Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 January 7

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 6 January	8 January >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 23:57, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marjan Šetinc[edit]

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

This article was tagged as autobiographical over 12 years ago and has been the subject of no revisions other than clerical or bot edits. The original author made no other edits except for creating the article. It is exceedingly unlikely this article will ever be improved, especially as it receives one average daily page view (possibly from being the oldest article listed at WP's list of autobiographies).

Asserts notability as member of Slovenia's (nation of 2 million) 130-seat legislature for 4 years in the 1990s; for reference, the current (as of 2020) leader of one house of the nation's bicameral legislature doesn't even have an article. Subject has articles on German and Slovene WPs but even those somewhat read like a CV. Search engine results mostly point to primary sources such as subject's own social media profiles and Wikipedia mirrors; Google News results contain trivial mentions or unrelated persons with same given name or surname. Damon Killian (talk) 23:56, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:19, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:19, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NPOL and a quick search of Slovenian sources brought up clearly notable sources (though some are potentially controversial and probably shouldn't be used in the article.) [1] [2]. He was also the ambassador to Poland, and for some insane reason we tend to keep ambassadors. [3] SportingFlyer T·C 01:34, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Notwithstanding the rest, WP:POLOUTCOMES says ambassadors are not inherently notable. Is there policy or consensus that's more current or takes precedence? Damon Killian (talk) 03:03, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, not technically for ambassadors - just noting on a couple trends I've seen at AfD. SportingFlyer T·C 04:09, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be a reasonably well-known figure. Doremo (talk) 04:04, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NPOL as a member of a national parliament, EN WP lacking articles on other notable national parliamentarians is no reason to delete, as for being an autobio, athough strongly discouraged, is not necessarily a reason for deletion. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:32, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Passes WP:POLITICIAN - Šetinc was a member of Parliament. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 10:20, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject has clearly held an WP:NPOL passing office in a national legislature. If there are other Slovenian MPs who don't have articles yet, that's not a reason to delete the ones who do — it's a reason to dust off your Slovenian Duolingo tapes and get the missing ones done. And if there are any other problems with the article's referencing or writing tone, then fix it. Bearcat (talk) 19:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Points taken - I respect the clear consensus for retention and wish to withdraw my deletion nomination. Damon Killian (talk) 18:37, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. I didn't find why nomination on this article ? a member of the Parliament of Slovenia automatically pass WP:NPOL. 1 meets WP:POLITICIAN clearly. -Nocturnal306^talk 19:50, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the ideas of TNT. The subject may be notable but we should never have autobiographies. If we are going to give any teeth to this policy we need to actively rid outselfs of such. Articles on notable people that inherently violate our policies be they attack articles or autobiographies should be removed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:46, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:NPOL as a member of a national parliament. AfD is not cleanup. --Enos733 (talk) 05:30, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Love that "AfD is not clean up." Also notable due to politician guidelines. Missvain (talk) 06:13, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:NPOL Wm335td (talk) 18:37, 14 January 2020 (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 CSD G5. Article was speedy deleted as part G5, creation by a banned or blocked user. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) scope_creep^Talk 10:45, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

W2S[edit]

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

Noted Youtuber but insufficient coverage. Some minor coverage. Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. Spam target. No WP:SECONDARY ref's. No standalone notability outside group. scope_creep^Talk 23:55, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. also some are passing mentions, there are nothing to be merge. 79.118.16.10 (talk) 23:58, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: He seems to have gathered enough significant coverage from reliable sources to satisfy WP:GNG. Some sources include: [4], [5], [6]], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33]. Not including the many sources that talk about him and the Sidemen. However, the article really needs some serious work. - Brojam (talk) 03:09, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As per WP:NEXIST, there's enough out there on him. Also, while having lots of subscribers in and of itself isn't sufficient to indicate notability, but as per WP:ENT, it does lend some weight and this guy has over 15 million subscribers. - Masterpk404 (talk) 07:00, 8 January 2020 (UTC) — Masterpk404 (talk • contribs) has been blocked as a Sockpuppet (see below) [reply]
Redirect to Sidemen, which I have already implemented once but was reverted on the basis of sources that turned out not to even mention the subject of the article (see article talk page). The number of subscribers is meaningless unless significant coverage in multiple, reliable, independent sources actually exists which it doesn’t, on the basis of the sources in the article and those I can find. A vague wave at WP:NEXIST is similarly meaningless unless you can give us some indication of where these sources might exist. And as for the carpet bombing of sources above maybe the editor could just give us the WP:THREE that show notability because the handful I checked are no better than the ones in the article. Bottom line - it seems very likely that Sidemen are notable, and most of the best sources focus on them, but all coverage of this member specifically is trivial or unreliable or both, and so a redirect is the obvious solution. Hug^syrup 07:20, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I opened up sockpuppet investigation. Both User:Zaydx and User:Masterpk404 was blocked indefinitely as a sock of User:Timwikisidemen this will probably close as Redirect to Sidemen and all socks edits might also be reverted. RicherMan66 (talk) 08:35, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is ideal for redirect. I plan to do examine the references today. When its back to redirect, it will need page protection. scope_creep^Talk 09:30, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:40, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:40, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:40, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:40, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looking at the article. Its been updated per [{WP:HEY]], lets examine the ref's.

Ref 1. Profile page, analytic, primary. Can't be used to establish notability.

Ref 2. Companies house profile. Non-RS.

Ref 3. Doesn't seem to mention him as an individual.

Ref 4. Name drop.

Ref 5. No mention.

Ref 6. Youtube video details Sidemen members.

Ref 7. Net worth reference. Primary.

Ref 8. Top 10. No mention.

Ref 9. Book on Sideman.

Ref 10. On the Sideman again.

Ref 11. Another X of Y listing. Primary and non-rs.

Ref 12. Nomination. non-notable.

Ref 13. Nomination. non-notable.

Two potential sources, one is primary and can't be used to establish notability. All of it fails WP:THREE and WP:SIGCOV. Good indication as membership of Sidemen group but insufficient for standalone article. A WP:BEFORE didn't turn up much at all as an individual. Recommend redirect. scope_creep^Talk 13:59, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this article has now been speedy deleted under G5. I personally think this is a distinctly 'messy' outcome given that I'm not sure G5 even really applied (page was created before the user was blocked) and it turns out that the user who placed the G5 tag was themselves editing in violation of a block. I've raised this with the deleting admin but I suppose now we're left with the choice of waiting and trying to conclude this discussion regardless, just closing it as speedy delete, or closing it as speedy delete and then creating the redirect that it seems most people agreed was justified. I'm not thrilled about the G5 deletion though because I wanted a clear consensus for a redirect that could be pointed to in the event of the page being recreated in the future. Hug^syrup 10:35, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn Article has been speedied as a creation of a banned or blocked user. I will close it. scope_creep^Talk 10:43, 9 January 2020 (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. The sources found by Gråbergs Gråa Sång were not challenged. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:08, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

James Murray (comedian)[edit]

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

Article has been created & deleted more than once now and every now & again it still pops up. Subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources so as usual fails WP:GNG. Subject hasn’t made any significant impact in comedy/acting industry or won any major notable awards so falls short of WP:ANYBIO. Celestina007 (talk) 22:16, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:16, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:16, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:16, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 2000 google news hits. [34] Peregrine Fisher (talk) 23:30, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hits are not notability. If significant independent coverage in RS exists, why not link to the WP:THREE strongest sources? b uidhe 02:00, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- 2000 hits is notability. With his name in quotes, no less. If you don't know that, then you shouldn't be voting at AfD. I don't want to go searching for everything about him. I'm trying to resist how people us AfD to blackmail editors into working on an article. Maybe we need a new quideline WP:2000.

Comment: This is simply not true in all cases. I just did WP:BEFORE for another bio AfD that had a huge amount of hits. Almost all were lists of people with no additional info about the subject, or focused on one hook-worthy statement made by the person in a single interview published by his employer. I'd agree that 2000 hits make notability seem possible or even likely (and definitely demanding of closer inspection), but it's appropriately not a guideline. Skeletor3000 (talk) 19:22, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peregrine Fisher generally it’s a good idea to always sign your comments for the sake of clarity.Celestina007 (talk) 20:52, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is heavily linked to the ongoing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sal Vulcano, so perhaps this one should be retroactively bundled with the outcome of the other AfD? Not sure if that's the correct procedure, but at least wanted to make sure that people knew that that discussion was going on. Cerebral726 (talk) 13:47, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "His name in quotes" does not show that a James Murray hit is about this one. This is far too common a name to show notability just on hits. beyond that hits will with a performer generate lots of primary sources of his performances which is not the same as indepdent, 3rd party coverage. In the same way we cannot show a writer is notable with lots of google hits if most are to works by as opposed to about that writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:42, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 02:19, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The nominator says they are not notable, which they didn't check and is false, so you just say "that false thing they said is true". Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:16, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I want a 100 to 1 ratio. I prove this is notable, and you vote keep on your next 100 AfDs. Otherwise, this is just "I'll put in one minute of time to say delete, and you must put in 100 minutes of time to say keep". It's not fair. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:18, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These sources suggest notability: [35][36][37][38][39]. That said, the current citing in the article sucks. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:41, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gråbergs Gråa Sång, who found several sources that appear to meet WP:SIGCOV. It seems like this conversation got derailed by the "WP:2000" comment, and delete votes are responding to the invalidity of that argument rather than bypassing it and conducting WP:BEFORE. Skeletor3000 (talk) 19:29, 14 January 2020 (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. Looks like it deleted itself... Missvain (talk) 06:14, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ernest Barttelot Huffington-Smyth[edit]

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

Possible hoax. I accepted this from WP:AfC back in March. On the surface, it looks like a well-written article with lots of good sources, which just happen to not be on-line. Fast forward to today, when I got this surprising note on my talk page, describing the article as a hoax. I have no idea if it is or not.

On the one hand, I can't find anything in Google for Ernest Barttelot Huffington-Smyth, other than things which are obviously traceable back to us. The one source I've been able to find on-line is Helen Bones' PhD thesis. The basic facts stated in the article are indeed backed up by the thesis, but none of that actually confirms the subject exists. The Barttelot family, and Stopham house, appear to be real, but no evidence of Ernest.

Just to add an additional twist, the note on my talk page was removed a few minutes after it was posted. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:09, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, looks like I fell for this hook, line, and sinker. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:54, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One of the sources, the Eddie Rickenbacker autobiography, is available in preview on Amazon.com. It does have some rather extensive coverage of a "Walter Smyth", although that doesn't prove any of the other details of the article. I find zero references to any "Huffington-Smyth" either on news archives or in the textual database of the Internet Archive. BD2412 T 22:36, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Upon further investigation, the Walter Smyth whom Rickenbacker writes of was killed in an air-to-air collision in 1918, and therefore does not match up with other details in this article. The "Walter Smyth" who was a writer in New Zealand is also a real person (possibly notable), but unconnected to the other biographical elements of this article. BD2412 T 22:42, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: As a hoax per the article creator [40]. 22:39, 7 January 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toddst1 (talk • contribs) [reply]
Delete - already deleted, can an admin please close this debate. Bearian (talk) 20:55, 10 January 2020 (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:10, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May Zune Win[edit]

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

Fails GNG. Couldn't find a single source with her Burmese name. Under May Zune Win, there were a handful of mentions in passing, at times quoted as the "owner of a travel agency". PK650 (talk) 22:01, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PK650 (talk) 22:01, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:53, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:30, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC (this [41] and [42] is very solid sources). She has two-times featured on Myanmar's biggest media The Myanmar Times under Top Ten category. Idolmm (talk) 03:26, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:42, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, those aren't solid sources. A single paragraph in a "top ten blogger" article is not significant coverage. PK650 (talk) 22:36, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, not single source The Myanmar Times' "Top Ten" is an annual poll. I think there is sufficient evidence.Idolmm (talk) 03:04, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Annual polls have no bearing over notability. Please read WP:GNG. PK650 (talk) 21:39, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagre because mmtimes top 10 lists is very significant list in Myanmar because selected 10 people from the whole country (not only mentions in passing). Other countries have also released top lists and it grant notability criteria on Wikipedia. Idolmm (talk) 07:11, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you've read either WP:SIGCOV or WP:RELIABLE as was suggested. A short paragraph on a "top-10" list boasting she has 400,00 followers and urging readers to follow her on Facebook does not fulfill either. You should also understand that other stuff existing on Wikipedia is not a valid argument to keep the article. Best, PK650 (talk) 22:23, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I already read all Wikipedia policies, I’m an experienced editor of Wikipedia Myanmar Project. Burmese editors are not active on english wikipedia. I'm only one active user currently and trying to keep Myanmar related articles when they are notable. I see you joined wikipedia recently and only focus on AFDs! All No case was made for deletion and it will would hard to make one as well. What is the community value of these unresearched AfDs? Idolmm (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:25, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you accusing me of not doing due diligence? That is a serious accusation and I expect you would have strong evidence for such a claim? You are in fact mistaken, as I have created several articles (none of which have been deleted), and am involved in other tasks outside AfD. As for the latter, the number of discussions where my !vote has matched the result is over 90%. You would appreciate I thoroughly research my deletion nominations before submitting them if you actually knew how to search, but I suspect an editor who doesn't even know how to sign their own comments wouldn't know how to do so. Best, PK650 (talk) 22:37, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is a fair point by PK650; this was not an irrational AfD and more digging, especially using her nickname (and Burmese nickname) was needed. This is a positive aspect of AfD – poorly sourced articles get better sourced in a more "intense" review. There should be no accusation here and that comment should be stuck Idolmm. I think we have materially improved this article via the AfD process now. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 22:53, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a prominent travel blogger who organise country's first "ASEAN Media Bloggers Familiarization Trip". May Zune Win is the first travel blogger in my country and helped develop the travel blogging field. And more, she also ranked 1st on annual poll of The Myanmar Times' "Top 10 Travel Bloggers" (her field) and another one "Top 10 Bloggers" (all blogging fields). But, the Myanmar Travel Influencer Award doesn't seem like a notable award to grant her notability. Thanks Win Zaw Oo (talk) 07:51, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If she's such a prominent blogger why is there no significant coverage about her? Annual polls don't mean anything on Wikipedia. Neither do Influencer Awards, nor "ASEAN Media Bloggers Familiarization" trips. PK650 (talk) 21:38, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do wonder if we are doing her justice here as I can really only search en-WP sources - I can't even google the burmese-lang source provided by putting in her burmese-lang name; I notice that many of the Burma BLPs have thinner en-lang referencing. I think being a top 10 overall blogger in 2019 by one of the most established RS in a country of 50 million is something. Britishfinance (talk) 01:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Alas, I did my due diligence. I found one article from a reliable secondary source (Myanmar Times), but, I was unable to find multiple reliable secondary sources with significant coverage. Perhaps it is WP:TOOSOON for May Zune Win in English Wikipedia. Missvain (talk) 06:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Missvain, Thanks for your one source, the article is now improved with many coverage. Idolmm (talk) 12:28, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I added a few more refs (including the one by Missvain above from the The Myanmar Times), and one from The Irrawaddy (which confirms she did win the 2017 Influencer of Year Award for travel), and tidyied up. Borderline case, but mindful that I can only see en-sources (e.g. her bio details come from local-lang sources); always mindful of this issue in these cases. She also makes the main overall Top 10 Blogger list in 2019 in a country of over 50m people? Going to dig a bit more here. Britishfinance (talk) 23:11, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Britishfinance for adding new references and improved the article. Idolmm (talk) 09:27, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how a completely arbitrary top-10 article is any indication of notability for Wikipedia. I could be in the top-10 "organic carrot farmer" list from the Washington Post, and I wouldn't even dream of considering myself notable for Wikipedia if there was no extensive coverage about me. How is this even being considered significant coverage in reliable sources? PK650 (talk) 22:37, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (article creator) Sorry for late, I have been traveling and missed to check Wikipedia. I've created the article because I believed she pass the WP:GNG and is most notable among Burmese travel bloggers. She also listed on The Myanmar Times Top 10 Blogger list in 2019 in a country of over 50M people, which she established notability throughout Myanmar. For now, I found some coverage of her in reliable Burmese major newspapers see [43], [44], search with just her nickname မမေဇွန် ကို (Ma May Zon). I've added to the article. Cheers ~~ Shin Khant Maung (talk) 07:34, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi bro Shin Khant Maung, Greetings... nice to see you again! Finally you found the language sources with her short name “မမေဇွန် ကို”. Thank you very much for finding sources. I tried to find sources with her full name “မေဇွန်ဝင်း” on Google but nothing came up. Idolmm (talk) 09:34, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Using her Burmese nickname gives more sources, and this interview [45] in The Irrawaddy is much more like WP:SIGCOV (which is important for a BLP). Google translate is not great for Burmese-script, however, there is now enough here now for a Keep. She is clearly a notable figure in a developing country with over 50 million people. Britishfinance (talk) 10:34, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think the article needs more reliable sources to provide WP:SIGCOV. Ninja✮Strikers ^«☎» 15:00, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Per above, the BLP has two interviews with her in The Myanmar Times, and the The Irrawaddy, which are the best en-RS in Myanmar? Britishfinance (talk) 15:07, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi - the Irrawaddy is an English language publication. There are probably better non-English sources out there, but it is the most popular English language publication. Missvain (talk) 17:41, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: She meets WP:GNG, has some prominent sources from Myanmar newspapers. From any Myanmar bio, we cannot expect too many sources that reliable, but clearly May Zune Win deserves a place on Wikipedia. Shashanksinghvi334 (talk) 06:37, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see that see she passes WP:GNG, and has enough press mentions in Burmese. Just because someone has more press mentions in English than Burmese doesn't mean that he or she fails GNG. Ambrosiawater (talk) 20:06, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She meets WP:GNG she gets coverage in Burmese news. Wm335td (talk) 18:40, 14 January 2020 (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) 22:12, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suburban Home Records[edit]

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

WP:NCORP failure. Graywalls (talk) 21:57, 7 January 2020 (UTC) To be more specific, notability guidelines for companies and organizations places stronger emphasis on quality of sources. In one source, they're described as local in a local newspaper. Other results that show up aren't the type of sources that indicates strong general notability beyond the local interest. Graywalls (talk) 07:16, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 21:57, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 21:57, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:43, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:43, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:MUSIC's sense of "one of the more important indie labels", and also probably meets WP:CORP over and above this, to boot. Chubbles (talk) 14:15, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- comment it's my impression that WP:NCORP is the right evaluation criteria for a notability of a recording label and under that, I find that this fails notability. I'm not convinced music notability is the proper guideline for a recording label. Graywalls (talk) 19:51, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google search what you nominate before you nominate it please. There are multiple hits dedicated to the topic just from a casual search. More than the minimum to meet notability standards. Bluedude588 (talk) 05:14, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

reply well per WP:HITS, the hit count isn't an appropriate measure of notability. A bunch of top results are sites like Facebook, bandcamp.com that don't contribute towards notability. I only came across one reliable source, which is a Denver Post article. Graywalls (talk) 07:22, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well here's a some more. Westworld. AV Club. Nailed Magazine. And the Denver Post. Bluedude588 (talk) 19:44, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes GNG. Fun fact: I own a few records from this label. Missvain (talk) 06:26, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the sources discovered by User:Bluedude588. If not for those, I would probably have done with Delete. BIG BURLEY 23:00, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominator seems to have missed looking at a few sources, based on User:Bluedude588 comments, it should be on Wiki. Shashanksinghvi334 (talk) 06:38, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep The list of notable current artists shows that this record label definitely meets WP:NMUSIC and should not be deleted. Ambrosiawater (talk) 20:08, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a WP:BEFORE search reveals a notable record label. Wm335td (talk) 18:42, 14 January 2020 (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:11, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ziba Lennox[edit]

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

Non notable dance instructor who doesn’t satisfy WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO and from observation does not meet WP:BASIC a before I conducted shows a few google hits but none are WP:RS & they don’t even discuss subject extensively. Celestina007 (talk) 21:48, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:48, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:48, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:48, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:48, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:48, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I did my due diligence. Despite some major Chicagoland media outlets occasionally asking her for advice (i.e. fitness), all of the coverage specifically about her is primarily hyper local Chicago publications - not even major free press papers. Missvain (talk) 06:31, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice against recreating as a redirect to Wolftown Committee if that article survives AfD Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:12, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tricksta[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG and has been tagged as such for 12 years. Boleyn (talk) 21:35, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:47, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:44, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:44, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Wolftown Committee provided that article survives its own AFD Atlantic306 (talk) 22:16, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - run of the mill DJ, and there's no longer a target to merge into. Bearian (talk) 16:05, 15 January 2020 (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. Being bold and closing this one early. Missvain (talk) 17:15, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leland Smith[edit]

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

Subject of article is a non notable musician and teacher that does not possess in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources hence does not satisfy GNG. A BEFORE conducted via google keeps bringing up a LinkedIn profile of his. Celestina007 (talk) 21:27, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:27, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:27, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:27, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:27, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Smith single-handedly developed what is arguably the best music typesetting program SCORE (software), and warranted a three page obituary in a major academic journal. A Google on 'Leland Smith SCORE' brings up a non-trivial amount of notable mentions, as it does Google Books (per BEFORE). I consider these to satisfy the notability guidelines. pgbrown (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:37, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. we need to fill in the references, but based on the obit at Stanford, he was a major influence in his field. I would be very reluctant to nominate an article for deletion on someone who had been a full professor at Stanford without a very full search according to BEFORE, not limited to Google. DGG ( talk ) 04:20, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:46, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Between his SCORE (software) (especially) and his book (which I added to the article; I didn't find reviews but it is held by 36 libraries according to WorldCat; notable also as the first completely typeset music book), I'm seeing WP:NCREATIVE shaping up. That's bolstered by his work as a composer -- I found a brief nytimes review of a performance of a piece of his, for example. The CMJ obit helps support GNG. I think that the combination forms a solid keep case. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:12, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:18, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has enough reliable sources coverage as shown above to pass WP:GNG imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:08, 9 January 2020 (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. Being bold and closing this one early. Missvain (talk) 17:15, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MC Lars[edit]

