missing the point. We're not arguing whether the book is famous, or whether his daughter is famous. You're going to have to present evidence that Svante himself is famous for this book, if you want to use a single book as the basis for a notability argument. The fact that he's one of multiple authors and that the book has reviews is too indirect for me. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:11, 28 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]
        Maybe indirect for you, but conforms with WP:AUTHOR, which specifically allows for co-authorship. Banana Republic (talk) 13:16, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Only a month ago, you not merely !voted delete, but were the nominator of a (successful) AfD on Shallon Lester, who is the sole author of the book "Exes and Ohs" and the co-author of "Hot Mess", both of which have published reviews. Now in this AfD you're arguing that co-authorship of a single book is enough for notability. Perhaps you could explain your inconsistency. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:40, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm glad that you find reviewing my WP contributions to be a good use of your time. The book Exes and Ohs is nowhere even remotely notable. In fact, even the unregistered editor who claimed to be the subject of the biography did not claim notability because of the authorship of that book (she claimed notability for being a YouTube personality). The book Thunberg co-wrote is the motivation for his daughter's international campaign. Banana Republic (talk) 16:13, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        [Citation needed]. The article on the book is glaringly lacking in third-party sources. Lester's books may be insubstantial popular culture but they appear to have similar numbers of reviews available; notability is not and should not be about our opinions on significance. And it took all of five minutes to scan your recent contributions to AfDs and find you shifting your rationales to support whatever outcome you preferred rather than basing your rationales on consistent principles. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:51, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Add this reference to the book's article. Banana Republic (talk) 18:45, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, that's one. I'm not disputing that the book itself is notable, although we need more than just one review to prove it. But Lester's books (plural) also have published reviews. What makes this one different? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:06, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        You seem to be getting confused, so let me help you get focused. This is not an AfD for the book, nor a DelRev for Shallon Lester. Banana Republic (talk) 19:55, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks for that pleasant show of civility and ad-hominem argumentation, but you're the one trying to argue that the existence of one book makes Svante notable. I've been trying to push you to back that up with some evidence and all you've done is blather instead. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:50, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Absolutely nothing uncivil about pointing out that you are getting off topic, but calling my responses "blather" is definitely uncivil. Banana Republic (talk) 21:23, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- He still fails WP:GNG. Also worth noting what the (first?) cover of said book looks like: [7] the cover features Malena's face and her name in very large letters, with Svante's name below her in a font so small it's barely legible. Doesnt' seem to me like somebody who is a notable author. (in later editions, both of their daughters were also added as co-authors). 110.165.185.203 (talk) 00:43, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are engaing in original research here with your description of the book cover. Unless you ahve a reliable source for thsi it is irrelevant. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 07:56, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Original research" may sound like it is a bad thing in an AfD, but it is not. We engage in it all the time in determining whether subjects of articles meet our criteria. It is only in articles themselves that it should be avoided. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:37, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - Show me the relevant policy or guideline or I'm not buying it. If OR has no place in an article it has no place in an argument in an Afd either. Not a reason to revert of course as people are entitled to their say but not a relevant comment either and so should be ignored by the closer. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 17:12, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - The size of the font does not matter. He is a coauthor of the book, and passes WP:AUTHOR criteria #3 which states "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work". Banana Republic (talk) 20:22, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Richard - I really don't see how it could possibly be "own research" to describe the cover of the book (and like David said, it's apparently irrelevant either way). BananaRepublic - you've got to realize it's quite a stretch to claim Thunberg meets WP:AUTHOR based on the co-authorship of a single book only published in Swedish and German, where the author's name was essentially a foot note in the original Swedish edition, and in the German edition, one of four, not two, co-authors. Beata Thunberg, Svante's and Malena's other daughter, also passes WP:AUTHOR based on the co-authorship then, which is equally bizarre as Svante having his own article. Either way, he still fails WP:GNG (as does Beata), so this whole discussion seems irrelevant. 2001:240:2409:D0C1:C101:A261:F9E:3773 (talk) 10:38, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - I do not necessarily agree with the claim that the author's name was essentially a foot note in the original Swedish edition. I don't know how they decided to design the book's cover, but I suspect that they made the name of the wife in huge font because it's a book about her life, not necessarily because she contributed 10 times more to the book (or whatever factor the font size for the wife's name is relative to the font use for the husband's name). Banana Republic (talk) 15:42, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Greta Thunberg, until sufficient material is added to spin off a separate article, per WP:Summary style, WP:Article size, etc. Pretty close to keep, per Andy Dingley. Would I like to be sealioned about my !vote? No. No, thank you. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:39, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this is not an article about Greta Thunberg. Again editors seems confused, merging Greta and Svante as one person.Merging this article into Greta article is not an option at this point. May I again repeat to everyone that this is not a !vote on Greta Thunberg.BabbaQ (talk) 20:06, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
BabbaQ, who is saying that this is a vote on Greta? I think everybody knows it's a vote on her dad Svante. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:09, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Svante Thunberg is currently 239 words long. Given redundancies, not all of that would even be merged. Here is a sample of featured articles that have more than 300 words describing the subject's relatives: Lisa del Giocondo, W. E. B. Du Bois, Emmeline Pankhurst, Marjory Stoneman Douglas, Kate Sheppard, Josephine Butler, Macfarlane Burnet. Etcetera. These are biographies of long lives; in a very young person's bio parents will play an even larger proportionate role.

RE: "Again editors seems confused, merging Greta and Svante as one person." Don't be a dick. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:45, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BabbaQ, on the contrary, merge is definitely an option. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Celebrities. That said, Dennis, I think it's unfair to say you don't want to be "sealioned". AfD's are supposed to be discussions, as I understand it. It feels weird to me then that you state you are essentially not interested in discussing your vote.110.165.185.203 (talk) 01:46, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The pattern of haranguing an editor as to whether or not they really meant what they said is tiresome and unproductive. The need to bat away uncharitable misinterpretations of our words, like we don't understand the father and daughter are two different people, is exhausting, and it annoys everyone trying to read the discussion for the purpose of getting on with building an encyclopedia. The kind of back and forth that generates doesn't move an AfD towards its ultimate outcome, or help anyone decide what option they support. It bloats the discussion with no benefit. It doesn't help the closer make their decision. It wastes everyone's time.

It's helpful to reply to a !vote if your reply contains information that isn't already present on the page. If you're repeating arguments that were stated above the !vote, you're sealioning. The editor can be presumed to have read those arguments, and if they chose the opposite option, it's tacitly clear that they found those arguments unconvincing. Nobody needs to check back to be sure they're sure that they're sure they were unconvinced. Take the hint. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:09, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Persons should not be merged. And article length shall not decide. Even if the Greta Thunberg article just consisted of a few words, it should be accepted. J 1982 (talk) 08:36, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They should not be merged without justification. If we go for delete there is plenty of justification here as we often go into some detail about people's unnotable parents. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 17:15, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Notable daughter who is managed by notable father for a cause that is probably the most notable one of the current era. --User:Harnad (talk) 18:45, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Those are all arguments from WP:INHERITED. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:04, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"managed by" is not an inheritance criterion such as "sired by". Neither is "a cause that is probably the most notable one of the current era". If managing the 16-year-old generator of a global movement critical to the survival of all inhabitants of the planet is not notable, it is hard to imagine what is. I will close with a quote from your WP user page, David: "Wikipedia editor (n.) Someone who will not leave a burning building until you show them the newspaper article documenting how many people were killed by the fire." --User:Harnad (talk) 15:15, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable person, and notable daughter as well, worthy of inclusion. Davidgoodheart (talk) 19:55, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Davidgoodheart, how is he notable? As the IP pointed above, there are no sources that would prove Svante is notable. Also, notability is NOT WP:INHERITED. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:04, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tyw7, Point well made, thanks for pointed that out.

Merge, with Greta Thunberg as not independently notable. Would make a good section on his daughters article. Davidgoodheart (talk) 20:13, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Fails WP:GNG ,if someone"s relatives are notable that does not count for himself. Alex-h (talk) 12:37, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I see a lot of Greta, Greta, Greta, this is not an article about Greta Thunberg. A merge of this article into Greta Thunbergs article would be inappropriate. He also covers WP:AUTHOR’s criteria 3. BabbaQ (talk) 08:43, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Please stop WP:BLUDGEONing. You already !voted keep. Ergo, you oppose delete and merge. All you're doing is repeating yourself. If the comments favoring merge had changed your mind, you would have changed your !vote. Since you didn't, everyone can infer that you oppose merging. Posting yet another comment repeating that fills up the page with noise. Have a little faith that everyone heard the first time. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:20, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - You literally called me a Dick above in this discussion. If you want to go referring to bludgeoning. Secondly this is not a !vote and it literally stands in tiles. Thirdly this discussion will likely be closed soon and whatever result will be fine. BabbaQ (talk) 06:16, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Greta Thunberg.4meter4 (talk) 03:13, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, per WP:SNOW. bd2412 T 17:43, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pop culture pathology[edit]

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

The article does not have proper sources, and a Google search turns up nothing related at all. There is a very good chance that this is a hoax, but even if it isn't, without proper verification, the article cannot be allowed here. See WP:V for the verification policy, and WP:HOAX for information about what we think of hoaxes. Thank you. NightlyHelper (talk) 17:28, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as G3. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:34, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:18, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as per WP:G3 as a hoax. Looking for the "Botto Experiment" turns up nothing except this article. It may also be of note that the article creator worked on nothing else. XOR'easter (talk) 19:16, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete I tagged this as a pretty certain hoax not long ago. Mccapra (talk) 19:36, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as G3. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 20:33, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - This is without question a hoax. There is an utter lack of any sources corroborating a single piece of information here, and the description of the supposed experiment is completely ludicrous. Rorshacma (talk) 23:35, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've warned the main creator of the article for creating hoaxes, as the community consensus is overwhelmingly in favor of "this is a hoax". NightlyHelper (talk) 00:41, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another example of an IP making well-intentioned but misplaced edits raising a concern about verifiability in this article years ago, only to be reverted as a vandal. (I have seen this with other hoax articles, but I can't remember which ones right now.) So there has been at least some suspicion surrounding the accuracy of this article for almost 7 years. IntoThinAir (talk) 00:47, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a serious article. without proper sources, I believe it’s a hoax. Nikoo.Amini (talk) 00:11, 30 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. Other than walls of text from the article's primary author, unanimous agreement that this fails WP:GNG due to low-quality sources. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:04, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Lindsay[edit]