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

GNG failure. The article is based on YouTube, Tumblr and trivial coverage in magazines. Graywalls (talk) 21:13, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 21:13, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:28, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:28, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, discography indicates charting on Billboard which passes WP:NMUSIC. Also has a pretty substantial AllMusic bio. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:09, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:48, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:48, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:49, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Billboard chart placement passes WP:MUSIC. The article has about thirty too many YouTube footnotes, but that is not relevant to deletion. Chubbles (talk) 14:13, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes criteria 2 of WP:NMUSIC (only one criteria needed) as shown by his discography page., the article needs to be rewritten with better sources such as the AllMusic and Billboard references mentioned above, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:13, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tumblr and YouTube links seem to have been removed, more legitimate sources seem to have bee added, artist is legitimate and page should be kept Salivation27 (talk) 22:13, 14 January 2020 (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. Missvain (talk) 01:13, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shikhar Srivastava[edit]

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

Non notable actor who does not possess in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources hence does not scale WP:GNG & WP:ANYBIO as I can’t subject winning any notable or even non notable award. Celestina007 (talk) 21:09, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:09, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:09, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:09, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:09, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as per nomination. The actor is not (yet) notable. Dflaw4 (talk) 17:52, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 21:50, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marunadan Malayali[edit]

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

Non notable Malayalam website from Kerala. Kutyava (talk) 20:49, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Kutyava (talk) 20:49, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Kutyava (talk) 01:22, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Kutyava (talk) 01:22, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - run of the mill website. Bearian (talk) 20:57, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.Fails the WP:GNG and WP:WEB.— Akhiljaxxn (talk) 13:58, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn per consensus. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:55, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tullahoma (disambiguation)[edit]

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

WP:PTM, none of these things has the exact name "Tullahoma". The only content on Wikipedia with the exact name "Tullahoma" is Tullahoma (album) which I just created. Tullahoma itself is just a redirect to Tullahoma, Tennessee and probably not even the album needs a disambiguation term. But either way, this is not a valid dab since nothing on it is exactly named "Tullahoma". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:48, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:05, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would keep this one. Both airports and military campaigns have a tendency to be abbreviated to a single name. BD2412 T 22:01, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I agree with BD2412. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:10, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not all PTMs; airport, military campaign, high school, and album are commonly referred to as the single name. Remove the PTMs from the page. Bneu2013 (talk) 06:05, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: album, airport, campaign all merit a link, so a hatnote on the city article would be overburdened. Valid and useful dab page. PamD 09:27, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:26, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. MB 06:14, 9 January 2020 (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. Being bold and closing this one early. Missvain (talk) 17:15, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prakash Babu[edit]

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

A non notable Bharatiya Janata Party member. Kutyava (talk) 20:47, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:04, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:04, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Subject Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG.- Akhiljaxxn (talk) 09:32, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject has not held any political role that passes WP:NPOL, and the article is not referenced anywhere near well enough to make his unsuccessful candidacy for an NPOL-passing office more nationally or internationally special than everybody else's unsuccessful candidacies. As always, GNG is not just "count the footnotes and keep anything that hits or exceeds two"; it also takes into account the depth of how substantively any given source is or isn't about him, the geographic and temporal ranges of how widely and enduringly he's getting covered, and the context of what he's getting covered for, and some types of coverage just don't count for as much as others. Bearcat (talk) 19:41, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bharatiya Janata Party member obviously non-notable Fails WP:NPOL. The article is nowhere better cited to create nationally or internationally than the unsuccessful candidate, Fails WP:GNG. -Nocturnal306^talk 21:15, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per our usual outcomes as noted. This is an ordinary youth committee leader of a political party. Bearian (talk) 20:58, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete all I could find was routine coverage of him while he was running for the office. Every candidate who runs for MP/member of parliament is bound to have that sort of coverage. It does not assert notability. The subject fails general notability guidelines, because there is no significant coverage of them. Also, the subject clearly fails notability guidelines for politicians. also per Bearcat. —usernamekiran(talk) 10:45, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete- Fails WP:NPOL, however there are sources from a few relaible sources such The New Indian Express but still he fails WP:GNG. Page can be there once there are a few more reliable news sources. Shashanksinghvi334 (talk) 06:47, 13 January 2020 (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. Missvain (talk) 01:13, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

K.P. Sasikala[edit]

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

A former high school teacher from Kerala and a RSS activist. I think the article isn't notable. Kutyava (talk) 20:45, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:48, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:20, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:20, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MILL, WP:SIGCOV, WP:BLP1E, and WP:SOAP. Local leader of a religious advocacy organization and a non-college teacher. No hope of finding significant coverage for somebody unknown outside of their own community. Zero newspaper articles, no scholar hits, and only a smattering of news online of dubious reliability for an arrest when protesting. Bearian (talk) 21:02, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Bearian. Subject Fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO and WP:NPOL.- Akhiljaxxn (talk) 13:37, 11 January 2020 (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. Being bold and closing this one early. Missvain (talk) 17:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Outspoken Kerala[edit]

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

This article about a non notable Facebook community. Kutyava (talk) 20:42, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:49, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The page seems to be covered in media for a single event: the arrest of its primary curator for posting possibly misleading politically critical memes/images. The slew of sources in the article mostly mention the page in the context of the arrest. The only arguably significant coverage is on that same event, here: [46]. I'd suggest a merge to Freedom of expression in India, but that article does not seem to contain any case-by-case examples, and adding just this case seems like it would be giving the subject undue weight within that article. Skeletor3000 (talk) 18:34, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - news outlet solely for WP:SOAP. Bearian (talk) 21:03, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.Non notable Facebook page solely for WP:SOAP. Fails the WP:GNG and WP:WEB.– Akhiljaxxn (talk) 13:55, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 22:10, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Willy Dick Crossing, Washington[edit]

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

Please provide evidence this is an unincorporated community. I cannot find anything establishing notability, other than Yelp's autogenerated page that phrases that there are restaurants in this uninhabited river crossing. Reywas92^Talk 20:08, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 20:08, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 20:08, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The USGS classifies this location as a populated place[47]. It lies within the Yakama Indian Reservation, which means it probably has historical significance. The subject meets WP:GEOLAND. - MrX 🖋 22:48, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- As shown at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susie, Washington and many others, the GNIS is a blatantly unreliable source for its "populated place" classification. This does not grant automatic notability. It appears to be a creek crossing at the Willy Dick Canyon (Topo map, BGN listing of Canyon) and the mass-produced "is an unincorporated community" is simply false. I cannot find evidence to support notability of either the crossing or canyon: "Probably" doesn't cut it! Reywas92^Talk 00:40, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found literally nothing in newspaper archive searches, which strongly suggests this was never a legally recognised populated place.----Pontificalibus 09:00, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a name from a topo quad, by all evidence (including GNIS itself), but looking at both the quad and the GMaps aerial, there's no there there and likely never was. GNIS is just not reliable enough to serve as a sole source for "populated places", never mind that their description of the term includes lots of things which wouldn't be held notable per se. Mangoe (talk) 14:25, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete besides a notably humorous name, there is not enough RS. Fails WP:GEOLAND Wm335td (talk) 22:56, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would say redirect to Willy Dick Canyon if that were notable, but it isn't either. While searching, I did find at least one other Wikipedia has a Willy Dick Canyon article. Apparently, the Cebuano WP has different notability standards for natural features. MB 06:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a populated, legally recognized place on GNIS, so it is presumed notable, per WP:GEOLAND. It's like a pro-baseball player who played just one inning in the 1920s and has literally no biographic info. Regardless, a consensus of editors have agreed articles like these are presumed notable. As well, Willy Dick Crossing was added to this 2009 map showing lands ceded to the Yakama Nation. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:34, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- No, you are wrong. No one lives there and there is no evidence anyone ever has. As demonstrated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susie, Washington and 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, etc. the GNIS's classifications are unreliable: it frequently applies an incorrect classification, and this is not legal recognition like incorporation or counting in the census, rather a database of names on maps. Consensus per GEOLAND and WP:COMMONOUTCOMES is that cities, towns, and villages are notable, and subdivisions and neighborhoods require further sourcing. This is none of those, it is a crossing of a creek in a canyon with an unusual name. No idea what the point of your map is, it also has non-notable buttes, canyons, lookouts, etc. on it, not corroboration to your unfounded claim that this spot is populated. And delete the damn baseball players too. Reywas92^Talk 04:41, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And I found it: In Washington Geographic Names, Book 2 by the USGS, Willy Dick Crossing is more properly listed as a "Locale". Per this example and the above, the online version of the GNIS should be ignored, its classifications, even when accurate and even when used in autogenerated sources, do not match our notability standards. Reywas92^Talk 05:01, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a fail of WP:GEOLAND - clearly not a populated and legally recognized place. also fails WP:GNG without SIGCOV neighborhoods areas and census tracts do not get kept. Lightburst (talk) 04:15, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of significant coverage. –dlthewave ☎ 04:30, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Neither Willy Dick Canyon nor Crossing turn up any results in the combined Washington newspaper archives I have access to, covering 1980 to present day. Sounder Bruce 06:09, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This source describes Willy Dick as an "old logging site". Also, the State of Washington court system lists Willy Dick Crossing here. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:39, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, this "cities"/counties page just exported a list of names from the GNIS, just like most of the pages you had found in Indiana – just because someone unknowingly put them all under a heading saying "City" (which is actually a term for "legal recognition" of incorporated places) does not mean they are actually cities! For heaven's sake it even has Susie, Ruth, Geneva Junction, May Junction, and others that we have established are named railroad spurs and junctions at the Hanford Nuclear Site, not cities! And if you read the watershed source properly, it says four miles of the Willy Dick creek was monitored for steelhead between an old logging site and the confluence with Toppenish creek, not that Willy Dick itself is the site – as if a logging site is notable anyway! My god, this idea that anything in this map database with the wrong classification is automatically notable is utter lunacy. Reywas92^Talk 01:07, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per first vote. I am a strong proponent of keeping articles that meet WP:GEOLAND. Ambrosiawater (talk) 20:12, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you care to explain to how it meets Geoland or will you just continue spouting nonsense? Do people live here? It is a town or village? Have you found evidence that it is or was a community? Reywas92^Talk 01:07, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The WP:NOT concerns are clearly stated and the argument to keep material because some editors find it useful is not generally accepted at AfD. For those who do find the content useful, note that one of the participants has transferred these lists to Fandom here. RL0919 (talk) 22:31, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Instant Game Collection games (North America)[edit]

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

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}}.

Per previous deletions of "list of games temporarily offered for free on a games' service" per (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Games with Gold games (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of free Epic Games Store games, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Humble Bundles (2nd nomination)) these pages fail WP:NOT#CATALOG. A complete list of games available for a platform is fine, but outlining those games that were free at one point off this storefront is not appropriate. Masem (t) 20:02, 7 January 2020 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because they are part of the same series of Instant Game Collections in different regions:[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Masem (t) 20:02, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:09, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Clear failure of WP:NOTCATALOGUE and most sourcing is self-published. These lists have no place for an encyclopedia. Ajf773 (talk) 20:30, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom and WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Sergecross73 msg me 20:42, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as stated above; NOTCATALOG pretty much hits the nail on the head. Red Phoenix ^talk 21:23, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, I suggest the following to be nominated as well as they transclude to the PAL article: (list truncated and moved to nomination header, but leaving example given - Masem): List of Instant Game Collection games (PAL region, 2010). Ajf773 (talk) 21:45, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, these have all been appropriately tagged and added. I have refactored that list up to the nomination header to keep this clean. --Masem (t) 21:52, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom and other's reasoning. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:20, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would like to raise an objection to any further deletions of all these lists (particularly the "games temporarily free" lists). Whilst I do see that it is debatable whether or not Wikipedia should be indexing such information, I do think it deserves to have *some* place on the Internet. A lot of work has gone into making these lists and stands to be lost. Why not have a separate website established that can index this information (or even as part of a catalogue listing) so that this information can be saved in an easy to access place, and THEN delete them from Wikipedia? As it stands, people are using these lists as a reference (typically by typing into a search engine, for example 'list of games with gold games') without actually understanding what exactly an "encyclopedia" is intended to be, and stand to lose out! Many games on these lists are eventually removed permanently from sales due to copyright licence expiration. Proof that they were even offered at one point is useful from an archiving perspective as someone who previously downloaded such games usually can obtain them so long as they purchased them (be it free or at cost) from their own account (via PSN, Microsoft Store, etc). Many of these pages, as stated, have existed for years. The only reason they have been brought to attention for deletion is because one publisher is listing a game for free *daily*. I can entirely understand why it might seem absurd for, let's say 365 games in a worst case scenario, to be listed with per-year wiki pages. All the same, I think the information should be made available *somewhere* and a proper debate that the public can actually notice is going on should be held (several pages deep on Wikipedia should *NOT* count because the vast majority of people do not dig this deep in my experience, especially right after the festive season!) For now, please don't delete any further lists. Samspin 0410, 8 January (GMT).
- Please see Wikipedia:Alternative outlets because there are places where content deemed not suitable for Wikipedia can find a home so to speak. If you believe it does deserve to be found online somewhere, you can copy the content found in the article onto some other website. As long as you properly attribute the source as Wikipedia, you're free to do that. Even if this article ends up deleted, the attribution will still be valid and acceptable per Wikipedia's licensing terms even if the article is no longer publicly visible. Moreover, some websites like Wikia even use similar software for their pages so you may not have to do any major reformatting, and their policies/guidelines tend to be less restrictive which will might make it easier to add more content. There are pretty much always options available other than trying to use Wikipedia as a free web host. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:33, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Might Wikidata be a decent home for this information as well? Axem Titanium (talk) 19:49, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails LISTN. Should be moved to an alternative outlet. b uidhe 10:10, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 16:04, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Request SNOW close Someone clearly has it out for these articles and everyone seems to agree. Let's just get it over with. --McDoob AU93 18:25, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL, WP:NOTWEBHOST, and WP:SNOW. There's over 600 games of this type. Why is this here? Bearian (talk) 21:08, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hello. You could say that I'm the maintainer of these lists over at the PAL region since 2017. The reason why I keep them updated is to know what game I would loose if I choose to cancel my PS+ subscription, since there is no information from Sony (that I'm aware of) if a game in your possession have been obtained via PS+ or not. It's also a great source of information when you talk to friends about a specific game and can point out that if you had PS+ around this date you should have the game. A few Twitch streamers use the list as a "Project PS+", where they stream games obtained via PS+. Like The Mexican Runner did with NESMania, where he streamed all games from the NES. If these lists are to be deleted so would I like to have them somewhere else, but where? Could List of PlayStation 3 games, List of PlayStation 4 games and List of PlayStation Vita games with an added "PS+" column be a good alternative? Ragowit (talk) 13:40, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- There are other wikis that you could transfer the information to that would probably love to have it. You can request to WP:Userfy the pages prior to deletion so you have more time to copy it, if needed. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:56, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:SUSTAINED. ミラ P 16:49, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The value of these lists may not be apparent to non-gamers, but this is a perfectly fair use of Wikipedia (similar to listing which games are included in a collection or bundled with a system) and is definitely not a catalog (having no prices or purchase links). The deletion review for the corresponding XBox Games With Gold list stirred a fair bit of controversy and I think everyone would be best served by taking a step back and asking "what negative precedent do we set for Wikipedia by maintaining this content?" vs. "who is harmed if we pull down this non-commercial, non-political, non-controversial (until the deletion proposals) page that many people seem to find valuable?" I might be missing something, but I don't see these lists as a violation of the letter or spirit of any of Wikipedia's community standards, and they absolutely are useful. ChillThyself (talk) 21:27, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- These are lists of temporary sales for games (being available for free). That fails NOT#CATALOG. We don't list sales and promotions like this, unless they themselves are notable (For example, Rocket League was made available for free on the PS4 and that lead to a huge number of new players that helped to improve the game's reception -- which we document on that page. Not true of every game on these lists.) --Masem (t) 21:57, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As a major contributor of these lists over the years, I have taken the step of copying them to a wiki dedicated to PlayStation. This is a work in progress mind as certain things don’t translate perfectly from Wikipedia to Wikia/Fandom. For those interested, please find them here. Thanks. —Dell9300 (talk) 09:46, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Per WP:NOTCATALOGUE. The transwiki to Fandom seems like the right move._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:45, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As Wikipedia is not a catalogue, but we can to move some of the content to other existing Wikipedia articles. Ambrosiawater (talk) 20:26, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 22:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Control Car Remote Control Locomotive[edit]

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

highly specialized, obscure topic which only sources some rail fan personal website. It does not meet the WP:GNG Graywalls (talk) 19:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 19:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OR. By relying on a single source, this is for all intents and purposes original research, which we don't publish. Bearian (talk) 21:10, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree this is WP:OR, but to flesh that out... I also spent time looking for alternative sources to see if there’s any reliable sources that could salvage it. Literally everything I can find that uses this name (CCRCL) traces back to either this Wikipedia article or things written by the sole source’s author. It looks like someone didn’t just do OR, they also potentially named it themselves and then wrote a Wikipedia page under that name. Shelbystripes (talk) 00:16, 11 January 2020 (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 Materialscientist (talk) 18:59, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ibaad Ur Rehman[edit]

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

This is the bio for an air force fighter pilot how just died in a crash. The coverage is simply news reports and there is nothing that indicates this person is notable as a fighter pilot. Whpq (talk) 18:43, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly delete: Just a pilot who died recently. The creator is again an again removing the speedy deletion template after giving so much of warning which shows his low confidence for the article keeping. This article is totally Nonsense . Pok aiᗙ Happy New Year!

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:52, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:52, 7 January 2020 (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. Missvain (talk) 01:13, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mimas (band)[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 15:48, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:06, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:07, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:07, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:29, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RS. Sources are blogs, social media, and MySpace. Really? I mean, really? Bearian (talk) 21:21, 10 January 2020 (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. Missvain (talk) 01:14, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Client Access to Integrated Services and Information[edit]

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

Ephemeral endeavour existence of which not supported by any independent sources; appears to have achieved nothing Sirlanz (talk) 13:24, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:28, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:48, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm able to find a lot of primary source verification that this exist(s/ed) — but I am not able to find any evidence of reliable source coverage about it to demonstrate or document that it had a noteworthy or significant impact on anything. Bearcat (talk) 14:29, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 22:38, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mersey Tri[edit]

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

Subject is a triathlon club. Sources found in web are primary marketing, associated sites, directory and lack of WP:SIGCOV of WP:RS, WP:IS to indicate the club is notable to be included in Wikipedia main space. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:38, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:38, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:38, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:38, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don’t see enough SIGCOV to establish notability. Celestina007 (talk) 11:57, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please forgive as I'm unsure whether I'm supposed to add comment here in support of my document not being deleted. I, Peter Heron (the article creator), have edited it since and included many references and removed some detail that cannot be referenced. I have also ensured the document is no longer an orphan by linking it to other Wikipedia sources (albeit CASSIOPEIA has moved the other source to draft). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Heron (talk • contribs) 11:09, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST, WP:NORG, WP:MILL, and WP:GNG. If this were 2007 or 2012, I could take claims that a person created an article with links to non-independent sources, in good faith, but this is 2020. There's zero newspaper references online, and exactly one book reference. There's zero evidence this meets notability in any way, but rather is a small, local club. We are an American Charity, not a free web host for a few amateur athletes in Liverpool. Bearian (talk) 18:32, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I relist because I must discount the opinion by Bearian; we are an international project and cover the entire world. I cannot close an AfD as "delete" on the basis of what can be read as an expression of nationalist prejudice or chauvinism.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:24, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough coverage in reliable sources to establish significant notability. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 06:09, 9 January 2020 (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 Breaking India. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 15:46, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aravindan Neelakandan[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. All sources are primary and includes just columns he wrote for different websites. No independent, third party source has written significant about him. Hence, this discussion. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 03:20, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 03:20, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 03:20, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 03:20, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 03:20, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - non notable individual. Celestina007 (talk) 11:57, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It looks fairly credible that he might meet WP:NAUTHOR. The Breaking India book looks like it's been reviewed, at the very least. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 20:42, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:20, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ because of Breaking India: Western Interventions in Dravidian and Dalit Faultlines, which has drawn significant attention, even though the attention in reliable sources comes primarily to bury Neelakandan, not to praise him.NotButtigieg (talk) 10:58, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NotButtigieg, He has co-authored a book. He is standalone is not notable, his book is. This should be redirected therefore.-- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 12:20, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, good point. Merge to Breaking India: Western Interventions in Dravidian and Dalit Faultlines. —unsigned reply of NotButtigieg

He does have several other books. It looks like they're all in Tamil, which makes hunting for reviews hard. If any are reviewed, then that's starting to look (w Breaking India) like a WP:NAUTHOR case. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:23, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Russ Woodroofe, his reviews are not online at this moment, If some can dig them up then it will be better way. Most of his works are fringe Hindu Nationalist.-- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 02:17, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Redirect to Breaking India. Best, GPL93 (talk) 02:38, 11 January 2020 (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. Missvain (talk) 01:14, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Birik[edit]

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

Regional/county commissioners fail WP:NPOL and aren't generally notable. There is no other criteria here that would apply and I can find no coverage of Birik. Praxidicae (talk) 17:19, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 17:44, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. He seems to be some kind of run of the mill ombudsman. Bearian (talk) 17:46, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 18:18, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG.-Splinemath (talk) 01:07, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NPOL and the sources don't establish WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:27, 12 January 2020 (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 Green Party of Nova Scotia. Randykitty (talk) 16:49, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Watson (politician)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN.--NL19931993 (talk) 21:26, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete provincial leaders of small parties are not default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:41, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as meeting WP:GNG based on the sources. No indication nom did a before on any of the Green Party leaders they AFD'd. ミラ P 00:24, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Either keep or redirect to Green Party of Nova Scotia. It's true that political party leaders are not handed an automatic free presumption of notability just because they exist — however, they must always still have either a biographical article or a redirect to the party's list of leaders. So they are kept if they clear GNG on the sourcing, and are redirected to the party's article if they don't, and may never just be deleted outright. Bearcat (talk) 04:04, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:13, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.~~ Coolabahapple (talk) 15:13, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:19, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Green Party of Nova Scotia, not notable on his own for small party. Reywas92^Talk 17:59, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect to Green Party of Nova Scotia Wm335td (talk) 20:21, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no coverage supporting notability of this leader of a provincial political party (in a very small province).NotButtigieg (talk) 07:47, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As a community, we've moved away from keeping state and provincial party leaders WP:POLOUTCOMES (see the AfD for Tom Morressey, who was chair of the Arizona Republican Party and related discussion on the Common Outcomes talk page). --Enos733 (talk) 05:36, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that we don't hand political party leaders an "inherent notability" freebie anymore if they aren't shown to pass GNG on the sourcing — but a party leader is still kept if he does clear GNG on the sourcing, and must be retained as a redirect to wherever we keep the list of the party leaders otherwise. Bearcat (talk) 18:41, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Provincial leaders of small political parties in small provinces are not notable by default. If he was an MLA, it would have been an entirely different story. Also, per Enos733, Wikipedia has been moving away from keeping provincial leaders or state chairs of political parties. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 12:45, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OUTCOMES and WP:CCC. For at least the past 7 or 8 years, we've been moving away from automatic notability for minor parties in small jurisdictions. Bearian (talk) 17:02, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:47, 7 January 2020 (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. I leave renaming to the normal process for that, which should be easy since the suggested target is a redlink and there doesn't seem to be much controversy about the proposed move. RL0919 (talk) 17:20, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stock Arena[edit]

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

A small, rarely used, and non-notable arena located in a county fairground. Search results show no information other than a primary source and scant mentions for events in the local newspaper. —Notorious4life (talk) 16:41, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:45, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:56, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable facility and article reads like an advertisement. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 16:58, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- - It does not, IMHO. --Doncram (talk) 22:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Non-notable big metal building which acts as a fairgrounds arena with odd comparisons to actual arenas (and out of date as Joe Lewis Arena no longer exists). Nate • (chatter) 22:01, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- - It mentions other structures, current and former, of the larger fair / fairgrounds, showing its suitability to being expanded and moved to cover the larger fair/fairgrounds. --Doncram (talk) 22:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Honestly before my vote! I was bending towards a rename since the article does describe the fairgrounds more than the arena itself and is better expanded with the latter, but I just didn't know if it had the support; you make a good case with a WP:RESCUE with an expansion of scope. Thus, Keep and rename to Monroe County Fairgrounds. Nate • (chatter) 06:47, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but probably move to Monroe County Fairgrounds (currently a redlink), which is more surely notable, and expand. Keep a redirect to the section in the expanded article about this structure. Individual county or state fairground buildings or venues can be individually notable, but they're better first covered in a higher level article about the fair/fairgrounds itself. The article appears to try to link to the larger topic but the phrase "Monroe County Fairgrounds" there is in fact two links to Monroe County, Michigan and to general Fairgrounds instead. Do let's fix the bigger situation, not go backwards. We are obligated to seek alternatives to deletion and this is a reasonable, available option. I say "Keep" rather than "Move" because the latter is not a proper AFD outcome. --Doncram (talk) 22:42, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I contemplating renaming the article to Monroe County Fairground or creating the article myself, but the question arises, "Does the Monroe County Fairground meet the requirements for article creation?" Most counties have a fairground, and nothing about the Monroe County Fairground seems notable or well-published enough to warrant a standalone article. There are not enough sources for information, aside from primary sources and a few local newspaper articles of minimal substance. If the article is moved in its current form to a new name, that does not address the issues that brought it here in the first place. I would like the information to be saved and improved, and my suggestion (and it's just an opinion), is to redirect and create a section in the main Monroe County, Michigan article. —Notorious4life (talk) 13:28, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Monroe County Fairgrounds. Agree with Doncram on this one. The fairgrounds are notable. It wasn't hard to find articles like this. I searched in Newspapers.com and found 1000 hits. Although most are trivial (mentions of events being held there - a lot of dog shows), I assume there must be more like the above. Since we can't really merge to a redlink, I really mean Move, which in this case accomplishes the same thing. Hopefully, the article would eventually be expanded to cover more than this arena. MB 05:55, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move per Doncram. --RaviC (talk) 12:56, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:12, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Taraf Club[edit]

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

As per Wikiproject football, one criteria of notability is being in a fully professional league. 3rd Division of Saudi Arabia is not one. Other than that this club doesnt seem to have enough coverage for GNG. Daiyusha (talk) 09:33, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Daiyusha (talk) 09:33, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Daiyusha (talk) 09:33, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article belongs to a Saudi club that plays in the Saudi Third Division league, with sources attached to it, and there is the player Saad Al Thyab who previously played for the club in juniors. Noornasser2019 (talk) 09:37, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is another criteria WP:GNG, if the club has enough media coverage, or has done something major(say winning a cup) it can have an article. Just existing in a non-fully professional league is not enough criteria. Also having had a fully professional player during his childhood, is also not enough. This is a gray area, but if the player himself is popular enough, it could be considered. Daiyusha (talk) 09:44, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment fully professional leagues represents our notability standard for players, not teams, so this is a mistaken nomination. I can't !vote since I don't understand Arabic which makes sources very difficult to search for, but searching the name they use on Twitter brought up a good amount of hits, so someone will need to do a WP:GNG search for this team to see if it's actually notable. It definitely passes WP:V. SportingFlyer T·C 09:47, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 15:52, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Professionality has no relevance for clubs - it's for players. For clubs, we have WP:FOOTYN#Club notability which notes that notability generally exists for teams that play at the national cup level. And this team did this, participating in the 2015-2016 Saudi King Cup of Champions. Nfitz (talk) 23:10, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nfitz, Based on the link you shared, and the article about the Kings cup 2015 King Cup, I believe this club hasn't entered the main competition, only the 32 teams of the knockout stage are considered as participants as per the article, and this club played in the qualifiers for the cup. Daiyusha (talk) 07:42, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, didn't seem to make the final 32, and participated in the preliminary stage. But it's still a national cup competition. And they are listed as having participated once here. Wikipedia itself isn't a source - that article only seems to list the final stages of the cup. Nfitz (talk) 07:58, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 16:41, 7 January 2020 (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. General claims of local coverage with no details would not carry much weight even if the accounts weren't freshly created for this AfD. RL0919 (talk) 17:26, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Manjiri Yashwant[edit]

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

Very non notable actress that lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources hence fails WP:GNG. Subject is an actress but fails WP:NACTOR. Celestina007 (talk) 14:11, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:11, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:11, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:11, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:11, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:11, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: article is premature, the actress hasn't done much work yet. Dflaw4 (talk) 09:02, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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}}.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 16:40, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete the subject lacks significant coverage, thus fails general notability guideline. Also, the actrss doesnt fulfil any criteria from notability guideline for actors. —usernamekiran(talk) 06:17, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:TOOSOON. Abishe (talk) 06:31, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to be WP:TOOSOON. Missvain (talk) 06:36, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep as has reviews in reliable sources such as The Times of India and local marathi newspapers, that dont go online.DinaGarnit (talk) 20:43, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for reviewer: Please note this is account has one edit in their history and it's on this AfD. Missvain (talk) 02:48, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails (at the moment, career trajevtory will doubtleess change in the (possibly near) future) WP:ANYBIO. ——SN 54129 20:45, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is a well known actress in Marathi movies. Atricles about her appear in local newspaper. Many marathi movies are not mentioned in prominent newspapers.Lpmantor (talk) 11:54, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for reviewer: Please note this is account has one edit in their history and it's on this AfD. Missvain (talk) 17:47, 12 January 2020 (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. Missvain (talk) 01:15, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Telegraph Road Bridge[edit]

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

A non-notable bridge in Monroe County, Michigan. Overly detailed and cited with self-published websites (that don't work). Article has remained tagged for issues yet unedited for years. —Notorious4life (talk) 16:24, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:45, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no notability asserted. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:50, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:34, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:34, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 21:24, 11 January 2020 (UTC)~~[reply]

Delete. I found this related to the monitoring system discussed in the article. Not much else. Checked newspapers.com and found some routine announcements of lane closures for maintenance on Telegraph Road Bridge in Michigan - but there is also a Telegraph Road Bridge on on US 24 in Michigan, so I'm not sure any of those were even about the right bridge. NN. MB 05:32, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV. Two soures are wikis, and the third is original scholarship. If this bridge were 70 or 100 years old, it might be considered historic and worthy for that reason, but this is just an ordinary bridge. Bearian (talk) 21:19, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was mistaken about the rarity of the bridge (confused it with another Telegraph Bridge) This bridge is not particularly notable. Th study gets wide coverage, but the structure does not have notability.Keep WP:NOTCLEANUP. passes WP:NGEO Artificial features related to infrastructure (for example, bridges and dams) can be notable under Wikipedia's GNG. Where their notability is unclear, they generally redirect to more general articles or to a named natural feature that prompted their creation, e.g., to an article about the notable road it carries or the notable obstacle it spans. It is apparently an historic bridge ..."rare example of a multi-span concrete through girder". Notable enough for the government to spend 1.8 million dollars to save it. Detroit Free Press. We should clean it up, not delete it. Lightburst (talk) 21:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is really a WP:TNT case; references are not RS (two of the three are junk and the third is not a suitable ref); we have some refs for existance but almost zero quality sources for WP-notabilty. However, the real problem here is the text which is just junk/almost inchoerent (probably pasted in from some technical document) and bears little useful discription to the subject to any reader (e.g. it is useless). Of course, the core issue is that there are just no refs from which to build a proper useful article on this structure. Britishfinance (talk) 22:26, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it was copied from University of Michigan wiki. Our article was created by Sloanehawkins on 23 August 2013, and the UMich wiki was written by a user named Sloane just prior (history). –dlthewave ☎ 17:09, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not knowingly by me. I've rewritten that section totally. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:56, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The old bridge found in Lightburst's first link is at [48] and is not the one described in the article or any other links. I don't see notability anywhere for generic highway overpasses and routine construction projects. Reywas92^Talk 22:54, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Reywas92. I see that first link is another bridge. I struck that source. Lightburst (talk) 00:11, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The bridge is notable because of the ground breaking (first) use of embedded sensors to monitor stress. You have missed the many sources (now in the article), and misunderstood the reasons for the bridge's notability. It is an engineering milestone. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:55, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I removed several of the tags. The links now all work. Article has been improved since you nominated it. Perhaps your missed these sources. Meets WP:GNG and WP:NGEO, I think. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:49, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article I tagged for deletion described the Telegraph Road Bridge as part of I-275 at 42°01′05.9″N 83°20′47.6″W / 42.018306°N 83.346556°W / 42.018306; -83.346556, but the history section added in the article describes the unrelated old ruins of a bridge at 41°58′55.7″N 83°22′18.9″W / 41.982139°N 83.371917°W / 41.982139; -83.371917? I still don't think that the use of new technology on a run-of-the-mill bridge creates notability to the bridge itself. —Notorious4life (talk) 16:08, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These are parallel bridges. Indeed, someone had put "Context" tag, which this addresses. I disagree about the importance of the technology and study, but we will have to see what the civil engineers have to say. You are entitled to your opinion FWIW. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:19, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These are not parallel bridges. The historical bridges crossed Stony Creek which is about three miles away. –dlthewave ☎ 16:46, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – The sensor system might be notable, but not one of the bridges it was installed on (not the first per sources, just one of the first, and I haven't seen any sources call it a "milestone" as our article currently states). Fails ~~NBRIDGE~~ GNG. – Levivich 18:19, 12 January 2020 (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. Being bold and closing this one early. Missvain (talk) 17:17, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Marquette[edit]

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

Completely unreferenced WP:BLP of a film director and screenwriter, not showing any evidence of clearing WP:CREATIVE. The only notability claim being attempted here at all is that one of his films was nominated for (but not the winner of) an award at a minor film festival, which is not "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to get over WP:GNG on the sourcing. And further, of all the films listed in his filmography here, the only one that actually has an article at all is one that even IMDb does not credit him with in either the film's profile or his own, making his actual involvement in it unverifiable. Bearcat (talk) 16:17, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:17, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:17, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:57, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable filmmaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:34, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not pass WP:GNG Missvain (talk) 06:37, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm only seeing one reliable source coverage video from The Young Turks, which also airs on CNBC or CNBC World, as well as a second video from the same source. The references in one or more books are just passing references to him and not about him. Thus, until we have one more (2-3 would be better), reliable source coverage, it's a delete. Doug Mehus T·C 18:39, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Definitely fails the WP:GNG and WP:DIRECTOR. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 22:04, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Leo Breman (talk) 19:17, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bos planifrons[edit]

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

non-existent species, synonym

This taxon is known from a single skull from Kashmir, and was described along with Bos acutifrons by Lydekker from the same sediments. A few years later he concluded it was a female of the previous species. Leo Breman (talk) 15:24, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:46, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bos acutifrons. No need to delete. Taxonomic synonyms should be redirects to the accepted name. Plantdrew (talk) 15:59, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect synonym to Bos acutifrons, e.g. see Template:R from alternative scientific name. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 16:01, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmmm, that makes sense. Dang. Wish I thought of that earlier. This AfD stuff was really complicated. Leo Breman (talk) 16:09, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- So what now? Leo Breman (talk) 16:11, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There're some steps listed for nominator withdrawal here, if you want to go that route: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Procedure for non-administrator close (nominator withdrawal) —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 17:00, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hyperik. I'll follow those instructions after dinner. Quite a list again. Kicking myself. Thanks all, Leo Breman (talk) 17:39, 7 January 2020 (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:13, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Underworld, Inc.[edit]

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

No suggestion of notability or external references. Rathfelder (talk) 14:34, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 14:34, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is simply a summary and then an episode list.TH1980 (talk) 02:21, 11 January 2020 (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. Sufficient sources were shown to exist in the discussion to pass WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:05, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mekorama (video game)[edit]

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

One "honorable mention" award; insufficient in-depth cov in RS for GNG. Most refs are not independent. MB 14:24, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:45, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seems to be indepth coverage in various WP:VG/RS and other reliable sources like Gamezebo [49], Touch Arcade [50], Times of India [51], Spiegel Online [52], it:Multiplayer.it (currently having a WP:VG/RS discussion but leaning to reliable) [53], de:GIGA [54], Bild [55], TechLife [56] with paragraph coverage in The Washington Post [57], Svet Kompjutera [58] and IGN India [59]. Passes WP:GNG easily. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:43, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Evidence this clearly passes the general notability guidelines has been found. Also if you click the Google news search at the top of the AFD, that helps you find some of these very easily. Please do that WP:BEFORE nominating an article for deletion. Dream Focus 04:34, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Please search for five seconds to see if there are additional sources out there before nominating something for deletion. This game has pretty obviously gotten a decent amount of coverage. Bluedude588 (talk) 20:59, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - outside coverage is enough to pass WP:GNG. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 04:45, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. RL0919 (talk) 15:12, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme Machines[edit]

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

No sign of notability or external references. Text appears to be copied and pasted. Rathfelder (talk) 13:23, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 13:23, 7 January 2020 (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 agreement and minimal participation after two relists. RL0919 (talk) 13:38, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gurudath Musuri[edit]

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

Non notable movie director that doesn’t satisfy WP:DIRECTOR. It appears one of his parents are notable but per WP:NOTINHERITED it shouldn’t be a yardstick for inclusion into the encyclopedia. Celestina007 (talk) 17:39, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:39, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:39, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:39, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:39, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:45, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to Gurudutt Musuri per RS: [60], [61], [62]. Not a lot , but enough to indicate this is likely a notable cinematographer and the article can be improved. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:24, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 13:00, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 13:12, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 13:35, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tristan Thomas (marketer)[edit]

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

Non-notable marketer. Forbes 30 under 30 is effectively meaningless at this point and I see no real coverage of Thomas. Praxidicae (talk) 12:32, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:37, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Meet the criteria for Notability (people) of "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times", specifically with both Forbes 30 Under 30 which meets notability criteria and the Campaign Power 100. Your opinion of whether the Forbes award is a good award doesn't seem to be relevant. Additionally, potential to meet criteria for Creative Professionals of "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." Rangysane123 (talk)

you can say what you want but there’s nothing to verify your last statement. If I’m wrong, provide those sources. Praxidicae (talk) 13:03, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clear fail of WP:GNG. Name search alone turned up Tristan Thompson. Adding "Forbes" and "marketing" to distinguish subject resulted in zilch. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 19:11, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and over 1,000 are named 30 under 30 every year so thats not particularly significant. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:51, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources of subject of discussion is non existent. I’m also voicing Praxidicae‘s rationale about Forbes U30. Celestina007 (talk) 21:20, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG, WP:NOTINHERITED, and WP:SIGCOV. Forbes is notable, and a reliable source, but the award of being "30 under 30 in a filed X" is merely a statement of WP:UPANDCOMING; being listed in one story does not make one automatically notable. The subject hasn't done anything notable, nor does one article constitute significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 21:16, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not passing WP:GNG. Non-notable marketer. Lightburst (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a list like "30 under 30" is basically an informed but still crystal ball guess that the person will be notable down the line, it is clearly not on its own a sign the person is notable today.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:56, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I will add by bit. Very poor sourcing and almost no detectable coverage. Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 14:11, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't really see how this person meets WP:GNG. He would better belong in another wiki elsewhere. Ambrosiawater (talk) 20:43, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 11:13, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Cyberchase minor characters[edit]

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

Cyberchase#Characters is already pretty sizeable and lists all main and the important recurring characters. But does it need a separate list of minor characters, seeing that its a kid show and likely won't have any real-world info on them (WP:LISTN, WP:NOTPLOT)? I see this going two ways: either its gets deleted, or turned into a List of Cyberchase characters (currently a redirect here), where the other characters can be spun out from the main article. – sgeureka ^t•c 20:31, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka ^t•c 20:31, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka ^t•c 20:31, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move and retool to List of Cyberchase characters per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor characters in Judge Dredd. ミラ P 02:43, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You know what, delete. ミラ P 03:17, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Those are the kinds of characters that we don't even need to cover in the first place. The section in the main article seems completely sufficient as a way of giving a general overview of the series. TTN (talk) 12:08, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:10, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The main characters and most important reoccurring characters are already included in the main article for the series. The remainder of the information here is on extremely minor, mostly one-shot characters that really do not need to be listed. There are also no sources included for the list, and searches do not bring up anything that would allow it to pass WP:LISTN. Rorshacma (talk) 17:15, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:13, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cheryle Chagnon-Greyeyes[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN.--NL19931993 (talk) 21:46, 30 December 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 December 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:09, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:15, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:15, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:15, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as meeting WP:GNG based on the sources. No indication nom did a before on any of the Green Party leaders they AFD'd. ミラ P 00:25, 31 December 2019 (UTC
Redirect to Green Party of Alberta. It's definitely true that she doesn't clear GNG on the basis of the sources shown here — however, party leaders must always still have either a biographical article or a redirect to the party's list of leaders. So they are redirected to the party's article if they don't clear the bar for a standalone BLP, and may never just be deleted outright. Bearcat (talk) 04:08, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete she ran for election to a seat in the provincial legislature, and came in fifth with 274 voted s - top two finishers had over 10,000 votes each. She was then chosen as leader of one of the province's 6 (7?) political parties, but resigned after a year. Not a notable person.NotButtigieg (talk) 16:10, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As a community, we've moved away from keeping state and provincial party leaders WP:POLOUTCOMES (see the AfD for Tom Morressey, who was chair of the Arizona Republican Party and related discussion on the Common Outcomes talk page). --Enos733 (talk) 05:42, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:09, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NPOL, WP:GNG: this is the best source but is functionally an interview, and the remaining sources are simply "new party leader chosen." SportingFlyer T·C 04:50, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Following my speedy close of the DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 January 10 I am relisting this. Note that the nominator's opinion should be discounted, as they have been banned, but subsequent good faith !votes should be assessed as normal.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Amakuru (talk) 11:00, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes GNG. I'll drop reliable secondary sources on the talk page of the article. She was the first indigenous woman to serve as leader of a provincial party in Canada. Missvain (talk) 06:39, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of the six sources you posted at Talk:Cheryle Chagnon-Greyeyes, the only one which I would consider passes WP:GNG is the one I already noted above. The others are all routine (brief articles about her being appointed/resigned), aren't about her (the oil sands thing), or are an interview (not independent.) She's not over the line. SportingFlyer T·C 07:30, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I, of course, disagree with you. We will see what the community says :) Missvain (talk) 17:42, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am returning for a second look, but this individual still fails to meet the standards set out in WP:NPOL, and it continues to be true that no one has found enough good sources about her to merit an article by our notability standards.NotButtigieg (talk) 23:49, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer and Missvain: WP:ROUTINE doesn't apply to people, so GNG applies. ミラ P 00:04, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you would stop making this incorrect argument across multiple AfDs. WP:ROUTINE applies to coverage. SportingFlyer T·C 00:19, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer: Says nothing about people, just those involved in the event [who] are also promoting it. Besides, Missvain mentioned the "first First Nations leader of a provincial party" part and the GNG sources, so that should be good enough. ミラ P 00:39, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really care what it says, we have a longstanding tradition of judging minor, local political figures against whether their coverage is routine, since almost every politician will receive some sort of coverage. We have three articles discussing the fact she was appointed and one discussing her resignation, which are distinctly routine, and one article that's actually about her. She was also a losing candidate who didn't even receive 300 votes. That's not enough. While I'm sympathetic to the "first X of Y" argument, that is not enough when the article definitively fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 03:48, 15 January 2020 (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:14, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amber Jones[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN.--NL19931993 (talk) 22:43, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:11, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:11, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:11, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as meeting WP:GNG based on the sources. No indication nom did a before on any of the Green Party leaders they AFD'd. ミラ P 00:28, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a failed candidate who came in a distant 3rd in a 2008 race for a seat in the provincial legislature, then served 2 years as head of a minor, province-level political party. Not a notable career.16:46, 1 January 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NotButtigieg (talk • contribs)
Delete a failed candidate for public office.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:15, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep certainly minor politician in national terms, but notable locally and at provincial level. NB WP:POLITICIAN allows for un-electeds when WP:GNG is met. I'm adding some more information and sources. --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:33, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:08, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Following my speedy close of the DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 January 10 I am relisting this. Note that the nominator's opinion should be discounted, as they have been banned, but subsequent good faith !votes should be assessed as normal.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Amakuru (talk) 10:59, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm struggling to find multiple reliable secondary sources that cover the subject in a significant manner. Hopefully, someone can prove me wrong! Missvain (talk) 06:59, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Revisitng; after running more searches and failing to find any new sources that support notability, I continue to advocate for deletion.23:57, 14 January 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NotButtigieg (talk • contribs)