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

Can't find any independent in-depth coverage of him fails WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 15:52, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:29, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:29, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

off topic

I would be most grateful for some third party opinions on this. This started when I added Dr Ellington Darden as a distinguished alumni on the Florida State University page. DR Darden was a champion bodybuilder (17 titles) and has written 75 books on Health and has sold over 7m copies of his books making him most likely Florida State's most published alumni. In 2018 he was shortlisted by FSU themselves to be the Alumni of the Year. Theroadislong deleted my one line on Darden saying he cant be notable because he doest have a Wiki page. So I write a page for Dr Darden which Theroadislong deleted saying Self promotion (DR Darden is 75 years old and is not chasing self promotion) Then Theroadislong looked through my other work and saw that I have been adding to Ivan Lindsay's site for the last 10 years and he flagged that for Speedy Deletion. Ivan Lindsay is one of the Worlds leading private art dealers (private means the deals are not a matter of public record), has set over 50 world record prices, and he is a writer, lecturer etc. 7 books, 60 articles, lectures all over etc. I started adding a mass of secondary reputable sources to establish notability and trying to make the page better and theroadislong has just been deleting everything as fast as I can load it up. The page has been butchered. He refers to my editing as 'ridiculous' and 'trumpery.' I have stayed polite. Lindsay is a world expert on Stolen Art and has written the definitive work on the subject. He has consistently stood up for women artists who are underrepresented in museums and whose prices are a fraction of male artists work. It would be interesting to ask him to do a page on this for Wikipedia also, maybe for the WomeninRed project. He goes on the radio talking about issues such as the Elgin Marbles and Blogs and writes articles on interesting artistic matters. Art Dealers and writers are categories on Wiki and many his colleagues are there. As one of the top art dealers in the world and a well established author and journalist it is hard to see how Lindsay is not notable enough suddenly after 10 years of having a page. We will circle back to Dr Darden in due course but in the meantime can we keep Lindsay's page please. Thanks.Agnesgerlach (talk) 20:39, 25 September 2019 (UTC) Agnes Gerlach[reply]

Please don't make baseless accusations, your article Ellington darden was tagged for deletion by User:Daiyusha and deleted by User:Athaenara. Wikipedia has articles about notable topics that have been reported on in depth by multiple, independent reliable sources. Many of your sources do not even mention him and the vast majority of the others are his own works which are not suitable. Theroadislong (talk) 10:18, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I seek third party input on this. And I would like an opinion as to whether Theroadislong referring to my editing as 'unsourced trumpery' and 'ridiculous' is acceptable? I had to look up 'trumpery' and Definition sites on Google say it means, "worthless nonsense, garish, vulgar, tasteless, gaudy, showy etc." Does hiding behind a fake name allow him to make comments like this with no recourse? Does he have a track record of talking to women like this?

I admit that my unpaid editing is amateur and contains mistakes but surely that doesn't mean I can be insulted. There must be guidelines on this, no?

I would like Theroadislong to be removed from editing my work. Anyone else, and I mean anyone, will do.

I will return to try and sort out Dr Darden in due course, he is old and ill, and I only wanted to add him as a distinguished alumni on the FSU website.

One thing at a time and that is to seek a third party opinion on whether Ivan Lindsay is notable enough to stay up on Wikipedia. He has been notable enough to be on Wikipedia for these last 10 years and, since he first went up, he has only become more notable with additional books, articles and journalism. The sources I have been adding to Lindsay's page include articles/mentions/quotes/interviews from The Independent Newspaper, The Guardian Newspaper, TASS, Country and Town House Magazine, Gstaad Life Magazine, Hermitage Magazine, Spears Magazine, Russianartandculture platform, York Festival of Ideas, Matryoshka Radio, and a list of Lindsay's own books and articles. Lindsay's writing and blogging attracts a wide readership because he takes a view on controversial subjects such as:- Why are women so underrepresented in Museums?/ What are women artists worth so much less than men?/ Is the most expensive painting in the world, Leonardo's Salvator Mundi, a fake?/ Is Contemporary art a Ponzi scheme?/ Are the English aristocracy irrelevant?/ Where do all the stolen masterpieces end up? and so on.

While the Lindsay page is on trail, and awaiting execution, I will continue to add more sources and tidy it up if someone can please stop Theroadislong from butchering it. Agnesgerlach (talk) 14:37, 26 September 2019 (UTC)Agnes Gerlach[reply]

This is not the appropriate place for these comments. You can read about third opinions here Wikipedia:Third opinion or ask for help at Wikipedia:Teahouse. The sources you have mentioned are his own writings, they are not independent sources and are of no use for establishing notability. Theroadislong (talk) 14:47, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Surely it is appropriate when discussing a writer to list his books and articles as I have done? And saying the sources mentioned are his own writings is just not true. Where Lindsay is interviewed by Country and Town House Magazine, Tvoya Istoriya, Russianartandculture, Russian News Agency TASS, Matryoshka Radio (Russian Language) etc these are not Lindsay's own writings. Would these people be wanting to interview someone who wasn't notable? Where he is quoted in the Independent and participates in the York Festival of Ideas it is not his own writings. When he chairs panel discussions and judges the Design for London awards it is not his own writings. The Mensa Society invited Lindsay to be the lead speaker at their Annual Conference at Cambridge University in 2008. And then encouraged him to enlarge the talk into a book...which he did(The History of Loot and Stolen art). Speakers are selected by Mensa members (who have an IQ at or above 98% of the population) for being notable in their relative field. Nobody gets to lecture there who isn't notable. The theme of the Conference was the 7 deadly sins and Lindsay was invited to speak on Greed as he is an expert on Stolen Art. When he is invited to lecture in London, Washington, Moscow and elsewhere it is because the people inviting him to speak think he is notable. Would the magazines quoted who asked Lindsay to write for them have done so if they didn't think he had something interesting to say? Would Lindsay get all his books published if Publishers did not believe people wanted to read his work? Lindsay is notable in several of Wikipedia's categories incl. businessman, writer and journalist.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Agnesgerlach (talk • contribs) 21:47, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Interviews are not considered suitable sources and 26 of the article's sources are to his own work. Theroadislong (talk) 22:03, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The long list of references for stuff he has written or interviews of him do not justify the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by David notMD (talk • contribs) 21:23, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ We need to bring this back on-topic (and perhaps collapse some of the above comments). I have just reviewed the article in the context of this accusation made by Agnesgerlach at the Teahouse of rudeness against Theroadislong for using words like 'trumpery and 'ridiculous' to describe deletion edits to this article. I find the article so replete with unverifiable, puffed up statements, that extracting any reliable evidence of Notability to be almost impossible in its present state. I am not suggesting blowing it up and starting again, rather, that all unsubstantiated and over-egged statements (see two masterclass examples in my Teahouse response) probably need weeding out before anything notable and verifiable can be found. If it's there, I invite Agnesgerlach to focus on that and to bringing it to the fore by deleting the remaining unsubstantiated and/or over-egged waffle which serves this person no good whatsoever. I feel this is now a task for another day, and possibly for other editors to perform. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:46, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Enough puffery-pruning has now been done for me to express my view that this person does not meet our WP:NBIO criteria. That said, I'd be keen to change it if evidence can be brought forward to show that their work/writings have had a significant, wide impact in their sphere of influence. If so, please ping me. Other that that, this is merely a curriculum vitae of an art historian. Nick Moyes (talk) 03:01, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't show WP:BASIC. He is quoted in some WP:RS [8], but that's not what is wanted. Spear's Wealth Management Survey seems a decent publication, but writing in it doesn't directly help in this context. Being written about in it would. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:42, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Save looking at Wikipedia's guidelines for Notability and Biography it says that People are likely to be notable where they 'have made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field.' Or that they are responsible for, 'originating a significant new concept,' or that they 'played a major role in creating a significant body of work." I would like to propose that Lindsay satisfies these criteria in at least 3 specific fields:-
1. Looted art. Lindsay has written the only book (The History of Loot and Stolen Art, from antiquity until the present day), which covers the major looting episodes through history from ancient times up until the present day. He examines the origins of Looting with the Romans, and traces theft through the Crusades, Vikings, Spanish colonization of the Americas, Frances Drake, The Swedes, Cromwell, Napoleon, Greece, Elgin, Punitive expeditions against the Ashanti/Benin, Hitler and so on. He looks at the what they stole, where it is today and examines the motivation of the looters. He suggests that pursuing Loot and Art was in fact the primary motivation behind the expansionist plans of many of History's greatest warlords. For example, Alexander the Great looted to avoid bankruptcy and pay his army, the Vikings for personal gain, Napoleon to fill the Louvre and Hitler to make a museum in his home town of Linz that would surpass all European museums. This idea calls for a rewriting of history and has been considered sufficiently interesting to warrant Lindsay being invited to lecture at outfits like the Mensa Society at Cambridge, York Festival of ideas, the Capital Speakers Club in Washington and so on. The book is usually quoted when anyone starts seriously looking at Stolen Art and and Lindsay is considered a world expert on the subject.
2. Russian art of the mid 20th Century. Lindsay spent 10 years in and out or Russia researching this topic, meeting artists, museum curators and archivists. In the West, Soviet art is mainly considered Propaganda produced for the Soviet Government. But the Russian's don't believe that and are of the opinion that amongst the Soviet Kitsch there were some excellent painters and sculptors that they have collected and display in the Russian museums. With exhibitions, 6 books, many articles, lectures and panel discussions Lindsay is attempting to change Western thinking about the period. For a review of one of the key books in this series, Masterpieces of Soviet Painting and Sculpture, Unicorn Publishing Group, 2016, from Craig Owen Jones of POP Matters see: - ^[1]
3. Lindsay's most recent book 'Soviet Women and their Art, the Spirit of Equality' is an even more obscure subject for the West although a subject which resonates in the age of ME:TOO. After the Russian Revolution of 1918, The Soviets declared men and women equal and women, with considerable help from Soviet female activists, for a time, received rights that were ahead of the those held by women in the West at the time. Immediately after the Revolution, the Bolsheviks passed legislation to emancipate women. In quick succession the Bolsheviks legalized abortion and divorce, made cohabitation socially acceptable and replaced religious marriage with a simple registration procedure. Such measures were designed to liberate women from male domination and to allow them to choose to join the workforce over raising a family. How this story unfolds is examined through the eyes of women artists and sculptors. How some of these ideas were more influential on women's rights in the West, than has been previously recognized, is examined in the book. Lindsay produced and co authored this book while inviting other leading experts in this field to participate such as Rena Lavery, Dr Natalia Murray, Dr Katia Kapushesky and Dr Elizaveta Butakova.
Leaving aside Lindsay's body of articles, lectures, panel discussions etc, in these 3 subjects Lindsay has undoubtably made a widely recognized contribution that will become part of the enduring historical records of these particular (and very young) fields of research. None of these 3 subjects have been studied in this way before. They are not mainstream subjects that attract a mass of reviews and discussion but the original ideas put forward, gained from painstaking primary research in remote places, will slowly filter in to the mainstream over the years.
I acknowledge this article was loose and needed editing at the beginning of this rewrite, but this was due to inexperience, and all the fluff has now been extinguished just leaving the facts. The Mensa Society, the Universities where he has lectured, the magazines and publishers who publish his work, and his readership all think he is notable and I ask Wikipedia to reconsider deleting his page, particularly as these are interesting subjects where he is trying to advance Western Knowledge.
Agnesgerlach (talk) 17:17, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.popmatters.com/masterpieces-of-soviet-painting-and-sculpture-edited-by-rena-lavery-and-iva-2495420666.html