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. Setting aside the blocked sockpuppet nominator and a keep comment that was repeat-posted to many similar nominations that the sockpuppet made, the basic dispute here is whether the sources about her campaigns and interim provincial party leadership constitute significant coverage of her personally, or just routine coverage of minor political events. Having reviewed the sources given in the article and this discussion, I find the claim of significant coverage to be not at all convincing. Since there is no presumption of notability for this type of politician and no other apparent source of notability for her, I'm closing this one as Delete. RL0919 (talk) 11:41, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Darcie Lanthier[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN.--NL19931993 (talk) 23:11, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:19, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:20, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:20, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as meeting WP:GNG based on the sources. No indication nom did a before on any of the Green Party leaders they AFD'd. ミラ P 00:30, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Enough sources available to pass WP:GNG. Achaea (talk) 17:52, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even if party provincial leaders were default notable, interim leaders are not. The sourcing is not above what we would find about all party leaders, but they are not default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:55, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ran twice as a minor party candidate for a legislative seat on a small island; lost twice. Briefly served as interim provincial party head. Got a little routine coverage in the press.NotButtigieg (talk) 17:12, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@NotButtigieg: WP:ROUTINE already was shown not to apply to people. ミラ P 20:52, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Following the link you provided leads to WP:POLITICIAN, which make clear that political figures who have not held one of a number of specified offices need to have gotten "significant coverage" in the media. Lanthier has not gotten such coverage.NotButtigieg (talk) 21:09, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As a community, we've moved away from keeping state and provincial party leaders WP:POLOUTCOMES (see the AfD for Tom Morressey, who was chair of the Arizona Republican Party and related discussion on the Common Outcomes talk page). --Enos733 (talk) 05:37, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Politician not elected to public office and, based on WP:POLOUTCOMES, interim leaders are not inherently notable. Most listed sources are bare-bones, what you'd expect of any political candidate. TheAnayalator (talk) 23:06, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:07, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Following my speedy close of the DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 January 10 I am relisting this. Note that the nominator's opinion should be discounted, as they have been banned, but subsequent good faith !votes should be assessed as normal.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Amakuru (talk) 10:53, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep There are some reliable sources that cover her significantly, just the majority of it is from the CBC.[63][64][65] and one profile from the province's paper.[66] Missvain (talk) 07:11, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Per above. Ambrosiawater (talk) 20:43, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked at the articles linked by Missvain, I respectfully disagree. They are all, including the one described by Missvain as a "profile from the province's paper" routine coverage of her candidacy in an election for the party leadership post of a small party in a very small province. This is routine coverage of a failed candidacy; it does not amount to notability by the standards set forth for gauging notability of politicians.NotButtigieg (talk) 00:04, 15 January 2020 (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. Per comments. This really did not need to be nominated. Missvain (talk) 07:13, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mia Kang[edit]

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

Not obviously notable model Rathfelder (talk) 11:58, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 11:58, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep That’s not a deletion rationale. If you did a “Before” you would see very clearly that she has significant coverage from the Today Show, Fox News, The Independent, Vogue (!), South China Morning Post, New York Post, Women’s Health Magazine, WWD, ESPN, Page Six, Harper’s Bazaar, I mean... I don’t have to keep going. The only problem here is that the draft I created was moved in the air of the night before I was anywhere near done with it. I hate when people do that shit but hey, when I say something I get accused of ownership. Oh well, what do I know. ⌚️ (talk) 12:29, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Besides cited refs in the article which are WP:SIGCOV enough, there are lots of other significant coverage of her in reliable sources making her meet WP:BIO [67], [68], [69],[70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75] (though this one relies a lot on citing what Kang has said). Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:21, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:34, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:34, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:34, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jovanmilic97. XOR'easter (talk) 19:46, 7 January 2020 (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:14, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Young Allies (DC Comics)[edit]

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 11:57, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:57, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:57, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect Extreme comic cruft that fails GNG. Can soft delete by redirecting to Young All-Stars.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:41, 12 January 2020 (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:14, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Little Barda[edit]

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 11:54, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:54, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:54, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Extremely minor character that only had small appearances in a handful of issues. There are only primary sources being used here, and searching brings up nothing in reliable, secondary sources, so there's really nothing worth merging anywhere, and the character is too minor to bother to be listed in any character lists. Rorshacma (talk) 17:40, 7 January 2020 (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:15, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the Library with the Lead Pipe[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2016. Not indexed in any selective databases. The four independent references listed are just in-passing mentions. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 11:53, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:55, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - indexed in LISA and LISTA; cited in a variety of professional and scholarly sources (eg. [76][77][78][79][80][81][82][83]). Nikkimaria (talk) 00:07, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Neither of those databases is selective in the sense of NJournals. And a smattering of citations is to be expected for any journal. Note that for individual academics we often require 1000 or more such citations for notability, so for a complete journal the few citation to articles (not in-depth discussions of the journal itself) that you list are far from indicating notability. --Randykitty (talk) 19:31, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is the definition of selective you're looking for? The sample of citations I've linked is far from comprehensive. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:49, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Databases are considered selective under NJournals if they only include journals that are judged to be more important/authoritative, leaving out less important ones. Databases that strive to include every journal in a particular area are not selective. None of the databases maintained by EBSCO are considered selective in this sense. As for the citations, they don't show notability unless a journal has been cited hundreds and hundreds of times. (In which case they'll sooner or later will get picked up by Scopus or one of the Clarivate Analytics databases). --Randykitty (talk) 13:25, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Has there been a discussion that arrived at the consensus that no EBSCO database counts in this regard? I looked quickly at the talk archives for NJournals and didn't see one. For that matter, is there any such discussion for the "hundreds and hundreds" of citations you suggest are required? I see that NJournals does specify that the threshold varies by field, and this particular field is smaller than, say, biomedicine. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:09, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there have been centralized discussions about most databases, including EBSCO's. However, in AfD debates, EBSCO databases are always ignored ass being not selective enough. As for the citations, that is also a common argument during AfDs. It might be good to specify some of these things in NJournals, because especially the citations thing keeps coming back at AfD. Fact is, even the most obscure journal in the tiniest field will rack up some citations to articles that it published. So some are to be expected. In AfDs of academics, we generally require at least 1000 citations (or several first or last author articles with >100 citations) to establish notability (assuming that a person does not meet one of the other criteria). That's for a single person, I don't think we should expect less from a complete journal... --Randykitty (talk) 10:57, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think given the size of the field in question your expectations are too high. NJournals (and NPROF for that matter) both indicate that these are relative rather than absolute criteria. LISA and LISTA for example are two of the key databases for the subject. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:38, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Indexed in the leading databases in its field, independent third party citations indicate that it is widely read in the field. Gamaliel (talk) 14:00, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Those databases strive to cover all that is published in their field. And if you take a moment to look at the references in the article, you'll see that one of them reports that a full 5% (that's right, five percent) of librarians read this journal at least from time to time. Whether that equals "widely read" is in the eye of the beholder I guess. Personally I find this a complete failure of both GNG and NJournals. --Randykitty (talk) 17:00, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Gamaliel. ♟♙ (talk) 16:44, 10 January 2020 (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. As has come up in multiple previous AfDs, the tagging of entries in the GNIS can be mistaken, so by itself it cannot be relied on for meeting WP:GEOLAND. The consensus of the discussion is that these are probably not populated places that would meet WP:GEOLAND, and there is not sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. RL0919 (talk) 11:02, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Susie, Washington[edit]

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

Also including

Ruth, Washington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Geneva Junction, Washington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ginger, Washington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Willa, Washington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Helen, Washington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Pierce, Washington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Pearl, Washington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Edna, Washington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
May Junction, Washington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Audrey, Washington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ruby, Benton County, Washington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Nancy, Washington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ethel, Benton County, Washington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bettie, Washington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Another reminder: Do not use the GNIS to lazily mass-produce microstubs on supposed communities! According to [84] at least the first four of these are merely internal identifiers for Industrial spurs on the Hanford Site. I can't find a single source mentioning the rest but their map locations indicate they must be the same or similar. The incorrect "is an unincorporated community" has unfortunately persisted here and other pages more than seven years despite its obvious inaccuracy on the map. Reywas92^Talk 10:15, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 10:15, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 10:15, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm not sure what "another reminder" means since I was not reminded of any such policy in the first place. According to our notability guideline, WP:GEOLAND "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. Even abandoned places can be notable, because notability encompasses their entire history. One exception is that census tracts are usually not considered notable." According to the United States Board on Geographical names, these are populated places: [85][86]. The nom is correct that the articles incorrectly identify the locations as unincorporated communities. They should be identified as populated places, but deletion is not cleanup.

It so happens that these populated places are on the significantly historical Hanford site, which was constructed during World War II after the local population was relocated from the area. Plutonium manufactured at the site was used in the first nuclear bomb, tested at the Trinity site, and in Fat Man, the bomb detonated over Nagasaki, Japan.

Although I don't think theYouTube video linked by the nom would pass as a reliable source, it does suggest that these geographical features have historical significance, so if there is consensus to delete these articles, the titles should at least be redirected to Hanford site and the content, coordinates, and citations should be merged into that article. However, leaving the article intact is consistent with the usual latitude allowed for such articles and enwiki's longstanding role as a gazetteer. - Mr X 🖋 13:26, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These are not populated places. These never were populated places. These are not "legally recognized" populated places. These never had people living there. These are not notable. As has been extensively shown (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) the GNIS is an unreliable source and what it classifies as "populated place" is very regularly not actually a populated place, and certainly not the same as meant by GEOLAND. The Youtube video is published by the Atomic Heritage Foundation [87] and is certainly a reliable source. I do not believe the FA Hanford Site article really needs mention of its nicknames for railroad spurs, but the editors there can decide. The only populated places there were the former Hanford and White Bluffs. We are not a gazetteer but "contains features" of one, and each place on the planet does not need a separate article. The "another reminder" was not specifically to you, but the many editors who have written articles with false, outdated, and non-notable information with the WP:ONESOURCE of the GNIS. Reywas92^Talk 19:57, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the Topo map depicting these names as spur junctions on the railroad in 1965, absent in 1951, later given the incorrect classification in the GNIS, and uncritically copied to Wikipedia. Reywas92^Talk 20:33, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The YouTube content is from a Hanford Site tour manager and published by the Atomic Heritage Foundation which looks reliable to me. –dlthewave ☎ 19:45, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As per comment by MrX above. if this set of entries fits within the parameters of any established or existing types of coverage here at Wikipedia, then I'm all for retaining these entries. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 16:33, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- No, Wikipedia's coverage does not include individual articles for industrial railroad spurs about which there is zero significant coverage. Reywas92^Talk 19:57, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - User:Sm8900's view should be interpreted as a "Delete" !vote, I think, because it is a conditional statement (if A is true then Keep), and the condition is not true, so therefore Sm8900 must intend for it to be deleted. It would be fine if they would choose to reply, but that is certainly how I would interpret their view so far.--Doncram (talk) 22:21, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Doncram (talk) 22:21, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No evidence any of these are or ever were populated places or otherwise meet GNG. MB 05:40, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The guideline of GEO asks us to refer to WP:N when there is an area, or census tract, or neighborhood, mobile home park etc. The articles which appear in this nomination are not notable and do not pass our subject guidelines or are notability guidelines and so should be deleted. OTOH: I did not search out targets for redirection, however that is a possibility the nominator and others here can consider. Wm335td (talk) 20:12, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If these were the sites of dormitories for workers or there was any evidence that people resided at this locations, then redirects might be appropriate. However that is not the case, and there are no other grounds for redirecting.----Pontificalibus 13:18, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As the nominator pointed out, the first four (Susie, Ruth, Geneva, Ginger) are not populated places but rather rail junctions that were named after female Hanford Site employees during construction. Venturing a bit into OR territory, Google Maps shows that the rest are also located on railroad spurs or junctions. There's no reason that these junctions would have all been built at previously-populated locations; the likeliest explanation is that these were named the same way as Susie et al. In any case there doesn't seem to be significant coverage to establish notability. –dlthewave ☎ 19:57, 12 January 2020 (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:16, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

François Ozenda[edit]

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

GNG fail ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:07, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:07, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:07, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - They were an Outsider artist - I always find it a little complex when searching for notability in these artists who fall outside of the mainstream of the artworld. I did find some mentions online about them, most of them are auction sites and Outsider/Folk Art type galleries tho (and one is even listed on Etsy!), but the only two that might establish notability are six works in the Museum l'Arte Brut in Lausanne, Swizerland [88] and two works in the Musée de la Création France Art Brut et Apparentés (the latter I'm not familiar with) [89] which I'm not familiar with. There are a few mentions on Google Books, but I don't know if they are significant. Netherzone (talk) 14:48, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, That there was an academic journal published for 27 years titled Bulletin de l'Association Les Amis de François Ozenda or "Journal of the association of Friends of François Ozenda" is very good evidence of passing WP:NARTIST #1 and #4. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:45, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I looked that publication up. it is published by "the friends of François Ozenda". If you read this article, he is described (in French) as an outsider artist, and his three friends who were responsible for the journal are described as trying to make a name for him after death: "un artiste marginal, dont l'œuvre, à sa mort, aurait tout simplement pu tomber dans l'oubli." Translation: "an outsider artist, whose work would have simply been forgotten after his death." The bulletin is not a peer-reviewed academic journal. It's a bulletin produced by his surviving friends.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:03, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 08:10, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom . GNG fail Celestina007 (talk) 11:57, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per WP:BEFORE - online searches find potential sources. Bearian (talk) 18:38, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian: those are quite weak sources. The GBooks link returns several pages of results in French, which I read. The snippets show only one in the first two pages discussing anything in-depth: the society promoting his work. Most of the GBooks sources are name checks. Several are illustration credits. The scholar link returns twelve entries; 9 of them are from the same author. Seven of these lead to the publication title "Glanures n° 5. Bulletin de l’Association Les Amis de François Ozenda, Association Les Amis de François Ozenda..." so they are in essence promotional copy by the organization promoting his work. I would not call a "friends of" society a neutral entity.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:18, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - based on works found in more than one museum collection, and sources found by Bearian. I think this article can be improved, but should not be deleted. Netherzone (talk) 19:34, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 09:33, 7 January 2020 (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) 09:49, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marina Tadić[edit]

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

Non notable singer falling short of both WP:GNG & WP:SINGER. Celestina007 (talk) 04:35, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Even if three albums were not enough (and they are, because two are needed per guideline), she has other activities such as TV show acting. Please read the article again and see that it is relevant. In case you are biased and want it simply deleted, do not do that without creating the page draft that has at least significant potential to become article. --Obsuser (talk) 00:02, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 04:35, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 04:35, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 04:35, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 04:35, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 04:35, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:17, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:17, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:17, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Delete - The number of references appears to be enough to help the subject meet GNG, but since they're all in Serbo-Croatian, I can't tell you if the sources meet the criteria to be reliable sources. They feel like blogs though. Also, without understanding the language, it's not clear if the sources discuss this subject or the leader of Eerie Wanda. It's rather telling that she has no article on the Serbian project though. As for three albums, I don't see them on a major label, so it's not enough to meet WP:MUSICBIO. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:37, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They are not blogs. "Nobody" heard of Eerie Wanda Marina Tadic; they do not discuss that artist. That is true for Serbian wiki... On Serbian wiki there is rule of two albums min; move it to draft then, do not delete it completely; at least how I see it is right... --Obsuser (talk) 15:50, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing up that they are not blogs. I've changed my !Vote to delete as I can't see any criteria other that celebrity to save the musician. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:42, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, "thank you". I just propose moving to draft and not deleting completely. Many celebreties have articles just by that mean, so this article is OK but you obviously have something personal against it what I do not respect. --Obsuser (talk) 11:50, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposed to moving to draft space. Another telling point is that there is no Serbian article on the subject. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:53, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thank you for that opinion for draft. I disagree again that it is any telling point but it does not matter. --Obsuser (talk) 21:00, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as some of the teferences do seem to be reliable such as Telegraf rs and she does have at least three albums on major Serbian labels such as City Records so deletion is not necessary, imv Atlantic306 (talk)
Keep She seems notable and more refs. can be found which could improve the article. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 17:59, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 09:15, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes general notability guidelines. Missvain (talk) 07:17, 11 January 2020 (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) 08:54, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aldi Brothers[edit]

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

Non notable “comic duo” who lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources hereby failing WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO Celestina007 (talk) 03:02, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 03:02, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 03:02, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 03:02, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 03:02, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom nothing to suggest they pass WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 08:28, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:43, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello thank you for your time for reviewing my article . I believe that my article is realiable and had a good independent sources But I made some spelling mistakes and This slightly changed the direction of the article and made it unacceptable, and I agree with that . But now I corrected some mistakes and added some reliable independent sources and I organized the article . So please give it another look and tell me if there is anything else to edit Thank you for your time again. In addition, they have almost 43 million views on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCHUjkwR5MZo-VjcGMrMOJzQ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hidar.ayube (talk • contribs) 19:52, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I made important adjustments to the article please give it another look and tell me if you have any feedback Thank you .— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|Hidar.ayube (talk) 14:21, 2 January 2020 (UTC)]] comment added by Hidar.ayube (talk • contribs) 12:34, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - 4 or 5 reliable sources profiling this duo (not trivial mentions, but interviews with them) meets GNG. MurielMary (talk) 21:24, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep like what Muriel said the article has good reliable references.kousai_orfahli (talk) 2:27 02 January 2020 (UTC) Striking sock vote. Mz7 (talk) 03:14, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some sources are not in deep but also it meets GNG. Carla.time (talk) 14:30 3 January 2020 (UTC) Striking sock vote. Mz7 (talk) 03:14, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Would the closing admin please await the outcome of a sockpuppet investigation? Schwede 66 20:21, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Creator is a confirmed sock and has been blocked indefinitely. Schwede 66 05:37, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 09:08, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --SalmanZ (talk) 22:24, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article creator is a sockpuppet + fails GNG. CatcherStorm ^talk 00:54, 10 January 2020 (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 Userfy to User:Bearian/Epstein Becker & Green. He already asked for it, so deleting and making him go through WP:REFUND seems like a WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY fail. RL0919 (talk) 17:36, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Epstein Becker & Green[edit]

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

The information on largest is not in the available portion of any of the sources; being in the list in ref 1 is meaningless because the list consists of all 58 listed firms. I removed a totally promotional ref, and there are not sufficient sources to support the article. I've begun checking all articles I see that say "one of the largest" DGG ( talk ) 19:32, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 21:22, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 21:22, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 21:22, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy for want of reliable sources currently in the article, and a lot of work to do on it. A search of Google newspapers reveals nothing, and of books reveals scant coverage in passing. If it really were so big, I'd see more news about that. A deeper search pf the American Bar Association does find more sources, but we'd have to spend a lot of time combing through those links. Closing admin, I give you permission to userfy it to my user space. Bearian (talk) 17:54, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:52, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Soft delete so WP:REFUND and userification can apply upon request. Nom's rationale is sound and I see no need to userify currently. --Doug Mehus T·C 03:56, 10 January 2020 (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 Dubai Marina. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:17, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Al Sahab Towers[edit]

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

Created as WP:ADMASK and copyvio by SPA. Later re-written to contain substantially same content but still sole-sourced to developer's website. No evidence of notability for this real-estate development in article or WP:BEFORE. Searches disclose only independent coverage as consisting of apartment/AirBnB-type listings and passing mentions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:36, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:36, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:23, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 03:28, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NBUILD WP:NEXIST Skyscrapers with 44 floors are notable. The article could use development not deletion WP:NOTCLEANUP Lightburst (talk) 19:23, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in our guidelines states that there is an automatic notability for buildings of whatever height. The reference to both NBUILD and NEXIST here is inapposite. NBUILD states: Buildings, including... commercial developments, may be notable...but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability. There is no evidence of such significant coverage. Likewise, NEXIST refers to the existence of sources, not the existence of structures or other physical objects and there are no sources here. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:37, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have begun adding references and doing clean up. To explain my !vote: NBUILD is met per NEXIST. Meaning the sources are available, and criteria two of NBUILD is met. It is not necessary for the sources to be in the article. It is the job of the nominator to do a thorough WP:BEFORE ...I am now doing that job, and adding to the article. Lightburst (talk) 00:07, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge > Dubai Marina; aleady covered in that article. (See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marina Quays) Djflem (talk) 10:10, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has improved since AfD. There is no reason to merge or redirect an article which is sourced and well done. Wm335td (talk) 19:51, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The few sentences of actual content easily fit at Dubai_Marina#Al_Sahab. We do not need a separate article for a generic tall apartment building just to copy-paste that it has meeting rooms, parking, and a gym. "Sourced and well done" do not preclude the main article being sourced and well done as well; redundancy and lack of notability independent of the development it's in (all a single complex by Emaar) is absolutely a reason to merge. Reywas92^Talk 01:28, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:49, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (Came here from Article Rescue Squadron) - Current sourcing consists mainly of trivial mentions or promotional material from entities connected to the developer. Can easily be covered at Dubai Marina#Al Sahab after trimming trivial facts such as the list of amenities. –dlthewave ☎ 03:00, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of the five current sources, the following three do not contribute to notability in my opinion:

- Emporis attempts to catalog every building and does not rise above the level of WP:ROUTINE coverage.

- The National provides background on the Dubai Marina development but does not mention Al Sahab.

- Dubai Marina is self-published by the developer and does not meet the independent coverage requirement. –dlthewave ☎ 03:15, 12 January 2020 (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. A lot of this discussion about full professionalism is ultimately redundant. The league is not listed at WP:FPL so it is not fully professional. Some sources have been presented which seem to go beyond routine match reporting, but there isn't really consensus one way or the other. I wouldn't be surprised to see this back here later if coverage is not maintained throughout the season. Fenix down (talk) 08:46, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2019–20 San Diego 1904 FC season[edit]

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

Not my field, but are separate season articles appropriate for clubs at this level? DGG ( talk ) 00:18, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Yes. The league is sanctioned by USSF at the professional, Division III level. The same as USL League One whose teams also receive season pages. In addition, I believe it is generally accepted that professional clubs, no matter the level, can have season pages made. ColeTrain4EVER (talk) 04:35, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:01, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:01, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:02, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The old saying is hard cases make bad law, and this particular league poses a challenge to the fully professional leagues guideline. It has indeed been sanctioned by the USSF as a "professional league," but the USSF has only two distinctions: "professional" and "amateur," and there's a big question as to whether being called professional by the federation means the league is fully professional (I found a source saying several USL League One teams only pay players during the season, which I don't think counts as "fully professional." To date, the league this particular team played in has only played about 20 games total amongst all seven of its teams. It has not announced any details about its spring competition yet. Doing a spot-check, the team's players don't seem to pass WP:GNG. We have a consensus (that conflicts with WP:GNG) that only fully professional seasons are notable (despite of the fact the fifth tier semi-pro English National League gets national level coverage.) Looking at the season's sources, I don't see any which satisfy WP:GNG apart from the single San Diego Tribune article. The rest are blogs or are primary. The kicker for me is I can't find any secondary coverage of the team's games with the exception of this short article. The season is ongoing, but it doesn't seem to have met our notability guideline yet. SportingFlyer T·C 06:49, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal: I'm sorry but I think this opinion: "USSF has only two distinctions: "professional" and "amateur," and there's a big question as to whether being called professional by the federation means the league is fully professional (I found a source saying several USL League One teams only pay players during the season, which I don't think counts as "fully professional." is dishonest. First, what source are you finding for USL League One teams only paying during the season? The only one I can find is a March 2015 article from the Washington Post, and that was about the United Soccer League, the predeccesor to USL Championship and USL League One. I can't find anything for League One specifically but for USL Championship's New Mexico United you have this article stating "USL Championship players are paid and there is no league salary cap. Most player contracts are for one year with a club option beyond. Some NMU players receive housing stipends along with a monthly paycheck. Most contacts include a universal incentive based on team (not individual) production."

Also, you can't use "To date, the league this particular team played in has only played about 20 games total amongst all seven of its teams. It has not announced any details about its spring competition yet." against NISA. If this league is fully-professional then it is fully-professional, doesn't matter if they have played 20 games or 1,000 games. And Spring details not announced officially yet in the end of December I doubt is cause for much concern, especially since majority of the clubs for Spring are basically official anyway. So I don't get why that needs to be said.

Regarding USSF's distinctions between professional and amateur, yes, USSF does just have those two distinctions. Honestly, I bet that is true around the whole world. No one says "this league is fully-professional" normally. Heck, even in MLS you get just "professional". It doesn't matter what words they use, whether professional or fully-professional. What matters is that the players are paid enough to basically make this their full-time career. All indications I can find for League One and NISA show that to be true, especially since for NISA, they're former NPSL clubs who used to play with majority college players who were not paid and now have to pay their players a professional salary. So again, let's not get into this debate over the use of the words professional and fully-professional. We all know what it means to be "fully-pro", we don't need USSF to specifically have that distinction. ArsenalFan700 (talk) 18:04, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted on the fully professional leagues thread again about the one source I found regarding player salaries for the NISA - the players were paid $1,400-$2,000 a month for only a few months' worth of work, which I noted is below the US poverty line at the lower end, and the contracts were only guaranteed through the end of the fall season. As you probably know, we maintain a list of "fully professional" leagues because a league which is successful enough to pay all of its players a salary that allows them to be an athlete first and foremost will almost certainly receive enough coverage to have all the players in the league pass WP:GNG, since the league will necessarily receive media coverage. The one source from NISA shows players do not get paid well enough for us to assume the league is fully professional, the league itself only ran for a few months in 2019, and coverage of the league is spotty. The coverage of the team's season is the reason why I !voted delete - not because the league isn't fully professional, but because this particular season fails WP:GNG - but it still shouldn't qualify for our "exception" under the FPL rule. SportingFlyer T·C 04:57, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These are the sources I've found for the San Diego 1904 fall season. NBC 7 San Diego [90][91], Fox 5 San Diego [92], The San Diego Union-Tribune [93][94][95], SoccerToday [96][97][98], Daily Press [99], SFGate [100], Chicago Tribune [101], The Baltimore Sun [102], East Village Times [103][104][105][106][107][108]. While coverage is spread out and not done consistently between groups, there should be enough sources here that follow WP:GNG. ColeTrain4EVER (talk) 18:50, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My concerns after looking through all of these: the San Diego Tribune only wrote three articles, of which two were about the first game; Soccer Today allows teams to request editorial coverage and it's difficult to tell if it's truly independent; the Chicago Tribune and Baltimore Sun articles are simply reprints of the San Diego Tribune article; and the East Village Times appears to be a WordPress blog. That being said, I appreciate the research and some of these should be used to support the article. SportingFlyer T·C 23:34, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that you appreciate the research. Thanks! I'm not totally sure how to incorporate some of these into the article itself and would love some advice. As for East Village Times it is a Wordpress site (says so at the bottom) but I didn't think it failed WP:RS since it didn't appear to be a content farm or group blog. If I'm misunderstanding and it is, my mistake. It seems as though the website has been credentialed by other lower division sports in the city of San Diego for coverage as well. Thought it would make sense that a third division team in a major city would have to rely on coverage through smaller outlets, especially in the early going. ColeTrain4EVER (talk) 16:46, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:18, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May I please get that source on USL League One teams not paying players out of season? Also, I'm not sure bringing up the 5th tier in England is a fair comparison. Everything below Level 4 is considered "Non-Professional" and therefore would definitely not count. That comparison would fit in better if it was about an NPSL team season page or something but in this case the league in question falls under the same "professional" status in America as EPL Leagues One or Two do in England. Its a different team but back in April Detroit City FC CEO told the Detroit Metro Times that he and the team were "committed to paying a living wage" to players. Stumptown Athletic's President and CEO was interviewed by Charlotte's NPR affiliate and said The team budget for salaries will be in the range of $400,000 to $1 million annually which would make me think players and staff are getting paid year round. Finally, there was a bit in the NISA announcement for Atlanta SC that caught my eye that I'd love to discuss with you. In the announcement, the league explained how it was different from the franchise model that the "rest of American soccer" uses. In the fifth paragraph it says "NISA’s approach to its players sets it apart. Unlike other American soccer leagues, NISA clubs contract directly with their players and control their rights." If a team is controlling a player's rights, is it crazy to assume said team is paying year round to ensure said player is not using his talents elsewhere? If the team wasn't paying what control would they have over a players rights? Also, I'd love to try and find more WP:GNG sources and would love to hear your advice on possibly fixing this article rather than deleting it. Additionally, I tried to find precedent when making these pages. Back in 2011, when USL Pro began as a third division professional league in the U.S., the team season pages similarly had very few non-league sources ((CC: 2011 Charleston Battery season, 2011 Pittsburgh Riverhounds season, 2011 Los Angeles Blues season). If you look at quite a few of those 2011 season pages they seem to do the same thing. The same goes for USL1 teams from last year. The 2019 Lansing Ignite FC season page uses one source that fufills GNG and the rest are league affiliated. The same goes for the 2019 Greenville Triumph SC season and 2019 Toronto FC II season. I'm not sure how the article can follow GNG when the other U.S. D3 league seemingly does not either. ColeTrain4EVER (talk) 16:45, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
When they pay them is completely irrelevant. What matters is how much they pay them. They could give them their entire salary in a lump sum on January 1, or 1/365 of their salary every day, or anything in between, and it wouldn't change their professional status or lack thereof. Teachers at my old high school had the option of getting their salary throughout the year or getting paid more per paycheck but only during the school year. Their annual salaries were the same regardless of what they chose, it was just a matter of when they got their money. Were teachers who opted for the former option somehow more professional than those who opted for the latter option? Of course not. That's ridiculous. Plus as others have pointed out you have failed to provide a source on your claim. Smartyllama (talk) 19:39, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Which claim did I not source? Or are you commenting on SportingFlyer's comment? ColeTrain4EVER (talk) 20:16, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I am not sure you should be directing this comment at ColeTrain. User:SportingFlyer is the one who brought up when the players get paid and User:ColeTrain4EVER is just providing information about it for NISA and League One. I agree though, it ultimately doesn't matter. For this project, it doesn't matter when they get paid, as long as they are paid enough to basically make this their career. ArsenalFan700 (talk) 23:37, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Where did I say it was directed at ColeTrain? It should have been obvious it was directed at the remark by SportingFlyer that he was responding to. My apologies for the confusion. Smartyllama (talk) 18:00, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SportingFlyer. GiantSnowman 12:19, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:PERNOM. This isn't a vote. ArsenalFan700 (talk) 23:55, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - PERNOM is an essay. SportingFlyer T·C 04:57, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Given NISA appears to be fully professional, and nobody has offered any real evidence otherwise, only uncited and irrelevant arguments about when players get paid, I am going to go ahead and assume the citations on WP:FPL are correct and that this meets WP:NSEASONS. Smartyllama (talk) 19:51, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No one has offered any evidence that it is fully professional, either, apart from the fact the USSF has sanctioned it as a professional league, mostly because nobody's writing about this league at all. The only important element in this entire discussion is that the season fails WP:GNG - newspapers didn't even report on the league's individual games! SportingFlyer T·C 20:38, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Um, we have provided these in the past, including independent sources which explain how teams like Detroit City FC and Chattanooga FC are paying all their players. I don't see what else more specific you need besides a dang list of each individual salary. Regarding the match reports, there are a few matches which didn't get much coverage but others which did such as:

Match 1: Oakland Roots Cal United
Fury Stumptown
San Diego Cal United
Miami Philadelphia
Miami FC Stumptown Athletic

By the way, would appreciate a response above. ArsenalFan700 (talk) 23:55, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What newspapers have covered New York Red Bulls II games consistently or any of the reserve teams in USL Championship? What newspaper covered Toronto FC II games? ColeTrain4EVER (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:10, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:ColeTrain4EVER we do have to keep in mind WP:OTHERSTUFF in these discussions. ArsenalFan700 (talk) 23:55, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep NISA appears to be fully professional and so meets our criteria. If you are paid, you are a professional. If you are not paid you are an amateur - that seems clear enough. Wm335td (talk) 20:34, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:47, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. As long as NISA isn't properly listed at WP:FPL, it's irrelevant how professional it appears to be. --BlameRuiner (talk) 15:29, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is true, no getting around that. However, there is currently a discussion ongoing in the WP:FPL talk page about the league and if it belongs on the project page at all (much like here is seems to be a split consensus). Do we think that will yield any result where this point be temporarily shelved? Once that's decided I feel like this page's fate will follow suit. ColeTrain4EVER (talk) 16:26, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that the article can be further improved, and indeed has done during the debate. The discussion is starting to descend into name calling, so I think it's best we close it now. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:54, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vera Chapman (New Zealand artist)[edit]

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

She is listed with a very short entry in two exhaustive books (books listing apparently all NZ artists from the 19th century, no matter their importance), but hasn't really received significant attention. These kind of books exist for most countries (e.g. for Belgium there is such a three part book listing 20,000+ artists, most of them not notable). From the same source given for this article, we have e.g. this entry or this entry about a non notable artist, while e.g. this one seems notable but lacks an article so far.

So inclusion in that source provides reliable information, but is hardly an indicator of notability in itself. And as we lack better, more extensive sources, it looks as if she isn't notable. Fram (talk) 08:30, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:30, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:30, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article was nominated for deletion a matter of minutes after it was published. It's still under construction. MurielMary (talk) 08:40, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking at your sources, the third[109] and fifth[110] are the same, the fourth[111] is a one line mention. Which is basically the problem: she gets mentioned, as do thousands of artists over the years, but it doesn't really go beyond that. Fram (talk) 09:07, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1. All the sources listed are different ones. 2. As Chapman has an artwork in the Supreme Court of NZ and others in the permanent collection of Hocken Library, she meets GNG as an artist. MurielMary (talk) 09:16, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please check you sources again. The current sources 5 ("Otago Art Society") and 7 ("Fine Arts Academy of New Zealand") are the same. Having paintings in some collections is not included as a GNG meeting criterion. You need independent sources about the person, not simply being included in a collection (is it even on display?) No one seems to have considered her works at the Hocken or the Supreme Court of any importance, since no sources discuss these works. The Hocken collection has over 17,000 artworks (and more than 1 million photographs). The Superme Court painting is there because of the importance of the sitter, Frederick Chapman (judge), who is her father. Redirecting this article to the one on her father may be the best solution here. Fram (talk) 09:44, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since resolved

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Not sure what you are looking at. Source 5 = Poverty Bay Herald and 7 = The Arts Society. MurielMary (talk) 09:55, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

...that's why I gave the source "names" you used as well. At the moment, they are source 6 and 8, but that might change at any time. They are still the same though, and have been from when they were included. Fram (talk) 10:00, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you need to open up the links to see the actual sources as they are clearly different when you open them. MurielMary (talk) 10:04, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chapman exhibited with the Otago Society of Arts, the Canterbury Society of Arts and the New Zealand Academy of Fine Arts.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/ESD19121118.2.14?end_date=31-12-1950&items_per_page=10&page=5&phrase=2&query=Vera+Chapman&snippet=true&start_date=01-01-1901|title=Otago Art Society|last=|first=|date=|website=paperspast.natlib.govt.nz|url-status=live|archive-url=|archive-date=|access-date=7 January 2020}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |url=https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19130410.2.11?end_date=31-12-1950&items_per_page=10&page=6&phrase=2&query=Vera+Chapman&snippet=true&start_date=01-01-1901|title=The Art Society|last=|first=|date=|website=paperspast.natlib.govt.nz|url-status=live|archive-url=|archive-date=|access-date=7 January 2020}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |url=https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/ESD19121118.2.14?end_date=31-12-1950&items_per_page=10&page=5&phrase=2&query=Vera+Chapman&snippet=true&start_date=01-01-1901|title=Fine Arts Academy of New Zealand|last=|first=|date=|website=paperspast.natlib.govt.nz|url-status=live|archive-url=|archive-date=|access-date=7 January 2020}}</ref>

This is the actual code from your article, right now, and since the time I first mentioned that two sources were the same. The first and last source in this section have the exact same url:

"https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/ESD19121118.2.14?end_date=31-12-1950&items_per_page=10&page=5&phrase=2&query=Vera+Chapman&snippet=true&start_date=01-01-1901"
"https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/ESD19121118.2.14?end_date=31-12-1950&items_per_page=10&page=5&phrase=2&query=Vera+Chapman&snippet=true&start_date=01-01-1901"

So they point to the exact same article. As I don't know which url you want to use in the second instance (the source labeled "Fine Arts Academy of New Zealand", like I said before), I can not correct this. I can remove the duplicate one, but that's probably not what you want. Fram (talk) 10:47, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:18, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sources do not support notability of this artist. NotButtigieg (talk) 17:54, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Qualifies under WP:ARTIST #4. "The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." The New Zealand Academy of Fine Arts is a notable gallery as is the Centre of Contemporary Art a notable facility where notable exhibitions take place. As is the Supreme Court of New Zealand. She painted the official portrait of her father, who was the first Supreme Court Judge of New Zealand actually born in New Zealand. It would be a shame if this notable subject was deleted, especially given she is one of the few celebrated professional female painters in New Zealand in the early 20th century. She is also known as Vera Eichelbaum. Her personal papers are held in the New Zealand National Library [112]. Missvain (talk) 22:01, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Also keep in mind this is a woman painter in early 20th-century New Zealand. It's common for citations to be mere mentions at times, due to the lack of in depth coverage about women in male dominated career fields. We'd have a very small amount of women painters on Wikipedia if we relied on in depth biographies as coverage, for example. Missvain (talk) 22:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep How important the subject of an article is is completely irrelevant. "Not important enough" is not a criterion for deletion. Of course, per GNG the a topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list if has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Which is just another way of saying that if you have enough material to write an article with, it is very likely that several subject-matter-experts who we can defer that decision to found the subject "of interest". In the case of an artist, a museum curator is such a person. I think that here, we find that we both have sufficient material and a critical assessment by experts. The subject is "notable" and the article should be kept. Vexations (talk) 23:16, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I agree with the points made by User:Missvain. Ambrosia10 (talk) 23:29, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all previous Keepers. One would hope that some of the concerns of the nominator are no longer there. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 23:54, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nominator. Despite all the work put towards the referencing, it doesn't disguise the fact that the content consists of trivial mentions. WP:GNG is not met, nor WP:Artist Curiocurio (talk) 00:35, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; this article was nominated for deletion a few minutes after it was created, when it only had one reference. It now has 26. It's interesting to compare it with the other Vera Chapman, a minor fantasy novelist, whose article has been sitting for ten years with just one reference, but will probably never be nominated for deletion because she had the good sense to be English and found the Tolkien society, instead of being a 19th C New Zealand artist. It's not clear how the encyclopedia would be improved by deleting this article. --Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 00:46, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- It's the quality of the sources that counts, not the quantity. If you actually read the sources, you find that she is discussed in a similar way to dozens or hundreds of other non-notable artists participating in the same exhibitions. Curiocurio (talk) 01:02, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In response to Users:Missvain, Ambrosia10, Giantflightlessbirds, Vexations and DiamondRemley39, Although it is a truth universally acknowledged that the world was stacked so totally against career women a century ago that far fewer female than male artists had notable careers, the fact remains that artists must meet the gender-neutral standards set forth in WP:ARTIST. And this artist does not. NotButtigieg (talk) 01:30, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This artist seems sufficiently notable, and the proposer has not made a convincing case why it should be deleted. Ross Finlayson (talk) 07:09, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The lack of significant attention in reliable, independent sources? There are many passing mentions, but nothing that makes her meet WP:BIO as far as I can see. Perhaps you (or any of the others) can give here the 2 or 3 sources which really demonstrate notability? Something like this is an extremely passing mention, and puts to rest the claims about very few woman artists in this period in NZ: this article alone mentions two female art teachers, and among the exhibitors more than 20 women as well. Fram (talk) 07:56, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Those are art students, not artists, and I doubt many of them went on to actual careers, let alone having work in three major national collections. Why does she not qualify under WP:ARTIST? —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 08:19, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - If being in such an exhibition is not "having an actual career", then what is the evidence that Chapman had one? And what 3 major national collections? The Supreme Court is not an art collection, they have portraits of their judges just like many organisations used to do: the importance for the collection is in the sitter, not in the artist; and even then this is not an important art collection. I already discussed the Hocken Collection, her work is not on display, but is simply one of the 17,000 artworks they own (plus many more photographs and so on). Looking at WP:NARTIST, I guess we can all agree that points 1 to 3 do not apply here? Which leaves us with part 4, where her work is only in one notable gallery or museum, and there isn't displayed or even digitized, and has not received any attention. Fram (talk) 09:05, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - And looking at Hocken Collections, it seems to be important as a research library, not so much as an art gallery. Is her work in the permanent collection of any of the 33 actual art collections listed at Category:Art museums and galleries in New Zealand for example? Fram (talk) 09:09, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - The Hocken Collections are listed in Category:Art collections in New Zealand. Seems like it is an actual art collection. Their pictures collection holds more than 17,000 works.[113] Paora (talk) 21:01, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - "not so much as an art gallery"? Our own article (and note it is "Hocken Collections", not "Hocken Gallery") opens with "Hocken Collections (...formerly the Hocken Library) is a research library, historical archive, and art gallery" (emboldening mine). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:39, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Hocken is one of the country's major collections of New Zealand art. That random list of 33 is not a particularly reliable guide. You do realise, Fram, that most of an art museum's collection is not on display? And most in New Zealand aren't digitised and online? I'm giving up, since you seem determined to invent any new rules and criteria that will serve to get this woman deleted from Wikipedia. Perhaps we could have all spent our spare time doing something constructive to improve it instead of having this debate. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 09:52, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Artcyclopedia doesn't list it[114], and neither is it included in this long list. The Encyclopedia of New Zealand doesn't mention it in the article on art galleries and collections[115], but again describes it as an important research library[116]. Basically, your claim that the Hocken is major art collection is not supported by most (all?) sources. Fram (talk) 10:15, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Even a cursory glance at the Hocken's online catalogue shows that they hold many works by some of New Zealand's most significant artists, such as Colin McCahon, Frances Hodgkins, and Ralph Hotere. So to suggest that the Hocken's is not a major art collection is arrant nonsense. Paora (talk) 10:45, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't care sprouting arrant nonsense, when it is the same arrant nonsense proclaimed by good sources. They have an art collection with a few biggish names in it, that doesn't make it a major art collection. Major art collections are things like the Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa or to a lesser degree Dunedin Public Art Gallery. Fram (talk) 11:10, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Hell, I have an art collection with a few biggish names in it; this doesn't make me one of the sort of "notable galleries or museums" required by WP:ARTIST. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NotButtigieg (talk • contribs) 19:45, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        I also want to note that the requirement in WP:ARTIST (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. is plural. Even if the Hocken library and collection qualified, it would not suffice. I cannot see that Chapman meets any of the criteria in WP:ARTIST. NotButtigieg (talk) 20:18, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        
        This article refers to "the major metropolitan collections residing in the Auckland Art Gallery, Te Papa Tongarewa and the Hocken collection" (emboldening mine). But perhaps The New Zealand Herald isn't a reliable source? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:07, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        No, that's discussing major collections of the work of one artist, McMahon, not major art collections in general. Fram (talk) 13:29, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        No, it isn't. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:41, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        
        User:Fram has read this accurately. Pigsonthewing is citing this source incorrectly. It fails to support the argument Pigsonthewing wants to make. NotButtigieg (talk) 14:22, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        No, he hasn't. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:41, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She is listed in the Concise Dictionary of New Zealand Artists published in 2000 (page 42), and her work is held by the Hocken Collections in Dunedin and the Supreme Court in Wellington. Paora (talk) 09:42, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. So many of the references, for example 11-20, are just passing mentions of her and her work having appeared in group shows. David notMD (talk) 14:07, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've pondered this for a few days and have come to the conclusion that a keep vote is justified. Hocken is certainly one of the major art collections in New Zealand; the question is whether that, in conjunction with the Supreme Court painting, satisfies criterion #4. Some may have noticed the question that I put on the talk page of the article:

The National Library holds one of her paintings of her father, on "indefinite loan from the Law Society". Is that painting separate to the one hanging in the Supreme Court? If yes, this would strengthen the case for notability.