Comment I am one of the above Deletes (I forgot to sign), but want to state here that where he lectured and what he published is not enough if people have not written ABOUT HIM. If this happens in the future, then an article can be written about him then. I cut some more chaff, but it's like first time with an artichoke - no idea if there is anything of value in the center. David notMD (talk) 19:13, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Save~~<--[struck dup !vote] "No idea if there is anything of value in the center?" Hmmmm. Lindsay's last 3 books were launched with signings at Waterstones, Piccadilly and Hatchards (last 2). Not many authors get invited to launch their books at these venues. Other authors who have recently been invited to Hatchards include Andrew Roberts/Boris Johnson/Diane von Furstenberg/ A.N. Wilson/Charles Moore/William Dalrymple. You say people should be writing "ABOUT HIM" to make him notable. I can't agree, his notability as an author is about his writing... which is original, adds to Western Knowledge in at least 3 distinct areas, and is attracting excellent reviews. As previously referenced Wikipedia advises that any biography is notable if "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field." It doesn't say anything about requiring people to write "ABOUT HIM." Well, nobody is disputing that Lindsay has made a contribution so I suppose this hangs on an interpretation of "widely recognized." As such I have added the details about the book launches, a couple of reviews and I am now looking for more. That is... until I get removed as a Wikipedia editor. Having had the temerity to question the language used by Theroadislong when referring to my editing I have a feeling my days are probably numbered.Agnesgerlach (talk) 01:27, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Agnesgerlach: Please only WP:!VOTE once in a discussion. If you want to clarify or change an earlier comment you made, you may do so per WP:REDACT. If you want to respond to a comment made by someone else, you may also do so per WP:AFDFORMAT. You shouldn't, however, begin each new comment with bolded "Save" or "Keep". It might also be a good idea to use this AFD's talk page for any detailed discussion (such as about sources, etc.), you'd like to have with others commenting here. AFD pages which evolve appear to be long walls of text can be hard to sort through for a closing administrator.So, you can use the talk page for really detailed discussion and then simply refer to said discussion on this page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:42, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. My university library has a number of his books and he has some notable publications in journals. It's very possible that their are some Russian language sources that would better support the article. However, the article does not have enough independent sources to meet the criteria at WP:SIGCOV and therefore the article fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 18:23, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ivan fails WP:BASIC as there is no multiple significant secondary coverage in reliable sources. I found this [9], but it's an interview so it's WP:PRIMARY. Also a review of his work [10], but certainly not enough. The references in the article include unreliable blogs, WP:ROUTINE events announcements, his works/quotations of what he said/WP:PRIMARY, not even mentioned in some, passing mentions, or bio listings. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:14, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:11, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mujtaba Farooq[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A politician linked by a non notable Islamist political party. Kutyava (talk) 15:35, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kutyava (talk) 15:35, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Kutyava (talk) 15:35, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:19, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being president of a minor fringe political party is not an instant notability freebie that exempts a person from having to clear WP:GNG on the sourcing, but the sources here are not getting him over WP:GNG: one is a glancing namecheck of his existence in the party's own self-published press release, not a notability-supporting source, and the other is just a 24-word news blurb about him firing one of his underlings, not substantive coverage. This is not enough coverage in and of itself, and the role is not "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have a lot more. Bearcat (talk) 18:21, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOL as the subject has not won any elections neither held any important public post. The article [11] mentions that his party is a new party. --DBig Xrayᗙ 12:49, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOL --SalmanZ (talk) 22:25, 26 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 merge to First Tennessee Park. See AfD discussion for possible alternate merge targets, and suggestions to make this a limited merge. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:00, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First Tennessee Field[edit]

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

The stadium in question never got past the planning/financing stage before being cancelled altogether in 2007. NatureBoyMD (talk) 15:31, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:35, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:35, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Either to team or stadium supposed to replace but didn’t. Hyperbolick (talk) 19:23, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Limited merge of details into First Tennessee Park (the actual now-existing stadium) and Ascend Amphitheater (what's on the site now). Nate • (chatter) 20:54, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Limited merge per Mrschimpf.4meter4 (talk) 18:24, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep , no one except nom disagreeing. While the subject has not been released yet, sources satisfying its notability have been presented (WP:GNG). (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 21:23, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

She Is Miley Cyrus[edit]

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

Although Miley said that she would release two more EPs and then the album, she hasn't followed through on the plan and she heavily implied that they've been scrapped in an interview.[12] It's unlikely that the remaining EPs and the album will be released, so it violates WP:CRYSTAL to include them. Fan4Life (talk) 14:58, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Fan4Life (talk) 14:58, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Fan4Life (talk) 14:58, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the WP:GNG. There’s plenty if coverage here. Unreleased albums are not inherently non-notable, and it isn’t automatically CRYSTAL either - much of the content isn’t speculative, it’s sources commentary from reliable sources. There’s plenty of coverage here. It seems more speculative to say it’s cancelled, and even if it is, it’s probablt make more sense to merge this content than just delete it. Sergecross73 msg me 15:07, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - per Sergecross73, countless sources and good quality relevant content present here. This is the article for her seventh album, and can be updated to reflect any changes in her release plans. See Jesus Is King, which was originally about a completely different project but has still been retained despite a new tracklist, name and artwork.—N Ø 15:23, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - all the sources in the article are from July or earlier, and since then Miley hasn't followed through on the release plan for She Is Here and has heavily implied that the remaining EPs have been scrapped. @MaranoFan: Having an article for her seventh studio album when nothing about it is certain violates WP:CRYSTAL, what has happened with other articles is irrelevant as per WP:OTHERSTUFF. Fan4Life (talk) 15:41, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not CRYSTAL because sources confirming the existence of the album exist in plenty, your assumption that she is scrapping the album is. And in case it was unclear, the Kanye West album was only cited as a recent example so you can grasp this basic concept; since the nomination statement shows that you don’t understand it. It is not the basis for my keep vote.—N Ø 16:14, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is an incorrect application of CRYSTAL. It’d be a violation if we as editors were speculating about the album. That’s different from accurately adding content according to reliable sources. This article is an example of the latter. Again, if anything, ironically, drawing conclusions on what has been “heavily implied” would be more of a CRYSTAL violation than anything. We go by what sources say, not what we think is implied. Sergecross73 msg me 17:12, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:CRYSTAL, future events should only be included if they're certain to happen. It's not at all certain that the remaining EPs and the album will be released. Fan4Life (talk) 19:32, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Under that sort of warped interpretation of CRYSTAL, it’d be impossible to have any future class album or song articles ever, because nothing is ever guaranteed to happen in the future. It’s rather concerning that you seem to think your personal interpretation of a single interview should somehow cancel out a ton of sourced third party commentary and the WP:GNG. That’s not how it works at all... Sergecross73 msg me 02:16, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:FUTUREALBUM, which allows documenting unreleased material if it has "significant independent coverage in reliable sources." Given all the sources, it does seem to have enough coverage to meet the high standard for talking about unreleased information. Vahurzpu (talk) 02:50, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above. It has not been fully established whether or not the album has been canceled. From the interview, it seems more likely that she is just going back to the studio to record music that feels more relevant to her now. Either way, even if the album is canceled, there is enough coverage for an independent article about it. Aoba47 (talk) 02:52, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - maybe we could keep the album page but remove She Is Here and She Is Everything from Miley Cyrus discography and chronology as the interview basically confirms that the remaining EPs aren't going to be released, especially considering that She Is Here was supposed to be released in summer and there's still no sign of it. Fan4Life (talk) 14:11, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend that you stop making/proposing changes like this until you have actual confirmation of these cancellations. Your changes are the closer to violating CRYSTAL/OR than anything else. Sergecross73 msg me 17:28, 26 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. JGHowes ^talk 03:18, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Malena Salazar Maciá[edit]

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

This appears to be a vanity page for a non-notable author. I dug into what I could but I can't find anything in the way of an actual reliable source to confirm anything in this article that would make her notable. In fact, most of the sources are patently unreliable. As far as I can tell, she fails WP:NAUTHOR Also worth noting it's been deleted several times at eswiki. Also worth noting that the award that's linked for her works (to eswiki, no less) is an award to promote Cuban writers who have no published books, so I doubt it's even notable. Praxidicae (talk) 18:41, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:48, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:48, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:21, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~~ OxonAlex - talk 14:51, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. I looked and couldn't find anything on her; She seems to fail WP:NAUTHOUR. The multiple A7 deletions on es seem to attest to this. 💵Money💵emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 14:42, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom.Fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:21, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:23, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gihan Ibrahim[edit]

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

per 3 reasons: WP:SPIP - WP:BIO1E - WP:MASK, the article is exaggerated and her political activity is doubtful, just a normal person who writes in posts in her personal blog and social media accounts, she doesn't has any leading role in Egyptian revolution of 2011 or any notable role by no means, no awards or known efforts, also there are very few reliable sources about her (no sources in Arabic by google search).

about: (she was featured on a cover of Time magazine as "one of the leaders" of Tahrir Square during the Egyptian Revolution of 2011) this phrase is deception, because Time Magazine's cover in Feb. 28, 2011 about a randomly group of youth protesters in Cairo (in the description) and they never write or mention any names, they didn't talk about anyone of them, also the other people in the cover were unknown too.

if she make some interviews with media, that make her a notable person for one event (WP:BIO1E), because there isn't activities, news or any achievements since 2011.Ibrahim.ID ✪ 17:23, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:36, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:36, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:47, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~~ OxonAlex - talk 14:51, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't access the WSJ article that is supposedly about her, but the rest of it jives with the nominator's description. Rockphed (talk) 17:39, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I could not find her name or picture on Time magazine. Alex-h (talk) 13:13, 29 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:43, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Egan (composer)[edit]

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

Clearly conflict of interest (subject contributions), self-promoting, non-notable, doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO, references do not support article / content. Maineartists (talk) 23:24, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:33, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:33, 25 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) 06:22, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vladislav Khalilov[edit]

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

The subject of this article is not relevant to Wikipedia. ArkayusMako (talk) 14:17, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 September 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:30, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:33, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:33, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The AfD nomination was malformatted and the stated reason for deletion given by the nominator does not actually make sense. However, the nominator being a fairly new user, I think we should cut some slack here and to interpret the nomination as made on notability concerns grounds. On substance, the article is currently heavily promotional and relies only on primary and non-independent sources. There is very little in terms of citability in GoogleScholar. Even making allownces for the fact that most of the subject's publications are presumably in Russian, for a genuinely notable scientist with a fairly long career I would have expected a larger citability footprint. As things stand, the subject does not appear to satisfy WP:PROF, plus the current page is too promotional to be retained if a case for marginal academic notability can somehow be made. Nsk92 (talk) 16:53, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. GS citations are tiny, WP:Prof is not passed. BLP reads like a CV. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:26, 27 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 20:59, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ms. Pat[edit]

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

No independent sources.

In the end, this is promotion of a comedian, and it can't be accepted due to there being zero independent sources, listed, or that I was able to find. Other sources out there are no better than the list five. Three of the five are youtube link. One the the subjects own website, which is also listed as an external link in the infobox. Only one source (https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/how-ms-pat-overcame-drugs-prison-and-abuse--and-rose-to-comedy/2017/08/17/ad1d2684-80fd-11e7-902a-2a9f2d808496_story.html?noredirect=on) comes close, but it is clearly not independent of the subject, and worse, it is largely serving to promote the subject. It may not be a paid advertisement, but it is an advertisement.

The topic includes some touching personal details, self-published, and some good messaging, but WP:NOT applies to this sort of thing. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:35, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:46, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:46, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She has her own TV show coming to Hulu according this article from Playbill: [13], and she was profiled here in USA Today. That with The Washington Post article, which is independent of the subject, establishes notability per WP:GNG. Here are a few other reviews to boot: [14], [15], [16].4meter4 (talk) 02:55, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Playbill [17]. Name drop, says nothing about Ms. Pat. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:10, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(2) Profiled USA Today [18]. Yes, seems good coverage. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:13, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(3) Leoweekly. [19]. Straight interview, non-independent promotion, promoting the next show ($25). No. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:28, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(4) Indy Star [20] Maybe a couple of twitches this is promoting upcoming shows and a book, but I think this is good. Yes. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:19, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(5) KUT interview. [21]. Not independent, doesn’t attest notability itself, but may be a good source. The print component is negligible. No. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:23, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mixed source selection, 4meter4. I need to review them again later. #2 and #4 may be sufficient to Keep. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:28, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:26, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep USA Today [22], The Washington Post sources mentioned already [23], Flare (magazine) [24] (there is a part before the interview that is indepth), NUVO (newspaper) [25], a paragraph on The New York Times [26], San Antonio Express-News [27], and a coverage in a magazine [28] make her pass WP:BASIC with multiple significant coverage in reliable sources. Plus, if her Hulu pilot gets a series order, there is another possible venue of coverage right there. Not to mention the coverage/reviews related to her book [29], [30], [31], [32], [33]. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:56, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. The article was speedily deleted at 11:49, September 28, 2019 (UTC) by administrator Deb for multiple reasons: WP:G11 and WP:G12. Mz7 (talk) 10:27, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joy Records[edit]

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

Advertising Rathfelder (talk) 14:26, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 14:26, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:27, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:27, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:27, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I do not see any reason why this article was not speedily deleted per CSD G11? KartikeyaS343 (talk) 19:40, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note - article creator is blocked for socking. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 19:43, 27 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 Decepticons. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:11, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kickback (Transformers)[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional character TTN (talk) 11:14, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:14, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:14, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:14, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:25, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Decepticons I don't see any independent notability for this character. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:20, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Decepticons seconded. Already in the list. Let's clear out some of these relists. -2pou (talk) 22:40, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Decepticons - redirects are cheap. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:45, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Decepticons. Not enough notability for a standalone article.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:56, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Transformers comics characters. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:01, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whisper (Transformers)[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional character TTN (talk) 11:30, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:30, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:30, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the appropriate Transformer list of characters. There are several, and I am not conversant enough in this series to say which list it should redirect to, my apologies. Absent a viable list, simply Delete as there is zero real world notability.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:00, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:25, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Transformers comics characters.4meter4 (talk) 18:26, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Transformers (toy line). bd2412 T 17:11, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Transformers SCF[edit]

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

Non-notable toy line, just a collection of trivial details suited to Fandom. TTN (talk) 13:05, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:22, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:23, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:23, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Transformers (toy line). This article is nothing but a un-sourced toy catalog, and should not exist as an independent article. That said, as it is an actual toyline in the franchise, and is not a completely implausible search term, a redirect to the main article on the franchise toy lines seems appropriate. Rorshacma (talk) 16:12, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:23, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Rorshacma recommendation and WP:CHEAP. If someone wants to merge something, the history can provide content without simply being hidden. -2pou (talk) 09:00, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget as above and per WP:NOTCATALOG AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:18, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Transformers (toy line). this seems like the best solution for now... - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:20, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:15, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sanat Kumara Chakravarti[edit]

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

I tried to find the sources in the WP:RS but didn't find much. This is completely mythological person and I added like that but person had removed my edits. It seems that this fails WP:GNG and thus should be deleted. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 06:26, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 06:26, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 06:26, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 06:26, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You added 'claimed to be Chakravarti' it is not a news article it's about 4th Chakravarti like Bharat Chakravarti of the Jain tradition. AND IT IS MENTIONED IN JAIN TRADITION. So whats the need of claimed to be its written in Jain tradition how it can be again claimed to be xyz in Jain tradition? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rishabh.rsd (talk • contribs) 06:47, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Can't access the linked encyclopedia. No google books/scholar hits for this name (well, one book, but seems a different topic). Also, the article uses jargon that makes it difficult to assess it asserts the importance (notability) of the topic to verify the source exists and covers the subject (ping timeout). Finally, since it is a simple sentence, the deletion of this sub-stub is of no loss to Wikipedia, as the article can be easily recreated if needed and if proper sources are found. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:23, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- You need to look for Sanatkumara born in Hastinapura. Uncle G (talk) 16:39, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Plenty references available for proving notability and passing GNG. Added and improved the article. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:43, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:45, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 15:40, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:19, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:HEY, WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG with the sources added by Dharmadhyaksha.4meter4 (talk) 18:30, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Sole author has requested deletion. Haukur (talk) 19:44, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The St George’s Healthcare National Health Service Trust (Transfer of Trust Property) Order 2014[edit]

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

Has this received any attention from reliable, independent sources? Such orders are often very mundane things with little or no lasting importance or impact outside the "players" directly involved with it (looking at the list of 2014 UK orders shows things like "The A4042 Trunk Road (Mamhilad Roundabout to Court Farm Roundabout, Torfaen) (Temporary Traffic Restrictions & Prohibition) Order 2014" and "The A5 Trunk Road (Atherstone, Warwickshire) (Temporary Prohibition of Traffic) Order 2014", so it's not as if we need this article to get our coverage of the orders completed). Fails WP:N Fram (talk) 14:10, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G7 - I recognise that the focus of this is currently too narrow without independent sources but I would argue that government orders are still important sources of information despite the fact they will rarely get any outside attention. Gazamp (talk) 17:04, 25 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:09, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre Rautenbach[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:N. No sources beyond his dissertations. One item under Google Scholar relating to his book. Wyatt Tyrone Smith (talk) 14:02, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:03, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:03, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:03, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The only sources in the article are this esteemed person's own works (two papers, one book). This is no different than self-promotion, even if it isn't one. Independent sources are required to show that this person, and not his algorithms, have an impact on the world around it. I cannot even advise merging this article with 3D rendering (while changing the focus to the algorithm instead of the person) because the algorithm needs to receive peer-review first and get implemented. flowing dreams (talk page) 08:00, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NACADEMIC, WP:GNG. and WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 15:57, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Warhammer Fantasy (setting). -- RoySmith (talk) 15:17, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tilea[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional topic TTN (talk) 18:08, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:08, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:08, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:11, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Warhammer Fantasy (setting) where it is already adequately covered - not notable enough for a stand-alone article, no significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources per WP:GNG - Epinoia (talk) 01:22, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:02, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG - fine with the redirect suggestion above. SportingFlyer T·C 02:12, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Warhammer Fantasy (setting). Zero real world notability. I'm fine with a redirect, but I don't see any coverage in the target, perhaps I missed it.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:13, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect ro Warhammer Fantasy (setting) per above. Not opposed to merging anything worth.4meter4 (talk) 15:59, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) --- Coffeeandcrumbs 05:02, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anything Goes (John McGlinn recording)[edit]

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

Fails all of the criteria of WP:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Notability of recordings. -- Softlavender (talk) 20:33, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:35, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first recording of the original version of the musical.Niggle1892 (talk) 21:35, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. note that it also fails WP:NALBUM and WP:COPYVIO. The main bulk of the article consists of long paraphrases of critics reviews - these are certainly violations of copyright.Smerus (talk) 06:56, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

copyvio concerns can be removed, this has happened. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:43, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, although technically meeting no. 1 of WP:NALBUM - "subject of multiple [ie. 2 or more], non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble who created it." as article (now after possible copyvio being removed) lists reviews by Gramophone and Sound & Vision, past consensus amongst classical album wikieditors appears to require more. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:06, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per WP:NALBUM. The article's COPYVIO issue has now been addressed - brief quotes from reviews will be supplied in due course. The album is the first historically informed recording of the work and of fundamental importance in its discography. See Opera Now, April 1991, p. 45 for further discussion.Niggle1892 (talk) 16:00, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per criteria 1 in WP:NALBUM. The uniqueness of this recording is discussed in context to the show and other recordings in the book Anything Goes: A History of American Musical Theatre By Ethan Mordden, OUP USA, 2013, pg 141, 307, and 312. The work was also reviewed in ''Fanfare, 1993, Volume 16, Issues 5-6, Page 415; Stereo Review, 1991, Volume 56, Page 53; Theater Week, 1991, Volume 3, Issues 21-29 - Page 42; and Musical America, 1990, Volume 110, Issue 2, Page 76.4meter4 (talk) 20:23, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:01, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See also Steven Suskin's The Sound of Broadway Music, 2011; Ethan Mordden's Sing For Your Supper, 2015, p. 65; ARSC Journal, Vol. 23, 1992, p. 166. The importance of McGlinn in the history of American musical theater is almost impossible to overstate.Niggle1892 (talk) 20:48, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:NALBUM with multiple reviews in article and listed above. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:38, 27 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. GNG and NALBUM appear to be met. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:08, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My Funny Valentine (Frederica von Stade album)[edit]