I would be surprised if that National Library listing referred to a painting hanging in the Supreme Court. I must therefore conclude that she has paintings in two major collections and criterion #4 is met. Missvain makes a very good point and I endorse her comment. What would be helpful to know is whether any of the dailies published an obituary. Unfortunately, digitisation on PapersPast has not gone beyond 1950 so we won't know, unless somebody embarks on the painstaking act of going through microfilm in the Wellington City Libraries (if those microfilm are even accessible, that is, given that the main library is permanently closed). Schwede 66 04:21, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Schwede66 and Paora have not responded to the point made by several editors above that to passing WP:ARTIST requires that said artist has (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. courts and law libraries are not art museums.NotButtigieg (talk) 15:47, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to point out that this "Vera Chapman" is not even the most notable painter named Vera Chapman. Another Vera Chapman [117] is listed on AskArt , a website where you can find listings for pretty much every artist whose work anyone buys. The vast majority of painters on AskArt lack Wikipedia pages for the perfectly good reason that they, like Chapman, are not notable by the standard of WP:ARTIST. NotButtigieg (talk) 15:47, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- So you searched the name in a database, found someone else by that name, and conclude that the one in the database, which has one source ("Nearly 20,000 biographies can be found in Artists in California 1786-1940 by Edan Hughes"), is more notable than this one who has an article with multiple sources? Not a fine argument. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 16:12, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - My argument is that the artist we are discussing here does not meet WP:ARTIST. I have searched, others have searched, and no one has been able to find the kind of evidence that meets WP:ARTIST.NotButtigieg (talk) 18:35, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Your vote is that she doesn't meet the criteria. I refer to your argument beginning with "I wish to point out"--that the Vera Chapman you found is more notable than this Vera Chapman when this one has details and sources; the other appears in an entry on an art website is from one old book that includes thousands of people from California. It's poor source evaluation. That matters less than the other Veras Chapmans problem: introducing a second person by that name who, according to you, is both more notable and yet not notable enough, makes no sense. Vera Chapman #2 has nothing to do with Vera Chapman #1. Vera Chapman #2 (described as a sculptor, not a painter) does not matter here. Someone in the same field shares the same name. Neither forename nor surname is especially unusual. It's just such a random and odd thing to add to this already long discussion. And now I am part of the length for addressing it. I think I'm done here. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 19:19, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - I brought up the "other" artist named Vera Chapman because she is a non-notable American painter of roughly the same era (1889 - 1978) as the New Zealand Vera Chapman. The American also comes up in searches [118], [119], [120], [121], she appears in Who's who in the West - 1987, Volume 21 - Page 200, as a watercolor artist. And it is the American painter, not the one from New Zealand, whose work comes up in a search of the name on images [122]. My point is that notability requires the sort of sources listed in WP:ARTIST.NotButtigieg (talk) 00:40, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment wihtout addressing notability directly, I want to note that the arguments for considering the Supreme court painting of her father as meeting WP:ARTIST ("multiple collections") are not so strong. Her father was a Supreme Court of New Zealand judge in.. wait for it... Wellington. It is highly likely that her work made it to that collection as a result. A judge is powerful position, and he would only need to direct someone to buy it and hang it up. WP:ARTIST is strong because it relies on independently curated work, not family connections. As the bio here says, "Moved to Wellington when father appointed judge there... Her portrait of her father is in Supreme Court, Wellington." ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:41, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has works in significant collections, and her papers are archived in the National Library. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:34, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Please speak to the fact that having ones papers in a library does not confer notability. And the fact that Chapman's work is not held by collections of the sort described and required by WP:ARTIST.NotButtigieg (talk) 13:26, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please stop hectoring everyone who disagrees with your assessment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:42, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There's consensus that the references provided are sufficient for GNG, which trumps any guidance provided by NSEASONS. Fenix down (talk) 09:31, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2019–20 Bashundhara Kings season[edit]

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

The page fails WP:NSEASONS as it's not going to be notable enough to have it's own article. I will also nominate this article for the same reason.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 04:29, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 04:29, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 04:29, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:13, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it's a top flight league, why do you think it's "not going to be notable enough?" That's not a good nomination statement at all, this is a top professional league per NSEASONS, especially since Bashundhara won the championship and qualified for a continental competition (AFC Cup), and a news search brought up continuing English-language coverage of the team from as recently as two days ago (much less local language newspapers). SportingFlyer T·C 09:10, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep looks notable to me. probably just this article needs to be developed. WP:BEFORE applies to the nominator who also said he would nominate the team as well. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:37, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - despite what @SportingFlyer: claims, this is not a "top professional league" (it is not listed at WP:FPL) and no evidence the subject meets GNG. Giant Snowman 11:42, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NSEASONS failure – there is a longstanding consensus that for football-related season articles "top professional league" is taken to mean fully-professional league (see e.g. this, this, this or this). The Bangladeshi top division does not fall into this category (see WP:FPL). SF is well aware of this consensus, so it's disappointing to see them continuing to pretend it doesn't exist. Number 5 7 11:50, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And it's disappointing you continue to vote with a consensus that has no basis in our WP:GNG policy. [123] [124] [125] [126] [127] [128] [129] [130] [131] [132]. Most of that is from the season before since it doesn't appear the 2019–20 season has started yet, but it's a general example of the English language coverage of the league, including multiple stories in different press from their last three matches. SportingFlyer T·C 22:17, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We have 2019–20 Bangladesh Premier League for the league. I do not believe individual season articles for each club are necessary. Number 5 7 18:05, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whether they're necessary or not doesn't matter - the only thing that matters is, as I've demonstrated, this season has been adequately covered by secondary sources, meaning that the topic qualifies for a Wikipedia article. SportingFlyer T·C 00:14, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @SportingFlyer: Let me ask you this, let's say that this is kept, then there is going to be plently of red pages for the players that ain't notable due to the Bangladesh Premier League not being part of the WP:FPL. By nominating this article and the other one, we won't have that possible issue of having the red links. It's basically a unspoken rule that if the players ain't eligible via the WP:FPL rule than the seasonal article wouldn't be notable enough either. HawkAussie (talk) 05:37, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then we remove the redlinks. "Will have lots of redlinks if kept" may be an original argument to bring to an AfD and is certainly not grounded in policy. And the unspoken rule isn't compatible with our actual notability policy. SportingFlyer T·C 00:45, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 05:20, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 17:55, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest relisting. I want to another Realist. Because here unless problems with sources. i believe that probably pass WP:NSEASONS#3. So therefore, it is urged to more discuss.-Nocturnal306^talk 21:29, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 08:00, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The suggested relisting by Nahal appears to be based on a misreading of the guideline. WP:NSEASONS does not have numbered points, so I have to assume they are referring to the third bullet point in the section. However, this is specifically related to college sports, so is not applicable in this case. If this is disregarded, perhaps the AfD should have been closed rather than relisted? Number 5 7 10:52, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - GNG is met with Sporting Flyer's many references. Do we really think seasons for the top league in Bangladesh are really not notable - whether fully professional or not (though we've been through this before WP:NFOOTBALL requires professional football - not fully-professional football - though that is moot with GNG met). Nfitz (talk) 18:44, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Top level seasons in Bangladesh are notable, hence why we have 2019–20 Bangladesh Premier League. Whether this really needs to be separated out into individual articles for each club is dubious. Number 57 12:19, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - That would be an argument to support merge or redirect. You've been pushing for delete, which I don't see any justification for. Nfitz (talk) 18:55, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep SportingFLyer presents an impressive number of refs. Furthermore, this article was listed before the season was even over, so I think it premature to decide that its not going to be notable. Although if kept it needs a substantial addition of prose to meet NSEASONS. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:00, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Or merge 2019–20 Bashundhara Kings season to Bashundhara Kings. at first SportingFlyer Represents an impressive number of references. I didn't think it's eligible for delete because there are plenty of reference. I believe that passes WP:GNG. is it acceptable to delete it even after having enough source? If the WP:NSEASONS does not pass then it can to support merge/redirect. Second-tier Bashundhara Kings of the Professional Football League. It is the winner of the Bangladesh Premier League (Football) of the season 2018–2019. since it doesn't appear the 2019–20 season has started yet. -Nocturnal306^talk 23:53, 9 January 2020 (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. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 15:49, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Carlson[edit]

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

Insufficient independent evidence of notability. One of the sources is Carlson's own website; another three are behind paywalls so can't be read; no evidence to suggest Carlson is a notable blogger/writer. MurielMary (talk) 07:50, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is nothing more than WP:UPE PR nonsense, along with the other TOU violations, Gardenista and Remodelista. Searching news sources gives a lot of passing mentions but nothing worthwhile. Praxidicae (talk) 11:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:48, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:48, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:02, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable writer. Plus the article is overly promotional. Wikipedia is not a promotion platform.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:44, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V and WP:TNT. Sources are broken links, dead links, or lifestyle features for the social set, not serious biographical sources. Bearian (talk) 21:30, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep She appears to pass general notability guidelines, even in many publications I regularly read (WaPo, Refinery29, ArchDigest). Here's a selection:

"Julie Carlson's remodel of her home begat a world-class online sourcebook that thousands click on for inspiration" from The National Post.
"Friday Five with Julie Carlson of Remodelista" from Design Milk
"Remodelista’s EIC Shows Us Her Digs" from Refinery29
"Home design smarts: 8 tips from Remodelista's Julie Carlson" from the Chicago Tribune
""Remodelista: A Manual for the Considered Home" by Julie Carlson" from Architectural Digest
"20 Questions with Julie Carlson of Remodelista" from Style at Home
"Julie Carson on interior design and her book" from The Washington Post
"Cooking Up a Kitchen With Character" from The Wall Street Journal
"A Childhood Home, and Poets’ Muse" from The New York Times
"The Organized Home: A couple modernized their home, packing plenty of storage into every square foot" from Elle Decor
"Remodelista founder Julie Carlson's top tips for an organised home" from The Telegraph
"Internet design sites rise in popularity" in the Cape Cod Times

I'll drop these off on her talk page. Missvain (talk) 07:28, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Missvain: Very nice. @MurielMary, Praxidicae, Johnpacklambert, and Bearian:? ミラ P 16:48, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I still feel that a lot of this is puffery and I imagine citogenesis based on the other two UPE articles, so I'll let the AFD play out. Praxidicae (talk) 16:50, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Praxidicae: This is why this exists. Try it. ミラ P 18:18, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware but I fail to see how on earth that's relevant. Feel free to look at my AFD history if you doubt my familiarity with this template. Praxidicae (talk) 18:22, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - poorly sourced at the moment but the WSJ, New York Times and Washington Post articles above are substantial and alone should indicate WP:GNG. Thanks Missvain Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:08, 14 January 2020 (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. Missvain (talk) 01:17, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bikram Keith[edit]

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

Non-notable DJ. I found one source that is more than a mention [133], but it doesn't strike me as reliable. Other mentions are by name only, or in context of him performing with Jay Sean. Page has been tagged for notability issues since 2008. Skeletor3000 (talk) 06:30, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 06:30, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 06:30, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:11, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable DJ.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:53, 9 January 2020 (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 Mirkwood (target can be changed, if so desired). There was strong consensus to not keep this as a stand-alone article, but some expressed the wish to move/merge some sources over to more appropriate articles. This is best achieved by keeping the page history accessible, so I'll turn it into a redirect. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rhovanion[edit]

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

Tolkien realm that lacks notability in the real world. Rhovanion has a number of hits on Google scholar, just about all in passing. Yes, it is true that Rhovanion is notable in the scheme of Middle-earth. However, these brief references in reliable secondary sources do not demonstrate that this realm is notable in real life. Fails WP:GNG. Hog Farm (talk) 05:19, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 05:19, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 05:19, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 05:19, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. As the article itself says, "Tolkien generally uses the name 'Wilderland' rather than 'Rhovanion'. Wilderland was introduced in The Hobbit, where Rhovanion does not appear at all. In The Lord of the Rings Rhovanion appears on the Middle-earth map and in the appendices, but nowhere in the main narrative body. In the main story, Wilderland is mentioned several times, including by wise characters such as Gandalf and Treebeard." Even in the works themselves, "Rhovanion" is not notable. As someone who has read the books several times, I couldn't have told you what it was. It is individual features like Mirkwood that are important in the story.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:44, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Rhovanion is worth less than the sum of its parts. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 10:12, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Middle-earth. The article is sourced entirely to primary sources, except for one sentence about the language roots of the in-universe inhabitants, and therefore fails GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 10:28, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep You seem to have missed the section about "Concept and creation". It is small but it does have reliable secondary sources. De728631 (talk) 17:29, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have now added more secondary sources and information about Tolkien's concepts. De728631 (talk) 18:20, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Those sources do not actually help with this article, since they all relate to the distinct concept of Rohan and its inhabitants, whereas Rhovanion is a loose geographical term that includes Rohan, Mirkwood and Esgaroth, and is not discussed, as far as I can tell, in the sources you have provided. Given that the article on Rohan does not pass GNG in its current state, those sources would be better served transported over to that page. Devonian Wombat (talk) 12:50, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Rohan is actually not a part of Rhovanion as the river Limlight in northern Rohan marks the southern border of Rhovanion (see the "Geography" section of the article). However, the people of Rohan originate from the north of Rhovanion, so their concept and the concept of Wilderland are heavily dependent. Apart from that, I have now added another source that discusses the significance of Wilderland for Tolkien's plots. De728631 (talk) 20:55, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mirkwood, a more specific target; it's not notable on its own. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:19, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mirkwood. and I thank all the users above who have specific familiarity with this concept in Tolkien's great works, and who added their input here. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 16:36, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Sm900, thanks also per them. ——SN 54129 17:54, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Wilderland. I am not sure this topic is notable indepdent of Mirkwood, but it is a large area than that, and I am sure we should use the name it is given in the actual works, which would be the common name, not the obscure name it is given in the appendix. I am less than convinced that we have good indepth scholarly coverage, but I want to make sure out discussion of this is focused on the common name. That Rhovanion almost never appears in scholarly work is expected, but what of Wilderland?John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:03, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After some thought this topic does not seem to merit an article. It also has the drawback that some of the stuff under "Kingdom of Rhovanion" seems to be fan-ficiton, that is interpretations of the nature of Middle-earth that goes beyond anything stated by Tolkien anywhere.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:19, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although I agree primary-sourced plot summary needs to be significantly trimmed, I don't see why the secondary sources (potentially added during the AfD?) do not pass the GNG. If they do not constitute significant coverage in independent sources, I would love an explanation why. Also, a redirection Mirkwood doesn't make sense to me. The analysis in Rhovanion § Concept and creation (the best sourced section of the article) applies to the broader region, not Mirkwood specifically. BenKuykendall (talk) 03:41, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I cannot speak for others, but personally I find those sources, while probably reliable, do not actually help with this article, and would be better off within the article on Rohan, as the sources given could all easily be slotted into that article. Also, the information given does not really seem like analysis, more like trivia based off brief mentions, with some of it (Namely the Men of Twilight paragraph) being in-universe information. Devonian Wombat (talk) 04:00 12 January, 2020 (UTC)
  - Within Tolkien's concept, the Northmen of Rhovanion are the ancenstors of the Rohirrim (people of Rohan), so I think it would be prudent to have this piece of secondary analysis in both articles. As to the Men of Twilight, this is of course an in-universe term, but notability is demonstrated when secondary authors care to analyse in-universe events of a story. De728631 (talk) 18:28, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't know exactly how applicable this is, but for Men of Twilight, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Men of Twilight. Hog Farm (talk) 19:18, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - I would agree that the standalone article was too much for this subject, but in the context of Rhovanion it should be worth mentioning. After all, Tolkien chose this area of Middle-earth for the One Ring to disappear and re-appear, and not Rohan proper or Breeland which were likewise settled by Men of Twilight. De728631 (talk) 19:29, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Except that the ringwas found by Stoor Hobbits, not by men at all. However we know absolutely nothing about the Storr Hobbits political organization so there is no way to speak about it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:31, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have to second Devonian Wombat's view that the sources need to be moved over to the article on Rohan. They are not discussing the broad expanse of Rhovanion at all, even when they name the place, but instead are discussing the Northmen there are that kingdom. We have too little sourcing on Rohan, and pulling in the sources that connect to its early history will maybe save the article. There is no reason to preserve this article on a place that was never given its "proper" name in the text of LotR.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:56, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm thirding (is that a thing) Devonian Wombat's suggestion to move the sources over to the Rohan article. I personally believe that Rohan passes GNG, but it needs a lot of improvement in order to demonstrate notability. The focus should be on quality of Middle-earth articles, not quantity of Middle-earth articles. Hog Farm (talk) 16:01, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm lmao although it can be pardoned/tolerated when said but no you can’t per se “third a motion”. Your rationale regardless is plausible.Celestina007 (talk) 17:40, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As usual I’d voice the intelligent rationale given by Johnpacklambert. I can’t see why the article is to remain after further consideration.Celestina007 (talk) 17:35, 12 January 2020 (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. Missvain (talk) 01:17, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Riot Ready Records[edit]

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

Could not find a single independent source (either in print or online) that discusses the label extensively. Sources listed in the article are very poor quality and are mostly about projects the record company worked on, not the company itself. PK650 (talk) 04:47, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. PK650 (talk) 04:47, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't see any coverage in reliable secondary sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 18:02, 7 January 2020 (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) 10:01, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dana Heng[edit]

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

This must be another creation from students (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shey Rivera Ríos). Non-notable individual per WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. PK650 (talk) 04:44, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. PK650 (talk) 04:44, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:01, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A bit WP:TOOSOON for Dana Heng to have a Wikipedia article. Does not pass general notability guidelines or artist notability guidelines. Missvain (talk) 07:50, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete coverage is minor. GNG fail. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:06, 12 January 2020 (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. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:48, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agnee Morcha[edit]

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

Unsourced film DragoMynaa (talk) 01:07, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 01:07, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:37, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non notable film.Celestina007 (talk) 12:18, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 04:32, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete the film lacks significant coverage, thus fails general notability guideline. Also, the film doesnt fulfil any criteria from notability guideline for films. —usernamekiran(talk) 06:14, 10 January 2020 (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. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 15:52, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Klein (editor)[edit]

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

Non notable journalist failing WP:JOURNALIST and lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. Celestina007 (talk) 04:21, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 04:21, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 04:21, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 04:21, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:13, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I tagged this for notability as I felt the paper being (controversially) notable, the exec editor should have more RS that could meet GNG; however, I am surprised as how little RS there still is on this BLP subject. Britishfinance (talk) 17:01, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Holds notable job. Added some sources. He was only made Executive Editor 12 months ago, but here's search on: "philip Klein" "executive editor" [134]. Looks notable to me.NotButtigieg (talk) 17:04, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which of these sources are a full profile or interview on Philip Klein from a quality WP:RS that would give WP:SIGCOV - that is really what we need, otherwise we are at WP:TOOSOON. Britishfinance (talk) 18:09, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Examiner Ups Philip Klein To Managing Editor [135].NotButtigieg (talk) 03:58, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, that is a press release from his employer, The Washington Examiner, relayed through The Daily Caller, which is not an RS. You need some kind of interview/profile piece on the subject is a normal independent good quality RS. We don't have that as yet, and thus this is a likely Delete. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 11:47, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

take a look at the other sources I added to what was, admittedly, a new, poorly sourced, page.NotButtigieg (talk) 16:01, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I want to point out that Klein's notability comes from editing an impactful political mag. I may not like his POV, but I do think the impact of the magazine he edits connotes notability. NotButtigieg (talk) 16:20, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I also want to point out that Klein's notability can be measured in the seriousness and frequency with which his opinions are cited - by both right and left.
- - James Taranto in the Wall Street Journal: "One could say the same of Romney's 2012 flattery of Trump... Trump's shortcomings were far from obscure back then, as the Washington Examiner's Philip Klein wrote on Feb. 2, 2012: 'Today's embrace of Donald Trump is a colossal blunder that will come back to haunt him...'"
  - Ross Douthat in the New York Times: "The list of plausible conservative health care alternatives now literally fills a book — “Overcoming Obamacare,” from The Washington Examiner’s Philip Klein, which any G.O.P. presidential contender would do well to at least pretend to have read."
  - Look for yourself Politico [136]; Washington Post: [137]. My argument is that he is a serious, if minor, political player.NotButtigieg (talk) 16:20, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 04:26, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So just a few from WaPo, the sort of the stuff that I mean:

Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s false accusation of a misquote [138]
"Conservative writer Philip Klein is out with a new book in which he discusses this quandary and what Republicans should do about it." [139]
"Philip Klein argues that Iraq produced the Affordable-Care Act — thanks to Iraq, Democrats took over Congress in 2006 and the White House in ..." [140]
"As Philip Klein of the Washington Examiner dryly noted, Warren could just as well have written that Mexico was going to pay for her big, beautiful plan." [141]
"On Tuesday night, as Donald Trump effectively locked up the Republican presidential nomination, Philip Klein left the party." [Ryan’s resistance to Trump may offer Republicans a life raft].NotButtigieg (talk) 15:08, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And just a little of the stuff that Politico has published about him:

2011: "The Washington Examiner's Philip Klein pushed Romney adviser Eric Fehrnstrom's argument last night that his candidate is "against amnesty, and Newt Gingrich made it very clear he was for amnesty," prompting this exchange: " [142]
2012: "But later Tuesday night, Klein posted audio of the congresswoman’s Monday comments that clearly feature her saying..." [143]
2011: "senior writer at The Washington Examiner, Philip Klein, who wrote to POLITICO in an email that he sees a cultural gap playing out ... " [144]
2008: "There certainly are good reasons to suspect Philip Klein's motivations on the Romney article, but he does make serious points that deserve ..."
2011: "The Washington Examiner's Philip Klein pushed Romney adviser Eric Fehrnstrom's argument last night that his candidate is "against amnesty, ..."
2016: "On Friday morning, Rubio responded directly to Washington Examiner's Philip Klein on Twitter after he tweeted his column headlined "Donald ..." [145]
2011: "The Washington Examiner's Philip Klein didn't react until the day after the blog posting, preferring instead to wait until after his commemoration ..." [146].NotButtigieg (talk) 23:41, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article has been cleaned up and reliable secondary sources have been added. Whatever the subject's political bent, notability is shown through significant coverage by reliable secondary sources. The subject has appeared on C-SPAN 11 times and has worked for the Washington Examiner since 2011, with a second promotion to the executive editor position, certainly not a case of "too soon" as stated above. The subject has written books that have been reviewed or cited by national news outlets. The false accusation against the subject made by the head of the DNC had wide and significant coverage as well. Easily passes WP:GNG and WP:JOURNALIST and meets WP:BIO. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 22:57, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. NotButtigieg, could you just list the refs above that are interviews/profiles from independent RS that are on him? Politico and the Washington Post are full WP:RS/Ps so any profile by them on him would be a full WP:SIGCOV (and a Keep). Remember, that as a journalist, his own articles do not support GNG (i.e. journalists who write in high quality RS are not themselves GNG, unless other RS write about the journalist). thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 18:13, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

None of the articles I listed/linked to above were written by Klein. They are all articles written by other people in media by which he was not employed and they are responses to things Klein wrote or said, or articles citing something he wrote, did or said, or discussions of articles Klein wrote or of assertions he made.NotButtigieg (talk) 19:53, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NotButtigieg, have any of them covered/wrote about him as a notable person (not about what he wrote as an article) – core GNG notability? OR, have any quality independent RS done reviews of his books (per WP:NAUTHOR) – that could also help for GNG? I have a feeling that he will become notable give his activity and roles, however, would be good to nail this properly. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 20:04, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple book reviews, and also, for example, indepth commentary and analysis of the Obamacare book by Ross Douthat and by Peter Suderman of Reason magazine (separate from the book review by Suderman). Is there a guideline for editors, a sort of parallel to WP:JOURNALIST? I ask because I would have thought that the editor of an impactful political magazine would be prima facie notable.NotButtigieg (talk) 21:23, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, Kleine meets WP:AUTHOR 3, "The person has created... work... (that has) been the primary subject of ... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews."NotButtigieg (talk) 18:46, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

this week, the Washington Monthly [147] did not like something Klein said and The Federalist liked [148] something Klein said. He gets into the news that way all the time, which how I came to be looking him up on Wikipedia a couple of weeks ago when I joined this conversation. I do not know if this cuts any mustard as an argument, but Wikipedia is useful because you can look guys like this up and find out a little more than you can see in their bio line.NotButtigieg (talk) 16:13, 15 January 2020 (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) 10:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michel de Séréville[edit]

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

GNG Fail. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:04, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:04, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:04, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep for the large numbers of book/covers & illustrations claimed, for major French publishers. He has a French article, but no obituaries after his death in 2006 are used there - were there any? Also slight sentimental reasons for keeping, for the magnificent piece of peacockery I removed in 2011, & put on my user page: "He found the answers to his adolescent doubts in communication with the trees, the wind, and the Ocean… From the youngest years of his life, Michel de Séréville was impressed by the wild forces of nature.." Johnbod (talk) 04:07, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please do allow me to paraphrase: "We found the answers to his notability in book covers and illustrations but not in SIGCOV... From the youngest years of his life, Michel de Séréville was not reported on so much"ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:41, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 03:37, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per ThatMontrealIP the nom, lack of indepth significant coverage in reliable sources.Celestina007 (talk) 12:15, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 04:22, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Having trouble seeing any English language coverage. NickCT (talk) 04:26, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ARTIST.NotButtigieg (talk) 10:55, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus has tended towards the view that WP:NGRIDIRON is met Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:19, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Davis (boxer)[edit]

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

NBOX fail; only notable achievement is winning the IBO-USBO title, a (very) minor regional title from a minor sanctioning body. Possible GNG fail; could only find three articles on the subject from sources that are unverifiable/unreliable. All other sources reference Carl Davis Drummond. ².O.^Boxing 01:52, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 01:52, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 01:52, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable boxer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:32, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Leave Carl Davis up. He beat Bert Cooper and also fought Andy Ruiz Jr. I am the boxing contributor who writes and edits all of the boxing Wiki stuff....Robert December 24 2019 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cocoruff (talk • contribs)

I don’t think a TKO loss to Andy Ruiz Jr. six years ago does much help for his notability. – ².O.^Boxing 11:27, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I believe he passes WP:NGRIDIRON, although I am unable to verify. Not sure if he passes WP:NBOXING though.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:30, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 03:27, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any proof he played in the CFL? His football career is unsourced, and it seems rather implausible that a boxer with no apparent football background somehow got signed by a pro team. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:15, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Winning something minor doesn’t amount to notability.Celestina007 (talk) 11:57, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 04:21, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NGRIDIRON per article as confirmed by this. Smartyllama (talk) 17:47, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Smartyllama: is there a better source you can find? That one is regionally restricted. – ².O.^Boxing 22:09, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is the best I can find besides the Chicago Tribune and I'm not sure it's reliable, but the Chicago Tribune definitely satisfies WP:RS and definitely says he played in the CFL so I'm not concerned. Smartyllama (talk) 23:59, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Smartyllama and NGRIDIRON. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:01, 12 January 2020 (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) ——SN 54129 20:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Stearns[edit]

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

Non notable pastor who does not satisfy WP:GNG or WP:RELPEOPLE. Celestina007 (talk) 03:06, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 03:06, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 03:06, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 03:06, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 03:06, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 03:06, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep My dear colleagues and friends, I am arguing to keep the page Robert Stearns up and running. Stearns is the leader and founder of the Day of Prayer for the Peace of Jerusalem, alongside evangelist Jack W. Hayford. Stearns has been covered in many, many forums such as Fox News, The Buffalo News, The Jerusalem Post, and the Christian Broadcasting Network. Yes, he pastors a church in a suburb of Buffalo, New York, but that is a part time gig for him and his main focus is his ministry Eagles Wings an the Day of Prayer. He has also written articles in the New York Times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KittyHawk2015 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KittyHawk2015 feel free to provide in this AFD those reliable sources you make mention of that prove notability of the subject of your article. Celestina007 (talk) 18:34, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Celestina007 I have cited all of the citations needed in the article, if you click on them, you will see his publications in the New York Times, coverage by Fox News, articles in the Buffalo News and Jerusalem Post. Check them out! — Preceding unsigned comment added by KittyHawk2015 (talk • contribs)

But these a "trivial mentions" as far as I can see. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:46, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails to meet the General Notability Guidelines. I have been unable to find a single reliable source that is chiefly about this individual. Even in his field, he fails WP:RELPEOPLE in that he has made no significant impact on anything whatsoever. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:30, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

{{u|Scjessey]] My friend, Scjessey, with all due respect, he founded the Day of Prayer for the Peace of Jerusalem, which, in it or itself is a massive undertaking and has had worldwide impact. He's a guy who started a movement that Presidents, foreign dignitaries, American elected officials and appointed diplomats, and over 100 million Christians and Jews worldwide have participated in. That, my friend, is a massive undertaking much larger than what the average person has done. My dear colleagues above have sourced books and papers, editorials and articles, in which Stearns participated in. Please keep this page up, as this man is obviously noteworthy and has done way more than most individuals in the realm of religion and mainly Judeo-Christian values and relations. I hope no one gets bogged up on the fact that he's the pastor of a medium sized congregation, because that's not his main focus. -KittyHawk2015

KittyHawk2015 uhhh! Apparently we aren’t allowed to !vote keep twice which you just did Celestina007 (talk) 17:52, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Celestina007 my bad! Didn't realize that was a casted vote. Consider it void! Just responding to the other user. -KittyHawk2015.

Just a heads up, while AfD might look like a vote, it doesn't operate like one according to WP:Vote. Mustardscuffle (talk) 05:09, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a news article does not need to be an encyclopedia bio entry to be a non-trivial source. The sources KittyHawk2015 provided demonstrate notability.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:57, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I found this [149] article he wrote in the NY Times. An extensive discussion of his influence can be found here: [150] and a lesser one here: [151]. --Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:04, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is good coverage of him here:[152], and a smaller amount of coverage of him here, if you can access the paywall: [153], and in this book: [154].

Keep a prominent pastor.NotButtigieg (talk) 12:33, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He once wrote an op-ed in the New York Times, as have thousands of people. It was by him, but not about him. We need significant coverage "about the subject". Of the two books, cited, the first has a passing mention, and an ordinary "find" search of the second finds nothing. Bearian (talk) 18:45, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spector, Stephen (2008). Evangelicals and Israel The Story of American Christian Zionism. Oxford University Press has significant discussion of Stearns views and activities.NotButtigieg (talk) 11:08, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"search of the second finds nothing"--the link, [155], is to a search of the book for his name. Maybe you are referring to a different link?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:39, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

link is to The Restoration of Israel: Christian Zionism in Religion, Literature, and Politics, which does indeed discuss Stearns in some depth.NotButtigieg (talk) 13:58, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~Delete I am with Bearian here. We need non-trivial RS SIGCOV about this person to Keep.~~ Wm335td (talk) 19:51, 6 January 2020 (UTC). more notability has been uncovered and the article has improved to Keep. Wm335td (talk) 20:36, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Such coverage exists, I will make time to add more. But if you look in the archives of Haaretz and the Jerusalem Post you will find a great deal of reliable, significant, detailed coverage of him. He is, for example, the co-founder of the Day of Prayer for the Peace of Jerusalem and one of the founders and original directors of Christians United for Israel. NotButtigieg (talk) 00:15, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 04:20, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have coverage of Stearns from reputable news media and from books. I had some difficulty with the footnotes for the several discussions of Stern's work in Spector, Stephen (2008). Evangelicals and Israel The Story of American Christian Zionism. Oxford University Press. Can someone help me figure out how to make several footnotes citing different page numbers?NotButtigieg (talk) 11:54, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a profile of Stearns in the Jerusalem Post Evangelicals' role is to be an ‘articulate advocate’ for Israel, Eagles’ Wings founder says - Rev. Robert Stearns says he sees an even stronger relationship between Jews and Christians in near future. [156].NotButtigieg (talk) 12:58, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That piece fails WP:INDEPENDENT as mostly quotes from Stearns without significant original coverage or evaluation. b uidhe 04:32, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is a long profile in a reputable newspaper. It is certainly WP:INDEPENDENT. But if you don't like that one, google him, or take a look at the detailed coverage from Daily Beast near the top of the footnotes; the Daily Beast doesn't like him either, but they do cover him as a notable figure. NotButtigieg (talk) 12:26, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have added maybe two dozen reliable sources: books, articles in reputable magazines and newspapers. In addition to clarifying Stearns role in creating major organizations and events. The problem with this individual/topic is not too few sources, but too many. I tried to use likely keywords ot pick some useful ones. Hope this helps.NotButtigieg (talk) 15:09, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per WP:HEY after extensive editing by NotButtigieg et al. Bearian (talk) 20:16, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 17:41, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IBM Pulse conference[edit]

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

No evidence this event passes WP:NEVENT/GNG. Prior AfD attracted no participants, can we get a single one this time? Here's hoping. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:34, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:34, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'll bite. Fails WP:NEVENT, fails WP:GNG. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 21:18, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:34, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 04:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Nothing further to add. Doug Mehus T·C 23:00, 12 January 2020 (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) 12:07, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John Percy (politician)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN.--NL19931993 (talk) 22:00, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:17, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:17, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Percy has stool for electin to the provincial legislature as a ciandidate for a minor party, and lost. He has chared that minor party in one of Canada's small provinces. Not a notable person.NotButtigieg (talk) 16:29, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 04:13, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Following my speedy close of the DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 January 10 I am relisting this. Note that the nominator's opinion should be discounted, as they have been banned, but subsequent good faith !votes should be assessed as normal.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Amakuru (talk) 10:49, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merged and redirect as proposed. Do not delete, sufficient sources for covering him, whether as a bio or on his party page, it’s a question of BIO1E. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:32, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He does not pass the notability guidelines for politicians and these exist because without there guidelines all politicians would be deemed notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:58, 15 January 2020 (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 provincial party leaders are important" isn't a valid argument, because what matters are our community-supported inclusion guidelines. They care about sources, not party leaders. Sandstein 06:45, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Larissa Shasko[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN.--NL19931993 (talk) 22:46, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:08, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:08, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:09, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I improved the article with more sources, information and updating it. She passes WP:GNG. Achaea (talk) 18:17, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There has been a little, routine coverage of the fact that Shasko led a small provincial political party for a year or two. I find nothing to support the idea that she is a notable person or notable political leader.NotButtigieg (talk) 16:36, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@NotButtigieg: WP:ROUTINE already was shown not to apply to people. ミラ P 20:52, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Following the link you provided leads to WP:POLITICIAN, which make clear that political figures who have not held one of a number of specified offices need to have gotten "significant coverage" in the media. Shasko has NOT gotten such coverage.NotButtigieg (talk) 21:08, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As a community, we've moved away from keeping state and provincial party leaders WP:POLOUTCOMES (see the AfD for Tom Morressey, who was chair of the Arizona Republican Party and related discussion on the Common Outcomes talk page). --Enos733 (talk) 05:39, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think provincial party leaders are important. (MoonlightTulsi) (talk) 04:04, 08 January 2020 Please add new comments below this line -->

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 04:12, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Following my speedy close of the DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 January 10 I am relisting this. Note that the nominator's opinion should be discounted, as they have been banned, but subsequent good faith !votes should be assessed as normal.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Amakuru (talk) 11:25, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet general notability guidelines. Missvain (talk) 07:53, 11 January 2020 (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) 12:13, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Rainville[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN.--NL19931993 (talk) 22:57, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:02, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:02, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete headed a minor, provincial party for 2 years, got a little press coverage in that role, but not enough to certify him as a notable political figure.NotButtigieg (talk) 16:52, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As a community, we've moved away from keeping state and provincial party leaders WP:POLOUTCOMES (see the AfD for Tom Morressey, who was chair of the Arizona Republican Party and related discussion on the Common Outcomes talk page). --Enos733 (talk) 05:41, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 04:12, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Following my speedy close of the DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 January 10 I am relisting this. Note that the nominator's opinion should be discounted, as they have been banned, but subsequent good faith !votes should be assessed as normal.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Amakuru (talk) 10:57, 10 January 2020 (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. Setting aside the blocked sockpuppet nominator and a keep comment that was repeat-posted to many similar nominations that the sockpuppet made, the consensus is that this specific person lacks significant coverage to establish notability. RL0919 (talk) 12:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Claude Sabourin[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN.--NL19931993 (talk) 23:00, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:04, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:04, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:04, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:04, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as meeting WP:GNG based on the sources. No indication nom did a before on any of the Green Party leaders they AFD'd. ミラ P 00:33, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete failed candidate for a minor, provincial party who came in a distant 4th in a race for a seat in the provincial legislature. Subsequently headed minor party at the provincial level. Nothing indicates that he is or ever has been a notable political figure.NotButtigieg (talk) 16:55, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As a community, we've moved away from keeping state and provincial party leaders WP:POLOUTCOMES (see the AfD for Tom Morressey, who was chair of the Arizona Republican Party and related discussion on the Common Outcomes talk page). --Enos733 (talk) 05:41, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 04:11, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Following my speedy close of the DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 January 10 I am relisting this. Note that the nominator's opinion should be discounted, as they have been banned, but subsequent good faith !votes should be assessed as normal.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Amakuru (talk) 10:57, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG - all of the links in the article are dead, which apparently were about his being nominated to the post anyways, and the only other sources I can find are an interview of him, or him being quoted in a single news piece. Easy delete. SportingFlyer T·C 21:30, 10 January 2020 (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. A lot of this discussion is repetition of arguments made in several similar nominations made by a sockpuppet. Some of those did lead to deletion despite the status of the nominator, but in this instance there is a decent (but not overwhelming) case that she has sufficient coverage beyond routine campaign activity. Given the initial nomination was contaminated and led to a lot of pro forma arguments that may not apply as well in this case, I'm closing this as no consensus, with no prejudice against any future nomination that can start on the right footing. RL0919 (talk) 12:31, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon Labchuk[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN.--NL19931993 (talk) 23:05, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:18, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:18, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:18, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as meeting WP:GNG based on the sources. No indication nom did a before on any of the Green Party leaders they AFD'd. ミラ P 00:30, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as meeting WP:GNG. Also considering the result was keep in the last 2 discussions (which the nominator hasn't linked) and coverage has only increased. Achaea (talk) 18:00, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete stood 3 times for a seat in the legislature of the smallest province in Canada, lost by a lot every time. Headed a minor provincial political party for a couple of years. These activities received a minor amount of routine news coverage. No notability.NotButtigieg (talk) 17:06, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@NotButtigieg: WP:ROUTINE already was shown not to apply to people. ミラ P 20:52, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Following the link you provided leads to WP:POLITICIAN, which make clear that political figures who have not held one of a number of specified offices need to have gotten "significant coverage" in the media. This political figure had NOT gotten such coverage.NotButtigieg (talk) 21:07, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As a community, we've moved away from keeping state and provincial party leaders WP:POLOUTCOMES (see the AfD for Tom Morressey, who was chair of the Arizona Republican Party and related discussion on the Common Outcomes talk page). --Enos733 (talk) 05:39, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete multiple runs for the legislature without winning. Not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:25, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG based on the RS coverage. Lightburst (talk) 01:31, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Back in 2005, there was a consensus to keep such articles, and even as late as 2012, but over time consensus has changed to disallow them, as Enos733 has noted above. Bearian (talk) 17:00, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 04:11, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete failed politician, coverage of her is only local and fails WP:GNG. I want to take particular exception to the statement people cannot be WP:ROUTINE above - while this is technically true - people are not events - the coverage of a person can easily fail WP:ROUTINE, as it does in this instance. Furthermore, her vote count is in the hundreds over multiple elections. SportingFlyer T·C 01:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think provincial party leaders are important. (MoonlightTulsi) (talk) 04:04, 08 January 2020

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Following my speedy close of the DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 January 10 I am relisting this. Note that the nominator's opinion should be discounted, as they have been banned, but subsequent good faith !votes should be assessed as normal.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Amakuru (talk) 11:04, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She passes general notability guidelines and is a subject matter expert on "frankenfish" and "spuds" (aka GMO fish and potatoes). She's also been featured in a documentary about the potato controversy. Here are some sources. I'll also copy these to the article talk page:

"Islanders support democratic process in Ukraine as Canadian election observers" from CBC News
"Agricultural runoff complaints increase on P.E.I." from CBC News
"Potato sabotage traced to P.E.I. town, where everyone seems to have a theory about who did the crime" from The National Post
"One hot potato: Inside P.E.I's brewing battle over an 'environmentally friendly' GMO spud" from The Financial Post
"Googling for undesirable nominees" from The Globe and Mail
"Sharon Labchuk: What approval of GM salmon means for P.E.I." from CBC News
"The leader of the Green Party of Prince Edward Island is stepping down." CTV News Channel

Missvain (talk) 08:07, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:20, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Globish (Gogate)[edit]

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

This topic does not appear to be notable, and there have been big question marks over its suitability as an encyclopedia article for quite a while now-- see, the talk page and Talk:Globish#Merge_discussion. I did my best to find sources but it's referenced mostly to Wiktionary (!) and the creator's own home page, and the few mentions I could find were only name drops. So I remain unconvinced that this is a suitable topic. Reyk _YO! 16:47, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 16:51, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. While I think that this variety is far less discussed than Globish (Nerrière), Gogate's Globish is discussed briefly in Abley 2008, Hitchins 2011, and at least a few scholarly papers (e.g. here, in German, here, in Czech). It's not much, but I think it bears keeping in some form. I have no objection to merging this content somewhere and leaving a redirect to preserve the edit history. Cnilep (talk) 03:07, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Nahal^(T) 23:40, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 04:10, 7 January 2020 (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. Editor conflict aside, most participants believe there is enough coverage for basic notability, and examples of coverage were provided in the discussion. RL0919 (talk) 15:10, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kerlin Gallery[edit]

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

GNG Fail. The one good source, the New York Times, mentions it for about three sentences. Of the other sources, two are the gallery itself and one is the Abu Dhabi Art Fair, which is presumably copy provided by the gallery. I did search and could not discover anything of substance about the gallery itself, just many, many mentions of the gallery name "Kerlin Gallery" in reviews of artist's works or Google books; notability is not inherited by reviews of famous artists who showed at the gallery. I did try to improve the article but there is no SIGCOV to speak of. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:52, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:52, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:52, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I am (spoiler alert) not an art expert, and would generally weigh COI and PROMO concerns (as there rightly have been with this article/subject) quite heavily in any AfD discussion. However, there would seem to be at least a few reliable mainstream refs which deal with the subject as a primary topic. Like this one (The Times, London). And a handful of other (granted less convincing) examples that I came across as part of a BEFORE exercise. While far from overwhelming, there seem to be enough to make me lean into a neutral or "weak keep" position on this one. It's not cut-and-dried in either direction. IMO. And hence I'm largely on the fence. But leaning slightly towards a "keep". Guliolopez (talk) 11:31, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Guliolopez: thank you for adding sources to the article. I am pretty close to your position but a bit more on the delete side. For example the sourcing in the "artists represented" section is largely reviews of the artists who show there, which does not help any to establish the gallery's notability. but you did move the needle some.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:10, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hard Keep. I am an art expert and am also highly knowledgable about Irish art. In fact, I am making a point on improving articles on this topic. The point of all of this at the end of the day is to educate people. Kerlin is a bonefide significant contemporary gallery with decades of history and represents some of the most important and successful Irish contemporary artists. This is of course not important in the sense that the artists's aura wears off on the gallery, but more so that they have given these artists an international platform and numerous exhibition opportunities. Anyone interested in contemporary art in Ireland should know about the Kerlin Gallery and I believe the sources provide enough basis for that. The previous advertisement like writing and COI is clear, but it reads neutrally now.