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

Article creator is creating articles on Frederica Von Stade's discography, in violation of WP:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Notability of recordings. -- Softlavender (talk) 20:35, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:36, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. note that it also fails WP:NALBUM and WP:COPYVIO. The main bulk of the article consists of long paraphrases of critics reviews - these are certainly violations of copyright.Smerus (talk) 06:56, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

copyvio concerns can be removed, this has happened. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:26, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NALBUM. The article's COPYVIO issue has been addressed - brief review excerpts will be supplied in due course. Niggle1892 (talk) 17:12, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per criteria 1 of WP:NALBUM. The work was critically reviewed in several offline publications, including The New Republic, Volume 205, page 12, Herbert David Croly, 1991; Fanfare, Joel Flegler, Volume 17, Issue 1, Page 196, 1993; Show Music magazine, Volume 7, 1991, Page 51; Gramophone, Volume 69, Issues 824-828, Page 39; and Stereo Review, Volume 48, Page 62, 1983. In addition the recording is discussed on page 366 of American Opera Singers and Their Recordings: Critical Commentaries and Discographies, Clyde T. McCants, McFarland Press, 2004, and in The Complete Book of 1920s Broadway Musicals By Dan Dietz, Rowman & Littlefield, 2019, page 474.4meter4 (talk) 20:03, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:01, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See also Theater Week, Vol. 4, 1990, p. 37 and American Record Guide, Vol. 54, Issues 1-3, 1991, p. 187.Niggle1892 (talk) 15:59, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NALBUM with numerous reviews, i am confused as to why 2 experienced editors (hi Softlavender, and Smerus) seem to have chosen to ignore a key point of this guideline in their nomination/"delete" statement, i would interested in their reasonings behind this, i do note that the article creator has recently created lots of classical album articles that have all(?) been sent to afd but will most probably be "kept" as notable, i don't see how doing this may be anything but discouraging for a new editor (although, they appear to have take it on the chin and are (thankfully:)) carrying on regardless), looking at their talkpage it is nice that a number of editors have assisted them in their wikiexperience ... probably should stop now. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:36, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's true that getting almost fifty AfD nominations in one evening wasn't very nice. (It'll be a long time before I forget the queasy feeling of watching the number on my bell icon ticking remorselessly up and up, and being afraid to click on it to find out what was going on.) The only reason that I didn't throw in the towel was that so many people sent me kind messages of advice and support.Niggle1892 (talk) 02:21, 27 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 no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:07, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Project Lead the Way[edit]

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

All sources are affiliated or local. Google search for news didn't turn up anything beyond bare mentions. Is this really notable? valereee (talk) 17:10, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. valereee (talk) 17:10, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. valereee (talk) 17:10, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:56, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:01, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:01, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's a plethora of news articles from across the United States about projects by this National program when one does a simple google news search. Sourcing to meet WP:GNG would take very little effort.4meter4 (talk) 02:46, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:18, 25 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) 🐱 14:00, 25 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 No consensus. In the course of this discussion, it emerged that there are additional reliable, independent sources. In order to establish notability, however, substantive reviews and not mere listings or passing mention, are required. There is as yet no clear consensus that the sourcing demonstrates notability. JGHowes ^talk 00:17, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Debussy Mélodies (1980 recording)[edit]

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

Fails all of the criteria of WP:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Notability of recordings. -- Softlavender (talk) 20:49, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:50, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. note that it also fails WP:NALBUM and WP:COPYVIO. The main bulk of the article consists of long paraphrases of critics reviews - these are certainly violations of copyright.Smerus (talk) 06:56, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Criteria one of recordings in WP:NALBUM specifically states that the subject has been the subject of multiple independent sources then the album is notable. Not only does the article sufficiently cite enough references to meet this standard, but here is another references which indicates notability: [34]. Any copyright concerns can be addressed through removal or rewriting of offending content, not deletion.4meter4 (talk) 21:39, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:15, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NALBUM. The article's COPYVIO issue has been addressed - brief review excerpts will be supplied in due course.Niggle1892 (talk) 16:13, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:59, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For coverage of the album in addition to that cited in the article, see Classic CD, Issues 22-26, 1992, p. 46 and Alan Blyth's Song on Record, 1986, pp. 97-102.Niggle1892 (talk) 10:54, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Niggle1892, I suggest you change this second contribution to "Comment" instead of "Keep". Etiquette at AFD is to only say "Keep" or "Delete" one time.4meter4 (talk) 13:36, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done, and many thanks for the tip.Niggle1892 (talk) 13:43, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For further coverage of this album, see Teresa Davidian's Experiencing Debussy, 2018, p. 123; The New Penguin Stereo Record and Cassette Guide, 1982, p. 247; Fanfare, Vol. 5, Issue 4, 1982, p. 2; The Complete Penguin Stereo Record and Cassette Guide, 1984, p. 332; The Penguin Guide to Bargain Compact Discs, 1999, p, 322; American Record Guide, Vol. 55, Issues 4-6, 1992, p. 97; Opera, Vol. 31, Issues 7-12, 1980, p. 969; Saturday Review, Vol. 9, Issues 7-11, 1983, p. 56; Le monde de la musique, Issues 24-29, 1980, p. 59; Le point, 1980, p. 29; L'Express, Issues 1525-1537, 1980, p. 33; Le nouvel observateur, 1981, p. 5. (Source: Google Books) The album attracted a great deal of attention because recordings of Debussy's entire song output are extremely rare.Niggle1892 (talk) 23:03, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:44, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Anderson (saxophonist)[edit]

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

Not notable, not enough sources for an article of substance. No significant impact in jazz. Spent most of his time as sax player for Prince and Kanye West. Vmavanti (talk) 16:53, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:56, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:57, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: (Disclosure: as creator of the original stub. Given that most jazz musicians with encyclopaedic articles at Wikipedia cannot be said to have had a "significant impact in [sic] jazz", guidelines such as "... multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" (Wikipedia:Notability (people)) seem to work for the majority of cases, especially when from reliable sources, even if they are mere mentions. Likewise, regarding the statement "not enough sources for an article of substance" (that's what stub class articles are all about —Wikipedia:Do not confuse stub status with non-notability). As for the final comment above ("Spent most of his time as sax player for Prince and Kanye West."), am not sure if that is a critical assessment of a career or an example of a perceived lack of notability. Possibly notability tag, rather than AfD, should have been considered. --Technopat (talk) 10:09, 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 08:32, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, fails WP:Notability (music). In taking a look at the Jazz Times article, which is a significant publication, Keith Anderson was the main subject of that review. The other sources appear to be about the artists he has played with as the main subject, and he is only mentioned tangentially. If another source where he is the main subject can be found, than he would meet the criteria for inclusion. I suggest digging around to see if any music critics from other publications, including newspapers, may have reviewed one of his concerts. If that's the case, he would satisfy wikipedia's notability requirements.4meter4 (talk) 02:09, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 12:56, 25 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. I think the realist was made in error, NFOOTY is merely a presumption of GNG. The delete votes clearly show this player does not pass GNG. Fenix down (talk) 15:58, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jovan Tatović[edit]

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

Only played one game as a substitute in the Serbian SuperLiga which might seem to pass WP:NFOOTY but the possible worry of WP:GNG is there with that limited gametime. HawkAussie (talk) 12:36, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 12:36, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 12:36, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 12:36, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:NFOOTY. I don't think game time is a worry here. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 12:41, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:NFOOTY. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:25, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NFOOTY which indicates reliable sources should be available offline if not online Atlantic306 (talk) 13:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NFOOTY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:04, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The player appears to have made his debut aged 14 or 15 which could very well be enough for GNG if significant coverage of this event can be found in Serbian sources Seasider91 (talk) 18:15, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
...but does it meet GNG? One sub appearance four years ago is no reason to keep an article if we don't have reliable, independent, secondary sources to base an article on. I will make a search but I won't have time for a few days. Requesting this not be snow kept without consensus about GNG. – Levivich 03:45, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – unsurprisingly, searching for the player with one sub appearance four years ago is turning up only a few brief mentions. [35] [36] [37] – Levivich 04:31, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:33, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - one appearance four-and-a-half-years ago and no career of any note since? No significant coverage in reliable sources that I can find? Failing GNG is more important than technically passing NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:36, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article about footballer who made a single appearance in a fully-pro league, but which comprehensively fails the GNG. I've searched online Serbian-language sources and found nothing covering this footballer in depth. Online English-language sources only consist of database entries. Jogurney (talk) 15:48, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Jogurney.4meter4 (talk) 20:51, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Same situation as with Branislav Tošić, now deleted (in agreement with what Rockphed said in that AfD). In fact, he seems even less non-notable. He meets WP:NFOOTY, but does not have any in-depth sourcing that would make him go over WP:BASIC and it's just one pro appearance 4 years ago! Only passing mentions in my searches, and the sources in the article are either passing or flat out terrible (Facebook, seriously?). Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:10, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To mention again, WP:NFOOTY is a part of WP:NATH. WP:NATH's FAQ at Wikipedia:Notability (sports)/FAQ says "The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline" and that "the article must still eventually provide sources indicating that the subject meets the general notability guideline". Enough said. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:12, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: An example of the NFOOTY/GNG dispute - more discussion in this particular example to consider the FAQ mentioned
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 12:54, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete two things: we tend to delete players who only made one appearance, especially if they substituted on, and WP:GNG isn't shown, and recently we deleted a SuperLiga player who should still be notable, but not enough sources were found to get him over the WP:GNG line in spite of his over 20 appearances. Tatović fails WP:GNG and, with our rule against single-time subs, the spirit of WP:NFOOTY. He's not that old and can still get over the WP:NFOOTY line in the future, but we can recreate if/when that happens. SportingFlyer T·C 00:51, 26 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) 06:20, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Transformers Animated (toy line)[edit]

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

Non-notable toy line TTN (talk) 12:00, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:00, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:00, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NFICTION/WP:GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:21, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 18:35, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. Withdrawn by nominator's helper with the reason Withdrawn by nominator. The IP who was agitating for this seems unhappy that I've nominated it. Accordingly I'm withdrawing this. Obviously without prejudice to anyone else keen to delete it, but that's the last time I'll be assisting that IP. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:21, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Svante Thunberg[edit]

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

Svante Thunberg is the husband of Swedish opera singer Malena Ernman and the father of climate activist Greta Thunberg - both obviously notable people. Svante Thunberg was an actor until giving up his career to care for his kid(s). Basically all mentions of him in reliable sources are throwaway lines about "... the father of Greta Thunberg", or before Greta became famous, "... the husband of Malena Ernman" (in Swedish media). I have not been able to unearth any significant, non-trivial coverage of him either as an actor or an author or indeed anything else, outside of "dad" and "husband". (I'm taking the liberty to add a short summary up here in the top since I'm the one who requested the nomination per [[WP: AFDHOW2]], but User:Andy Dingley forgot to paste in my rationale for the nomination.)110.165.186.42 (talk) 13:43, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On request of 110.165.186.42 Andy Dingley (talk) 11:18, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've seen no plausible rationale for deleting this. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:19, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- If you didn't bother to look at the rationale provided, maybe you should abstain from voting.110.165.186.42 (talk) 14:36, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then maybe I should withdraw it altogether. Thankyou. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:06, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My motivation for the nomination (which I posted on the talk page) is that this article seems to fail the basic notability criteria. There doesn't seem to be any significant non-trivial coverage of Thunberg. I checked the Swedish Wikipedia page and even there, all the links are just "databases" proving he's appeared in this or that stage show/movie/TV show, or articles about either his wife Malena Ernman or daughter Greta Thunberg (both who are clearly notable). He's appeared in some productions but it's not clear to me that the roles he played in them were "significant" (per WP:NACTOR).

I tried looking him up on Google and while I get hits for several news articles where his name appears even before Greta became famous, they all seem to be trivial mentions as "Malena Ernman's husband"). A google news search for

"svante thunberg" -"greta" -"malena"

receives 1 casual mention of another man sharing his name/surname complaining about traffic noise in Stockholm. ([38])

A google search for

"svante thunberg är" or "svane thunberg har" (i.e. "... is" "... has") -"greta" -"malena"

receives two mentions of other people sharing the same name, one inventor, another unclear, no mention whatsoever of acting.

I also want to add that this nomination isn't about trying to "get to Greta" so I hope everyone will keep a cool head. Greta and her mother Malena are obviously notable, but I don't see a case for Svante's notability and I've made a good effort to find any evidence that he might actually be, but failed.110.165.186.42 (talk) 12:28, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note to nominator - You are the nominator. So you can not vote, I recommend you change it to a Comment. As your nomination is a vote in itself. BabbaQ (talk) 14:50, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the headsup. I changed it to "comment". 110.165.186.42 (talk) 15:08, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:21, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:21, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:22, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I see no rationale for deletion. Clearly meets WP:GNG. Per sourcing which is good. Established acting career.BabbaQ (talk) 12:44, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- If he has an established acting career, could you please post an example of any non-trivial coverage of it? Because there's none in the article as it is now. Can you find any coverage of him that's not related to his daughter or wife, let alone significant, non-trivial coverage? Because I haven't been able to find anything outside of automated ImDB type stuff. 110.165.186.42 (talk) 12:47, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The sources in the article are currently as follows:

1) An article about his daughter where there's a trivial mention of him and his wife becoming vegans because of her. Not significant. Trivial.

2) an article about his daughter which mentions in one line her father was with her on the trans-Atlantic boat trip. Not significant. Trivial.

3) and 4) are from the Swedish population registry. Obviously trivial.

5) is a database of the imdb type, but for Swedish theatre "Dramaten", showing Thunberg has appeared in 3 plays, once as an extra, once as a choir member, and once as a character called "Ettan" in Peter Pan (unclear which character this is, but most likely not a major one. No mention of a character called "Ettan" in the Swedish Peter Pan Wiki article). Judging from this source, he does certainly not seem to have ever be an established theatre actor.

6) is a newspaper article not available online and unverified, with the title: "Åtta av 567 fick chansen", "Eight out of 567 people got the oppurtunity". It seems to have been an article mentioning he was one of few accepted either to Gothenburg university or Dramaten. Trivial.

7) 8) 9) Imdb and Imdb type entries without any further comment or text on the actor whatsoever. Trivial

10) 11) interviews with Thunberg's wife where he is mentioned several times. His wife (Malena) talks about her home life and mentions how her husband gave up his career to take care of the children while she's on tour (as an opera singer). The most signifcant coverage of the bunch, but still entirely in relation to his wife, and certainly not evidence he had a notable career as an actor.

12) Review (published in a Swedish newspaper) of the book he wrote with his wife and daughter. One mention of his "character" in the book, no further mentioning of him.

It should be obvious that as it currently stands, the article does most definitely not meet WP:GNG and especially not WP:NACTOR or WP:AUTHOR.110.165.186.42 (talk) 13:12, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I'm not seeing sufficient notability independent of his daughter or wife. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:36, 25 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) 12:00, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Snotling[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable fictional topic. The reception is trivial. TTN (talk) 10:52, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 10:52, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 10:52, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:10, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ Delete ~~(to Ork (Warhammer 40,000))~~ - a very minor part of the 40K species with no non-inuniverse coverage. It might warrant a line but not a merge. Does seem a legitimate search target. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:00, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ZXCVBNM makes an excellent point about there being two legitimate redirect targets, so a redirect would be less suitable. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:18, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, and given that the term is used by two fictional universes, Warhammer and Warhammer 40k, it's probably better for the search function to return results than send people to the wrong place._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:31, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the name may be the best thing to come out of Warhammer, but otherwise nobody cares. It seems that this name is so awesome as to warp time and show up in a 1912 catalog of US government publications (okay, so it was a Walter O. Sn*tling who authored something). With the two targets, I agree that a redirect is inappropriate. Rockphed (talk) 17:51, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ork (Warhammer 40,000). If we're taking a "delete as no coverage outside the universe" than there'd be nothing under Category:Warhammer 40,000 outside of the lead article alone. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:10, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

and thats a bad thing? Coolabahapple (talk) 09:31, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bad thing when it's done by incremental attrition, where an editor nominates articles one-by-one through an obviously notable set, until at the end there's nothing at all left, and much of the justification for each deletion was based on "Well, we've just deleted <snotling>, so <Orks> aren't notable either". This has just been done to Kill Bill, where the character articles have now been deleted, even the overall list article.

If anyone wants to delete the whole of Warhammer, then go for it. But do it openly, don't just start chipping bits off from the bottom. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:30, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If something is “obviously notable,” then it will have sources to back it up. No amount of OTHERSTUFF being deleted would allow something truly notable to be deleted. TTN (talk) 13:50, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. 'Cute' little buggers. I found a few mentions on them in non-WH text that suggest they are a dictionary topic (ex. "he looked like a snotling hedgehog with alopecia"). There are some mentions in passing like [39] but I couldn't find anything in-depth. I like them personally, but I can't find any justification for keeping them as a stand-alone article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:29, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Not sure what sourced material there is to merge. SportingFlyer T·C 02:14, 30 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 Tyranid. RL0919 (talk) 12:03, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Genestealer[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional topic TTN (talk) 10:51, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 10:51, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 10:51, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:11, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tyranids as part of that alien race. The Tyranid article appears notable, though requires additional referencing._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:15, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: while I feel like Tyranids should be notable enough for an article, the current sourcing on that article is entirely to primary sources. Genestealer should either redirect to Tyranids or to a list of sides in Warhammer 40,000 if Tyranids is found to not be notable. Rockphed (talk) 17:58, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tyranids. If that ever ends up at AfD ping me and I'll try to find sources, I'd also think there should be some coverage of that race. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:31, 30 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 Toa (Bionicle). Everyone agrees to remove this as a standalone article, with a small majority in favor of ending up with a redirect to Toa (Bionicle). Per RoySmith and Not a very active user, there doesn't seem to be much worth merging, but it will still be there in the page history if anyone wants to give it a shot. ST47 (talk) 22:59, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Kanohi[edit]

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

No indication about the subject's real-world notability. All the sources in the page seem to be primary. Not a very active user (talk) 10:26, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 10:26, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 10:26, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Toa, the primary users of Kanohi. No need for standalone article. Toa Nidhiki05 12:14, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 03:15, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Trivial list of plot details that belongs on Fandom. TTN (talk) 11:21, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Toa.4meter4 (talk) 18:38, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Toa. At first glance, the suggestion to merge seems like a reasonable application of WP:ATD, but this article is all poorly-sourced fancruft, so at best, a very limited merge. The problem is, the target is also a pile of poorly-source francruft, and a merge of this poorly-sourced material would make it even worse. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:09, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:20, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jeevanko Chheubaata[edit]

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

Non-notable work by Suman Pokhrel. A few users seem to have created articles about everything he's done, linked together by Template:Suman Pokhrel. The author is notable but most, if not all, of his works don't deserve a stand-alone article. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 10:09, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 10:09, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 10:09, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 10:09, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was initially hesitant because I was worried about missing non-English sources and failing to represent the non-Anglophone world, but it does seem like this is just a non-notable guy who's been self-promoted or promoted by his friends. Even searching the Nepali title just brings up Facebook, wikis, and other user-generated content. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:48, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 18:39, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:21, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hazaar Aankhaa Yee Aankhaamaa[edit]

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

Non-notable work by Suman Pokhrel. A few users seem to have created articles about everything he's done, linked together by Template:Suman Pokhrel. The author is notable but most, if not all, of his works don't deserve a stand-alone article. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 10:08, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 10:08, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 10:08, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 10:08, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was initially hesitant because I was worried about missing non-English sources and failing to represent the non-Anglophone world, but it does seem like this is just a non-notable guy who's been self-promoted or promoted by his friends. Even searching the Nepali title just brings up Facebook, wikis, and other user-generated content. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:49, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 18:40, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:21, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shoonya Mutuko Dhadkanbhitra[edit]

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

Non-notable work by Suman Pokhrel. A few users seem to have created articles about everything he's done, linked together by Template:Suman Pokhrel. The author is notable but most, if not all, of his works don't deserve a stand-alone article. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 10:05, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 10:05, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 10:05, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 10:05, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was initially hesitant because I was worried about missing non-English sources and failing to represent the non-Anglophone world, but it does seem like this is just a non-notable guy who's been self-promoted or promoted by his friends. Even searching the Nepali title just brings up Facebook, wikis, and other user-generated content. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:51, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 18:41, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:10, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Story of the Setting Sun and The Moon[edit]