There are ongoing problems on the criteria of galleries in general and how they obtain noteworthy-ness. I am happy to contribute to this discussion in a meaningful way (a little nudge in the right direction always helps, as I am not against learning and improving my presence on Wikipedia). However, this needs to be understood as a flaw or lack currently present in Wikipedia that needs more expertise and improvement. I believe further that there are numerous built in biases that Wikipedia English has in that it heavily favours US mainstream media sources, something that does not inspire confidence in me.

I would also like to note that the editor ThatMontrealIP has been extremely aggressive towards my edits since I first encountered them a week ago and I would like to flag this to more senior members of the community as it appears to be growing into unprincipled bullying at this stage. The very fact that they are on this Kerlin page is that I used it as an example to explain the issues I mentioned above about galleries. Let's try and keep the big picture here in providing useful information here about legitimate subjects. Wikipedia is not the place for petty ego matches; overly bureaucratic behaviour; or discouraging newer editors. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 20:58, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

collapse off-topic editor dispute

A general note: comment on content and avoid making things personal. I made a good faith attempt to improve this page, as I have done for many hundreds of other pages. I nominated it for deletion when I decided it did not meet GNG, and after doing WP:BEFORE. Don't take it personally, as it has zero to do with you. This AfD is exclusively about whether the org is notable, and I still think it is not based on the coverage. My edits are reflective of the routine business of the wiki, and nothing else. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well lets nip this in the bud then and not make a habit of you following my edits around and supporting pages I'm trying to improve for deletion!

On the topic of your edits... You seem to be willing to strip things down, add templates, citation requests, etc... and that isn't IMO an effort to improve a page. Only a part of it. Further your commentaries here and elsewhere read to me that you have other motivations or in some cases don't understand the issues, e.g. comparing a contemporary art galleries appearance in art fairs – which are high stakes, curated events, only accepted through application and not at all easy get access to^[1] – to McDonalds corp speculatively going to trade shows. That is neither helpful nor realistic. I would have summarised the fairs in a sentence or two and kept the references. Just one example.

I will certainly be watching some of your edits just like I watch the 2000 or more other pages on my watchlist. It's nothing personal and it's a good thing for editors to look at each other's edits. Anyway, I won't respond to any more of this silliness, other than to say you might also read WP:DROPTHESTICK.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:37, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moving this because it relates directly to the relevance of the article:

I will reiterate: I have an interest in contemporary Irish art, a very recent and diverse phenomenon, and see a gap in the coverage on wikipedia and am actively trying to improve that for educational and encyclopedic reasons.

Finally, I would like to highlight a bias I detect in commercial vs. public galleries... It is frequently mentioned that the artists showing in a commercial gallery don't add to the noteworthy-ness of the commercial gallery, yet in public galleries or museums it is understood that they have created the exhibition or curated it or made an opportunity for the artist. To reel that back into the Kerlin Gallery, they aren't only a high end shop, they are part of the contemporary culture of the city; their exhibitions are reviewed, seen, discussed, etc. by the art world in Dublin and beyond^[2]. I have zero at stake in this article, but give the capacity for Wikipedia to shed light on things we don't already know about and not stuff it into the bin as meaningless, it seems an absurd pursuit to delete this page at this stage. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 14:28, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 20:32, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Kerlin Gallery is one of the most prominent and respected galleries in Ireland. The subject of this article is notable. Netherzone (talk) 21:37, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

^ "Frieze New York 2020: Applications Open". Frieze. Retrieved 2020-01-08.
^ td-sub (2019-08-21). "Artsdesk: In The Shadows - Shadowplay at the Kerlin Gallery". Totally Dublin. Retrieved 2020-01-08.

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 11:57, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rashaana Shah[edit]

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

Not notable actress which has no indication of notability. No 3rd Party sources written about her. Hence, this discussion. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 03:41, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 03:41, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 03:41, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 03:41, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:38, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:38, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I see several mentions of her in a quick Google News search in English: Indian Express article about the filming of a scene in one of her movies, India TV News article that mentions her as the star of an upcoming film, Times of India article that mentions her as a key role in another film, Indiawest review that mentions her positively in a film where she has a small part, and Screendaily article where she's mentioned as the star of another upcoming film. That's just in English; I expect you could find more specific coverage of her if you search in Indic languages. -- Toughpigs (talk) 17:48, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Toughpigs, Screendaily and Indiawest are not RS. IE and TOI mentions just about her which is not enough to pass GNG standards. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 02:54, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harshil169, what's the issue with Screen Daily? It looks like an industry news site to me. Toughpigs (talk) 04:00, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Toughpigs, it has no proper editorial process. Promotion is easily possible there. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 08:03, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harshil169, is there a place where this sort of information is listed? -- Toughpigs (talk) 15:02, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harshil169, I looked at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources and didn't see any comment on Screen Daily or Indiawest. I also looked in the archives of the Reliable Sources noticeboard and found two mentions of Screen Daily: here and here. Both are positive mentions that take it for granted that Screen Daily is a reliable source. I couldn't find any discussion of Indiawest at all. Can you show me where it's been decided that these are unreliable sources? -- Toughpigs (talk) 20:51, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Toughpigs, screendaily seems to be RS as it has editorial board. But indiawest is not. My apologies. You can read WP:NEWSORG. This person still fails GNG. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 01:08, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harshil169, I don't see any mention of Indiawest in the discussions about reliable sources. I read WP:NEWSORG but I don't see anything that explains why Indiawest is or is not reliable. I'm not trying to be argumentative; I'm fairly new to deletion discussions and I want to understand how the RS decisions are determined and recorded. -- Toughpigs (talk) 01:20, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We need to see quality of posts, editorial policy of websites before takin them as RS. To pass GNG, we need coverage in multiple significant independent reliable sources. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 01:25, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but why are you saying that Indiawest isn't a reliable source? I don't understand what you mean by "we need to see editorial policy". Who is "we", and how is that assessed? You've said several times now that Indiawest is not RS, with no evidence. Is the problem that it's an Indian news source and therefore unfamiliar? I don't know much about the Indian news media. -- Toughpigs (talk) 01:38, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am seeing no passage of WP:ANYBIO and the roles played by her were not significant, either. As laid out over User:Winged Blades of Godric/Indian Media (with due high-quality sources), the entertainment sections of almost all Indian dailies are PR spam and thus the coverage over IE (a RS, otherwise) and TOI (always questionable and has a specific section over my afore-linked page about its long-dubious journalism) may be discounted in entirety. The one over IndiaToday (a RS) is from PTI feed and merely name-drops her as an actress in the film and I see no clue that the film eventually materialized, at all. Discounted, as well. ScreenDaily is (literally) a PR vehicle and no question of their sources, adding to WP:N. Still, a trivial mention. (All reliable sources don't lend to notability) Indiawest is a low-tier publication targetting the immigrant population and okay-ish. ∯WBG^converse 09:14, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems like it might be WP:TOOSOON for her to have an article at this time. Missvain (talk) 08:12, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't think she meets the notability standards for an actress. Dflaw4 (talk) 17:58, 13 January 2020 (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. Missvain (talk) 01:19, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Burke (Canadian politician)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN.--NL19931993 (talk) 00:00, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep as meeting WP:GNG based on the sources. No indication nom did a before on any of the people they AFD'd. ミラ P 00:32, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Regardless of whether they held a seat in the legislature or not, party leaders are kept if they clear WP:GNG on the sources — and even if they don't, they still retain redirects to whatever title the party's list of leaders is kept at (whether that's a standalone list or the party's main article) and are never deleted outright. They are information that people are looking for — so regardless of whether it's an article or a redirect, we always keep something for a political party leader. Bearcat (talk) 03:57, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Failed candidate and a term as head of a province-level political party. Fails WP:POLITICIAN.NotButtigieg (talk) 17:26, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how it works. Party leaders are kept if they clear GNG, and are redirected to the party if they don't, and may never be deleted outright unless their leadership of the party proves completely unverifiable. Bearcat (talk) 19:28, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As a community, we've moved away from keeping state and provincial party leaders WP:POLOUTCOMES (see the AfD for Tom Morressey, who was chair of the Arizona Republican Party and related discussion on the Common Outcomes talk page). --Enos733 (talk) 05:35, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we've moved away from handing political party leaders an automatic inclusion freebie just because they exist, in the absence of a properly sourceable pass of WP:GNG — but political party leaders are kept if they do pass GNG, and are retained as redirects to wherever we're keeping the list of the party leaders if they don't. And being the organizational chair of a political party is not the same thing as being the leader of a political party, either — the leader is the person who would be the premier (or majority leader) if the party actually won an election while the chair is just the person who runs the backroom operations, so they're not the same role and don't have the same public profile. Bearcat (talk) 18:36, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 03:15, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat, I can see the distinction you are making - that the leader of a party in a parliamentary system could theoretically become prime minister and should be kept while a chair of a political party in the United States plays more of an organizational role. However, I am not sure this distinction makes a difference. I am not opposed to a sourcable pass of GNG, or even a redirect, but I don't think policy or practice that all party leaders are (or should be) automatically kept as redirects either. --Enos733 (talk) 06:34, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly. For one thing, political parties in parliamentary systems still have organizational chairs who are separate people from the public leader — which illustrates the distinction much more effectively than wrongly implying that "organizational chair" is a uniquely USian thing does. And for another, I didn't say he has to be kept because he was a party leader — I said he has to be kept because the article clearly demonstrates that he passes GNG on the sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 16:56, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Honestly, as an interim leader of a party in a small province, looking at the sources, I don't think he passes WP:GNG. I disagree with the notion provincial/state political party leaders are automatically kept - though it varies by country, many of these leaders aren't inherently notable and only get a smattering of coverage. Mr. Burke seems to prove that point well, especially because he's only interim. SportingFlyer T·C 04:48, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody said that provincial or state political party leaders are automatically kept — what I said was that they are kept if they can be shown to clear GNG, and that they are redirected to wherever we're keeping the list of the party's leaders if they can't. Thing is, they are plausible to likely enough search terms that we do have a responsibility to make sure that a reader who searches for them ends up somewhere relevant — so if we can't get them over GNG on the sourcing, then a redirect to the list of leaders is necessary per WP:ATD. You're free to have a different opinion on whether the sources get him over GNG or not — but I'd ask that you not misquote me in the process in order to argue with a strawman that isn't what I actually said. Bearcat (talk) 17:56, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I don't think redirecting this is proper, or that there's a rule that says we have to redirect these. The name is very common (even searching with the "Canada"), he served in an interim capacity of a party in a small state, and didn't get much coverage. SportingFlyer T·C 23:59, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SportingFlyer and Bearcat, both of you make excellent points. I usually like to redirect these sort of things where notability may well exist but we can't prove it, so what I often look to is how substantive the article is. If it's more than a few sentences (to preserve attribution history and make article restoration easier), then I will !vote "redirect" and, if not (i.e., it's not something any editor could re-create in 5-10 minutes), then I will !vote "delete." In this case, we have an ultra short stub-class article that any editor could re-create in that time span, so that's why I favour "delete." Plus, WP:REDLINK applies, I think, to encourage article creation, right? Doug Mehus T·C 00:13, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the nominator of this article has been banned as a sock puppet account, so user Miraclepine (an involved non-admin) closed this as a speedy keep - I considered immediately renominating the article at a fresh AfD, but noticed speedy keep as inapplicable per WP:SK #4 when substantive comments were made in good faith, which is clearly the case here, so I've gone ahead and reverted and reopened the AfD, even though I'm not an administrator either - I thought being bold in this situation would be significantly easier than DRV or another AfD. I don't think I'm wrong or else I wouldn't have done this, but I won't kick up a fuss if someone not involved closes this at this point, even as a speedy. Also, the closer should discount the nominator's statement/!vote when closing. Cheers. SportingFlyer T·C 23:48, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SportingFlyer. I'm not seeing any reliable, independent sources, having reviewed all of the Google web and news search results and most of the book search results, which cover this subject in a significant way so I'm not sure WP:GNG is met. Of course, it's possible offline sources exist, but we can't just say those sources are "likely" to exist. Moreover, there's nothing in this stub-class article that couldn't be easily re-created. So, similar to Bearcat's rationale in this AfD deletion discussion for James H. Stuart, this deletion should be without prejudice to someone with access to local library sources (i.e., newspaper articles on microfilm/microfiche) re-creating it and trying again. Doug Mehus T·C 02:48, 12 January 2020 (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) 10:19, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hubert Chardot[edit]

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

Apart from this interview, I'm just seeing passing mentions. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED from the games that Chardot worked on. b uidhe 03:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. b uidhe 03:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. b uidhe 03:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. b uidhe 03:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I found another interview, in French. He also has a notice at the national library ([157]). He received an award ([158]) There was another interviex ([159]) Regards, Comte0 (talk) 01:44, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews are not independent sources. Brief mention on an awards page isn't significant unless it's an important award, in which case it would be covered in media. Where is the evidence that he meets WP:GNG or WP:BIO? b uidhe 01:58, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indepdent reliable 3rd party sources. We cannot use interviews to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:39, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Game Developers Choice Awards#The Pioneer Award The GDCA award seems to be his biggest chance for notability, but it seems that is all that can be said. WP:BLP1E says we should "We generally should avoid having an article on a person" notable for 1 event. Poorly sourced WP:BLP with 2 unreliable sources in IMDb and Moby (which I've removed). In my searches I'm only able to find passing mentions of his on Eurogamer article on From Dusk Till Dawn (video game) and books. That makes him fail WP:BASIC. Buidhe also properly refuted the Keep argument above, as WP:INTERVIEWs (also posted on websites of dubious blog-like reliability) should not be used to establish notability as the content of them all come from the subject himself directly. Game Developers Choice Awards Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:50, 12 January 2020 (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) 10:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gamemaster's screen[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Has no notability in reliable sources, fails WP:GNG completely. The last AfD was a laughable pile-on of WP:ITSIMPORTANT votes with no supporting evidence. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:17, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:17, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:17, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could probably be merged with Dungeon Masters Screen, which is about a specific Gamemaster's screen. ApLundell (talk) 00:54, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge suggested above seems like the best course. Artw (talk) 01:43, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- keep per below Artw (talk) 22:38, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
clear keep Lots of moderate academic sources [160], [161], [162] t refer to gamemaster's screens and in some cases appear to define the term. [163] is a work of fiction that defines the term and provides context. So if you want "traditional" sources, there you go. Both academic papers and fiction. But something like [164] is a video from a well-known subject-area expert Matthew Mercer on a 2 Million person channel that describes in huge detail how to use it (so yeah, that's a reliable source) published by a reliable publisher. Hobit (talk) 05:52, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All tangential mentions, nothing actually focused on the topic of a game-master's screen. It was essentially just a broad search for anything that remotely mentioned the topic. Works of fiction are obviously not reliable sources for a non-fiction encyclopedia, even if it has a definition of it. Having to resort to such a source shows how shaky the notability is. Youtube could be used, but not in the absence of actual print sources devoted to the topic._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:34, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree they aren't great sources. They simply show that the term is used (and defined) in academic contexts as well as independent fictional ones. But with respect to the source that is clearly in-depth, reliable and independent, could you point me to the guideline or policy that requires print? I'm not familiar with that requirement in our inclusion guidelines. Hobit (talk) 08:07, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the arguments of Hobit; failing that, at worst a merge, and it makes more logical sense to merge to Role-playing game terms. BOZ (talk) 06:07, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notability exists as demonstrated by Hobit. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 10:08, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable as demonstrated above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:19, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, the article was just completely rewritten with new sources, so hopefully that helps too. BOZ (talk) 12:45, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Pinging ApLundell and Artw regarding my previous comment as well. BOZ (talk) 04:34, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Makes sense. Artw (talk) 22:38, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Role-playing game terms. Of the sources currently in the article, only the "Heroic Worlds" book is actually a valid source for the topic. The remainder are either just product listings (or, in some cases, the product themselves), which are not actual reliable, secondary sources, or reviews on specific individual examples rather than anything talking about the concept in general. The references presented in this AFD, with the exception of the youtube video, are extremely passing mentions that do not discuss the concept in depth at all. Altogether, the information that can actually be derived from the reliable, secondary sources is not enough to sustain an independent article, but enough for it to be covered in a broader article, such as the one suggested by BOZ. Rorshacma (talk) 17:27, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The new inclusion of two independent reviews of the earliest commercial versions are indications of notability of the brand new item. The negative review calling commercial screens a waste of money speaks to the increasing ubiquity of the item.Guinness323 (talk) 17:54, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep thanks to Guinness323's excellent additions. Refs to Heroic Worlds: A History and Guide to Role-Playing Games and Designers & Dragons show that there's independent academic interest in the subject. -- Toughpigs (talk) 18:06, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is simply a WP:SNOW WP:PILEON. Hobit has revealed why this is a keep. Wm335td (talk) 18:42, 9 January 2020 (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 prejudice against a potential merge. There's no clear consensus for merging in this discussion, but that conversation can continue outside of AfD. RL0919 (talk) 10:09, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Magic system[edit]

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

Heavily WP:OR article beyond supposed examples of where a magic system is used. The article seems to be largely WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. There are little to no reliable sources explaining how the idea of a magic system is notable.

I am also nominating the following related page because it suffers from a similar problem:

_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:05, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:05, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:25, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems there is considerable overlap with Magic (gaming). – sgeureka ^t•c 08:29, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:20, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here's a book on the subject; note that this also includes discussion of the hard/soft distinction. The topics are therefore notable per WP:NEXIST and the following policies apply: WP:ATD; WP:NOTPAPER and WP:PRESERVE. As WP:BEFORE has not been cast correctly, that's 10 points from Slytherin. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:42, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Andrew Davidson, and the one good source in the article already; failing that merge to Magic (gaming) as per above. BOZ (talk) 17:13, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Both to Magic (gaming). There is a lot of overlap between the three articles, and, in particular, Magic system and Hard and soft magic systems really do not need to be split into two articles. As stated by the nom, the two articles being nominated are pretty heavy in WP:OR, but merging the bits of good, source information from both, in addition to the book mentioned here by Andrew, into the main Magic (gaming) article would result in a single, well-sourced article covering the entire concept. Rorshacma (talk) 17:37, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Using Chess as a comparative example, you just suggested redirecting Chess moves to Chess clock. Read the Magic (gaming) article again. It is about MP; a game mechanic designed to limit the use of magic within a magic system. Anarchangel (talk) 02:02, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - The scope of that article can easily be changed to also encompass magic systems in general. If it were only "about" MP, it would be a dicdef._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yeah, I didn't suggest merely Redirecting, I suggested merging all three articles into one that discusses the overall concept of magic in gaming systems in general. Again, I see very little point in splitting the concept into three smaller articles with limited scope, each with extremely limited sourcing, when a single article would easily be able to cover the over all concept of magic in games without being overly long, and be well sourced.Rorshacma (talk) 16:01, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - The topic is not restricted to games. Magic is used in a variety of fictional or constructed settings which may required it to be rationalised and systematised: virtual realities; shared universes and continuities; interface metaphors; &c. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:23, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is terribly written. Guess what? That's not what AfD is for. Congrats, we can all go home early today. Before I go, I will take the liberty of removing the worst offender, the first section: some magic system by some guy. Anarchangel (talk) 02:06, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of the secondary article that is nominated here, Hard and soft magic systems, which is based entirely on the magic rules created by the same guy. If you remove the information sourced to that one individual's ideas, there is really not much left. Rorshacma (talk) 16:05, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was much too flippant on my first entry. But instead of finding that I had erred in being too lenient, I found a wealth of sources when searching for "hard and soft magic systems", and apparently the "some guy" is mentioned by a lot of them. I dunno if he merits an article but I should not have dismissed him, and the second article seems solid as well. Anarchangel (talk) 02:34, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Whenever video games or other games are reviewed, they usually review the magic system as a key part of those games. Dream Focus 04:32, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge with Magic (gaming). A magic system that is based on mana points is but one example across both tabletop and video games. There is going to be work needed to avoid OR, but re-orienting the approach to lay out common approaches of magic systems in games makes sense. --Masem (t) 17:04, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but don't necessarily merge. Agree with others that reliable sources absolutely exist on this notable concept and nom seems to confuse poor writing with non-notable topic. Might make sense to institute a strict-ish "must be referenced to a non-primary source" policy though. A decent amount of the content (especially in Hard and soft magic systems) is related to Magic in literature, not gaming, so I don't think a merge entirely makes sense. SnowFire (talk) 17:17, 13 January 2020 (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 The Uplift Mofo Party Plan. RL0919 (talk) 10:13, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Me and My Friends[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONGS. scope_creep^Talk 00:04, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 00:47, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Uplift Mofo Party Plan. Fails WP:NSONGS and none of the sources, most of which aren't reliable sources at all, do not support its notability independent of the album. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 01:46, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:41, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Plausible search term, but poorly sourced, short, and largely reads like an informal original research project. Better to be covered in the context of its respective album unless/until someone can show it meets the GNG and then basically write a new article around that. Sergecross73 msg me 01:43, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Uplift Mofo Party Plan. The song has gained a little bit of notice on its own terms, but the few tidbits of media coverage can be mentioned at the album article. There is not enough for a separate article on the song. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:47, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Uplift Mofo Party Plan per the above discussion. Aoba47 (talk) 21:05, 10 January 2020 (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] "Frieze New York 2020: Applications Open". Frieze. Retrieved 2020-01-08.

[2] td-sub (2019-08-21). "Artsdesk: In The Shadows - Shadowplay at the Kerlin Gallery". Totally Dublin. Retrieved 2020-01-08.

[1]

[2]