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

Non-notable work by Suman Pokhrel. A few users seem to have created articles about everything he's done, linked together by Template:Suman Pokhrel. The author is notable but most, if not all, of his works don't deserve a stand-alone article. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 10:03, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 10:03, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 10:03, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 10:03, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I kind of wish you'd created a group nomination for the poems by this writer that you submitted for deletion. I'm just going to comment one time, here, but my comment applies to all: A couple of the articles the author of this article created at around the same time were redirected to the article on the poet quite a while back. Redirect, not delete? Largoplazo (talk) 10:18, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Largoplazo, I didn't know group nom was preferred. I thought individual nom allowed users with only little time, to also participate. At any rate, I haven't known that to be possible on twinkle. Trying manual comes with significant risk of messing up, and I fear being bitten. If group nom is really better, can we undo all these and create it anyway? Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 10:30, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I didn't mean to be scolding you, and it would be more difficult because you'd have to do it manually. It's just that in this case I feel like at least my contribution is identical for all the poems whose articles you nominated, but I don't want to take the time to comment at all of the nominations. No reason to change things now, though! Largoplazo (talk) 10:53, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NN poem from NN collection, republished in print-on-demand. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:50, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 18:42, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:22, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Heat (poem)[edit]

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

Non-notable work by Suman Pokhrel. A few users seem to have created articles about everything he's done, linked together by Template:Suman Pokhrel. The author is notable but most, if not all, of his works don't deserve a stand-alone article. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 10:00, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 10:00, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 10:00, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 10:00, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, "published" on Poemhunter gives an idea of the non-notability we're dealing with –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:54, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 18:42, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:22, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are, as You are[edit]

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

Non-notable work by Suman Pokhrel. A few users seem to have created articles about everything he's done, linked together by Template:Suman Pokhrel. The author is notable, but most if not all of his works don't deserve a stand-alone article. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 09:58, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 09:58, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 09:58, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 09:58, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was initially hesitant because I was worried about missing non-English sources and failing to represent the non-Anglophone world, but it does seem like this is just a non-notable guy who's been self-promoted or promoted by his friends. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:46, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 18:43, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 21:02, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Living Death (band)[edit]

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

No evidence of passing WP:GNG or WP:BAND in any capacity. — MarkH21 (talk) 08:22, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 08:22, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 08:22, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 08:22, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note If this gets deleted, the other AFD album nominations and work by the band are eligible for A9 Speedy Deletion. AmericanAir88^(talk) 20:37, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Linking them here for context: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Protected from Reality, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metal Revolution, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vengeance of Hell. — MarkH21 (talk) 10:12, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has quite a lenghy bio at AllMusic here and the German wikipedia article references a Rockpedia book that seems reliable, passes WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 21:49, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not clear to me that AllMusic is a reliable source, particularly since they do accept Product Submissions. The Rockpedia book is also not clearly a reliable source, and I have not verified if it is WP:SIGCOV. So not a convincing WP:GNG case. — MarkH21 (talk) 22:19, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- AllMusic is an established reliable source as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources with an independent experienced staff. All publications accept product submissions even the New York Times (ive made submissions to them), regards Atlantic306 (talk) 20:02, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Atlantic306.4meter4 (talk) 22:04, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems marginally notable. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:34, 3 October 2019 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. JGHowes ^talk 02:28, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Protected from Reality[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM — MarkH21 (talk) 08:20, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 08:20, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 08:20, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 08:20, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources except for the listing on ITunes. Clear violation of WP:NALBUM. AmericanAir88^(talk) 20:35, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Related AfDs: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metal Revolution, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vengeance of Hell, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Living Death (band). — MarkH21 (talk) 10:12, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 21:59, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to North Sydney Oval. Am happy for anyone to dig into the history and merge any content they can source, but with everything completely unreferenced, a basic redirect seems most sensible Fenix down (talk) 11:21, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Stand[edit]

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

Entirely unsourced article about a 1,000-seat stand in a stadium that itself has a more developed article. No evidence that this stand itself passes WP:GNG or any other notability guideline. Very brief mentions in an ESPN article and a book. Current content seems to partially be copied from the official site. — MarkH21 (talk) 08:11, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 08:11, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 08:11, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 08:11, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 08:14, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 08:14, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This has been unsourced for 12 years, but I think there's enough out there for it to be notable in a before search. The stand itself is very old. At worst a merge to North Sydney Oval SportingFlyer T·C 08:37, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reason to have a standalone article for a small stand. Google searches not finding anything further than the nominator, and that is just passing mentions. I can't find anything in the article that is worth putting in the article about the stadium. noq (talk) 09:01, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I get several hits on news.google.com for "Bob Stand" + Sydney, including: [40] and [41], but I can't for the life of me see why this should be an article on its own rather than a paragraph in the main article on the stadium. 110.165.186.42 (talk) 10:16, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into North Sydney Oval. Article only has 2 incoming links, from that article and the larger park that encompasses it. Can't see any reason to keep it as a standalone article. Spike 'em (talk) 10:45, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, for much the same reasons as given by Spike 'em. Meticulo (talk) 11:02, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, brief mentions don't make it notable. I don't think we should redirect the name of a stand to the stadium in which it is located. We're going to end up with George's usual seat → Hooligans' Row → Bob Stand → North Sydney Oval. – Levivich 15:54, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- clearly not notable, no sourced content to merge. I'd recommend redirecting but, if the (unsourced) etymology of the name is correct, there may be other bob stands at other stadiums. Reyk _YO! 16:14, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:39, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to North Sydney Oval. Giant Snowman 08:41, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There's no sourced material in the article to merge anywhere. — MarkH21 (talk) 08:51, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to North Sydney Oval. Given it is a grandstand that has been part of two of Sydney's major sporting grounds (an unusual occurrence) the redirect is appropriate - there is sufficient notability for the stand to be referenced inside the ground article (though I agree a standalone article is not). North Sydney Council's heritage publication here and the SCG page support the line that the stand's name was derived from the admission price during the Depression. Bookscale (talk) 12:09, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - and note to the nominator, the "official site" is not the official site of the ground the stand is currently at, it's where it was taken from in the 1980s. Bookscale (talk) 12:10, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per the comment from Levich and Reyk as it's not really a notable stand unlike some of the more famous ones that are out there. HawkAussie (talk) 23:10, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment- why is a redirect to the North Sydney Oval page not appropriate? Bookscale (talk) 01:23, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Per Levivich's argument as well as the possible non-uniqueness of the name suggested by Reyk. Besides that (and this is moreso speculation), the Sir Bobby Charlton Stand and Sir Bobby Robson Stand may sometimes be referred to as "Sir Bob Stand" or "Bob Stand" colloquially. — MarkH21 (talk) 05:27, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I very much doubt it actually - Bobby or Sir Bobby perhaps (bit much more likely Charlton at MU - and, frankly, at Ipswich it's much more likely to be called the North Stand colloquially - I live not so far away from it...), but never Bob. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:44, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I only speculated those because googling “Bob Stand” gives some football blogs that use “Sir Bob Stand” for those (mostly for the Ipswich Town stand). — MarkH21 (talk) 18:20, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it's Google providing localisation features, but I don't get any hits for any other stands when I type "Bob Stand" into search engines (though a couple other search engines don't bring up stands much at all.) SportingFlyer T·C 01:52, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely a stretch and seems only colloquial. Some google hits on the Ipswich stand as "Sir Bob Stand": article from The Journal and its clarification (the only reliable source here), an FA Cup blog, comments on an Ipswich fanzine, and two forums which I can't link because they're on WP's blacklist.
While looking around I also found a few Twitter tweets which led me to Ninian Park's "Bob Bank" occasionally called "Bob Stand", with the same etymology as this one per Reyk's point. Either way, I admit that these are all stretches - there's only one reliable source that calls any stand outside Sydney the "Bob Stand". — MarkH21 (talk) 20:19, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to North Sydney Oval. There is some stuff of worth in it but it's not worth an article on its own. This is the most obvious call here. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:44, 29 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. JBW (talk) Formerly known as JamesBWatson 10:55, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Fraser[edit]

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

Subject does not meet general notability and article is not supported by reliable sources for a Biography of a Living Person Luke Kindred (talk) 04:38, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep. This user has been told a few times now that dozens of sources are easily available with the most basic of searching. Gleeanon409 (talk) 04:43, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 September 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:04, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The current source is Brad's own website, which is a violation of every basic source and notability policy we have on Wikipedia. I could not identify a single reliable source upon which to defend this BLP. The internet is filled with subjects that have 1,000's of search results on Google and very few of them have enough reliable sources to merit an article. The fact that you "told me" a multitude of sources exist doesn't alter the fact this this page will be deleted in seven days if it is not improved.--Luke Kindred (talk) 05:12, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:23, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:23, 25 September 2019 (UTC)~~Not a fictional element. ミラ P 22:05, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:23, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:24, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:24, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Luke Kindred - The article does seem to be on the razor’s edge of notability so I can see both sides of the issue. It looks like someone has added a few additional, independent third party sources though which could tip the scales in favor of keep. In addition, I reviewed WP:Notability_(people) and there’s a guideline for creative professionals that mentions the person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work. I think Fraser meets this criteria as the creator of Love and Human Remains, Leaving Metropolis and a few others which are reasonably notable works within the field of theater and film. He has also won a Genie Award for his work which fits the additional criteria of the person has received a well known and significant award or honor The sourcing in the article is indeed very light but in my opinion with the new clarification it is just barely enough to establish notability per the aforementioned guidelines. Thoughts? Michepman (talk) 12:33, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. AFD is NOT for problems with citing sources. Unless the things cited in the article are outright false, the claim that the subject doesn't meet GNG is outright ludicrous. Also I could not identify a single reliable source upon which to defend this BLP indicates that the nominator should leave the editing of Wikipedia articles to others. --Calton | Talk 14:52, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, the article needs some improvement — but we judge notability based on whether suitable reliable sources exist, not on whether they're all already in the article or not, so even an inadequately sourced article is still kept if better sources are available to improve it with. It's been a few years since Fraser debuted a new play, so he doesn't have as much current coverage at the moment as he had five and ten and fifteen and twenty years ago, but he's an established major playwright and screenwriter who's won major notability-making awards and has plenty more coverage than editors have actually added to the article so far — just in ProQuest's "Canadian Newsstand" database alone, he gets 2,071 hits dating all the way back to 1982, and that's just in one database that only covers major-market Canadian daily newspapers, and still misses all the stuff he received in mid-market papers, magazines, literary criticism journals, books, radio, television and American or British newspapers. Again, notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not the current quality of the article, and Fraser absolutely has more than enough of the correct kind of coverage to fix the problems here. We also, for the record, do not have any rule that the sourcing has to Google, either: we are allowed to cite print-only sources, such as the newspaper coverage he was already getting in 1982, regardless of whether we find it on Google or in a newspaper archiving database — and that's precisely the reason that some articles about notable people aren't sourced as well as they could be, because a lot of Wikipedians are lazy and just source to Google stuff instead of actually looking for the older coverage.
This is also exactly why we have a WP:BEFORE rule: before you nominate an inadequate article for deletion, the onus is on you to check whether better sources exist to repair the article with before you nominate it for deletion, and you obviously did no such thing if you didn't find 2,071 hits of coverage extending back over nearly 40 years. For current topics, like a writer who just published their debut book this year or a band who just put out their first album in 2018, Google indeed tells the story in and of itself — but for a person who's been around for 40 years and got over our notability bar on things he accomplished in the 1990s, you need to dig into archiving databases to determine whether they have the coverage or not rather than resting solely on Google. Bearcat (talk) 17:16, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat - This is a common mistake in my experience. I made it too when I first joined Wikipedia. Luke Kindred I encourage you to look into obtaining an account on some of these archival search sites from Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library if you are interested. It is a great tool that goes more in depth than what is readily available on Google. When I first joined Wikipedia I was heavily reliant on Google and as a result I made a lot of mistakes like this; I'm still eternally grateful to Krelnik and other users who took the time to set me straight (after I erroneously nominated Bennye Gatteys for deletion because of my own bad research) and show me how to do a proper WP:BEFORE search before making an AFD Nom. Michepman (talk) 01:48, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Bearcat. I have recognized this as well and have been greatly looking forward to arriving at 500+ edits so that I can begin accessing these other resources. I'm SO close - like just a day or two away.--Luke Kindred (talk) 02:22, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Same haha I think have a week or so left. I’m not a bear cat though. Michepman (talk) 12:48, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bearcat, What matters for GNG is if the subject has received in-depth coverage from multiple reliable sources and that it does not violate WP:ISNOT (which it does not). Not having the needed references yet in the article is not a valid reason for deletion (unless is a BLP with no references at all). Deletion is not cleanup. In any case, Bearcat has done extensive edits and added additional sources. GNG is clearly met. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:52, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It only takes a moment to add citations for sources once they are identified and vetted. Why is it such a big ask that instead of saying "trust me, i found something, i swear", which is meaningless and unverifiable, that editors improve article such as this, which some judge as, "on the razor’s edge of notability"? Other than Bearcat most of you have chosen to use this Afd as a smoke break. Luke Kindred (talk) 16:27, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As nice as it would be if everybody always pitched in to repair a "badly-sourced but notable" article right away, that's not actually one of our rules. Our only rule is that the better sources have to be demonstrated to exist — adding them to the article is certainly ideal, but the only requirement is that the correct sources to tip the scales are shown to exist, and beyond that there's no further deadline for when they do or don't actually get added to the article. There are definitely flaws in our quality control processes, you'll get no disagreement from me on that — but our only definitive rule is that sources exist to repair the article with, not that the article has to already surpass any specific quality standard as written. Bearcat (talk) 16:04, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:19, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Black Flames[edit]

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

Unsourced stub which provides basically no information about it's subject. Not a very active user (talk) 05:02, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 05:02, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 05:02, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 05:02, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced for eight years, a WP:BEFORE search brought up nothing helpful. SportingFlyer T·C 06:58, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:37, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It certainly isn't unsourced as claimed, as it's a book, which is a source in and of itself. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:57, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't know where to find an archive of them, but it looks like somebody tried to list a review in White Wolf #38 as a source. Now, one review does not establish notability, but there might be other contemporary reviews in RPG magazines of the era. Rockphed (talk) 18:13, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 20:51, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. JGHowes ^talk 02:09, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bhaergala[edit]

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

Badly sourced stub about little-known Dungeons & Dragons monster. Fails WP:GNG. Not a very active user (talk) 04:58, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 04:58, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 04:58, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 04:58, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:37, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Without sources to establish notability, this does not need an article. TTN (talk) 11:01, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 14:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not enough real world notability, fails WP:GNG. Would say redirect to the list suggested by BOZ, but it looks like that list might not survive it's own AfD.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:42, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per onel5969.4meter4 (talk) 18:28, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Extremely minor, non-notable D&D monster. There are no reliable, secondary sourced discussing this in any way that support notability. Rorshacma (talk) 00:58, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:11, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bebilith[edit]

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

Badly sourced stub about little-known Dungeons & Dragons monster. No indication of real-world notability. Not a very active user (talk) 04:49, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 04:49, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 04:49, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 04:49, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:37, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fail the WP:GNG. TTN (talk) 11:02, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not nearly enough real world notability. If there is an appropriate list article, then a redirect would be appropriate.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:40, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete. Already speedy deleted by User:KillerChihuahua SpinningSpark 20:50, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Flaremode (Italian duo)[edit]

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

Straight puff piece Meatsgains^(talk) 01:12, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:19, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:09, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Some of the references cited in the article have incorrect URLs in which some characters have been replaced by one or more periods. The correct URLs can probably be found by searching the sites mentioned, but I don't have time. An appearance in Bangkok may count as an international tour, though, which would help establish notability for this pair of DJs. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:14, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Copyvio. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:51, 25 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 07:01, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Wildwood[edit]

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

Unprodded without rationale or improvement. Non-notable summer camp, fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:52, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:18, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - WP:A7 applies as a "commercial or non-commercial organization... that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant". This article does not do that. WP:G11 might also apply, as an article that's basically a rundown of its features is basically advertisement. Red Phoenix ^talk 01:34, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Added comment - As someone who considers WP:ATD quite often in my AFD voting record, I will respectfully state that I disagree with a redirect here. The name "Camp Wildwood" could refer to any number of unnotable organizations, including this one. Why give this one undue weight in the encyclopedia by giving it the redirect? Red Phoenix ^talk 16:07, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think the creator is bit confused to be getting so many deletion notices, so I would just note his response to the image that was in the article that is now nominated for deletion at commons was more of a response that belongs here: Given that the photo has been deleted (although the photo was taken by the camp, and the relevant minors' parents/guardians would have signed permission for the photo of their children to have been taken) this reason for deletion is no longer relevant. However, as to the complaint that the page is not notable enough: it is the Massachusetts Audubon Society's only overnight camp. The Massachusetts Audubon society has its own page, as well as a list of every one of its sanctuaries and camps. And all of those sanctuaries and camps have their own Wiki page–except for Camp Wildwood. Especially if some of the Society's less notable sanctuaries have their own Wiki, Camp Wildwood deserves to have its own. It's an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, but I thought it should be shared nonetheless. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:40, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to Massachusetts Audubon Society. It's not notable on its own, but a little bit could be added to the parent article. Note: it's not true that the society's other sanctuaries and camps all have articles; most just have external links. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:21, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a difficult topic because "Wildwood" seems to be a common name for a summer camp. For example, Alger Hiss went to a Camp Wildwood in 1918/19 where he developed an interest in birds but that one was in Maine. Note that the New Hampshire one that we're discussing is just called "Wildwood" not "Camp Wildwood". Untangling all this will take time so I'm thinking that making this into a disambiguation/broad page might help. Andrew D. (talk) 09:13, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The only place called Wildwood near me is somewhere you absolutely do not want your kids to end up. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:07, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The removal of the prod without comment was perfectly in order since it had already been declined for speedy deletion by user:SoWhy with the rationale Decline speedy - founded by notable organization, consider merging to its article per WP:ATD-M. Far from the author needing to supply a rationale for removal, it is for the nominator here to explain why they have not explored alternatives to deletion as suggested by SoWhy and instead gone straight to a deletion nomination. I'm not in the least surprised to hear that the creator is confused, and is probably rather frustrated too. SpinningSpark 20:46, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above keep doesn't seem to be based on any WP policy. I did consider merging, but there is zero content in the article which is not simply advertising material for the camp. A redirect would be in order, but nothing viable to merge. Since notability isn't inherited, the fact that this was established by a notable organization is irrelevant. And might I remind folks that as per WP:PROD, when you deprod an article you are supposed to "Explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion, either in the edit summary or on the talk page". Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:52, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"...doesn't seem to be based on any WP policy." Oh really? Are you such a newbie that you don't know how to find the policy from the shortcut. Well let me explain it to you: both WP:ATD-M, as cited by SoWhy, and WP:alternatives to deletion, as explicitly linked by me, are part of the POLICY page WP:Deletion policy—perhaps the most directly relevant policy for an Articles for Deletion debate.

You now say you considered merge (you didn't say that in your nom) and that a redirect would be in order. Well I have news for you, redirects are also covered by ATD, and also do not require a deletion debate to execute.

"...you are supposed to Explain why you disagree..." That is not exactly what the WP:PROD policy says, there is a bit of cherry picking going on here. What it actually says is "You are strongly encouraged, but not required, to also: Explain why you disagree..." Besides which, the editor is a complete newbie and cannot reasonably be expected to be familiar with Wikipedia's many rules. You on the other hand, have nearly 400,000 edits spread over six years. I would expect you to at least have heard of Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers even if you haven't got round to reading it yet. SpinningSpark 13:42, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with the caveat of no redirect. I agree that this camp lacks the depth of coverage required for notability. Since there are several camps named such spread throughout the world and not all run by the same organization, a redirect is inappropriate. Rockphed (talk) 18:18, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:24, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:24, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of independent sources establishing notability. Reywas92^Talk 01:11, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 02:54, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seth J. Teller[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NPROF. Nothing to indicate he was anything more than an average professor. Also, WP:NOTMEMORIAL Rusf10 (talk) 00:07, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 00:07, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 00:07, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Google Scholar citation counts show an easy pass of WP:PROF#C1 [42]. And NOTMEMORIAL is a badly misplaced justification for an article created six years before his death. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:26, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clear pass of WP:PROF#C1, and thus, the page being a "memorial" would be irrelevant even if it were true. XOR'easter (talk) 00:32, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:PROF#C1. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:46, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Pretty clearly passes WP:PROF#C1. — MarkH21 (talk) 08:43, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just piling on here but "per above". --qedk (t 桜 c) 21:44, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As noted above, clearly passes WP:PROF#C1. Also passes WP:GNG as there are multiple examples of specific coverage of him in the newsmedia and other places (I added several such sources to the article). In particular, a Dec 30 2014 article in Computerworld "Tech luminaries we lost in 2014" has a section about him where he is characterized as "a pioneer in the field of assistive robotics". Nsk92 (talk) 23:33, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, snowfight!!! (WP:PROF, and WP:GNG). Coolabahapple (talk) 08:14, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, close per WP:SNOW.4meter4 (talk) 22:28, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. CSD G7: Author requested deletion. If this wasn't the intention of the nominator, I will restore on request SpinningSpark 20:33, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leif Ericson (film)[edit]

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

OK, so, I know I'm the creator of the article, but now I feel like the subject covered in it isn't notable enough. NickBlamp (talk) 12:52, 25 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] ttps://www.popmatters.com/masterpieces-of-soviet-painting-and-sculpture-edited-by-rena-lavery-and-iva-2495420666.html

[1]