Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 November 1

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 31 October	2 November >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:17, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Pandora[edit]

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

As far as I can tell, this subject fails Wikipedia's notability requirements. While Pandora may be listed on the French wiki, I can find no reliable sources which describe that comic (and none which describe its title character, who is prominently featured in this article). There's little question that the series exists; there are external links to Goodreads, Amazon, and other sites (see WP:USERG) but I have found nothing in reviews of the genre, Google books, or even news articles. Further, while the notability guidelines for books (WP:NB) may not cover comics (although they do apparently cover manga), I can find nothing to indicate that it satisfies any of those criteria. For these reasons, I have listed this article at AfD. RexSueciae (talk) 23:44, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:45, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:45, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and (loosely) looking at WP:NBOOK. No claim to notability and the French Wiki is little more than a bare stub. Ifnord (talk) 01:41, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 21:47, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hard White (Nicki Minaj song)[edit]

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

Album track fails WP:NSONGS; failed to chart (only in Bubbling Under) and content is based on album reviews, not articles about the song. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 23:31, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete User:Cornerstonepicker's explanation is clear. LikeMeercats (talk) 00:12, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In no way this passes WP:GNG for WP:NSONGS. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 13:52, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:40, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:30, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Queen (Nicki Minaj album) as it is the parent album. I understand a preference for deletion though to avoid the article being recreated in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 00:35, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for only getting mentions within album reviews. Something I should however note, Cornerstonepicker, is that charts (or lack thereof) are completely irrelevant to whether tracks meet WP:NSONGS, which states a song needs to be covered at least decently within multiple secondary sources that aren't album reviews or affiliated with artist/label. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:55, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article. Not necessary to create pages for just any song. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qualitist (talk • contribs) 10:47, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not have reliable independent sources to convince the importance and thus fails WP:GNG and the song was not that popular enought so fails WP:NSONGS.Vinodbasker (talk) 12:33, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Queen (Nicki Minaj album). Tone 21:47, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good Form (song)[edit]

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

Album track fails WP:NSONGS; failed to chart (only in Bubbling Under) and content is based on album reviews, not articles about the song. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 23:30, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete User:Cornerstonepicker's explanation is clear. LikeMeercats (talk) 00:17, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(as AFC reviewer) I thought it had a chance to go through since Bubbling Under was still considered Billboard charting but given that those charts were practically inaccessible now, buried under the biz subscribed section as opposed to the other regular Hot 100 and R&B / Hip Hop charts, I have second thoughts about retaining this. There was also the comment that it would be the next music video release, but given that it was just a Twitter poll on her account, and not taken seriously with no news articles written about her making it her next single, I'm okay with deletion / protected redirect until it is released as a single. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:37, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:38, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:31, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Queen (Nicki Minaj album). Charting alone does not give a song enough notability for a separate article. This article can be recreated in the future if it is released as a single and receives more independent coverage from third-party, reliable sources, but that is purely speculation at this point. Aoba47 (talk) 01:48, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Queen (Nicki Minaj album) as non-charting, non-notable single with no coverage in reliable and independent sources.--N Ø 07:24, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of supercentenarians from the United States#List of people. Tone 21:48, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Skeete[edit]

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

Another eminently non-notable oldster. Only two very unremarkable sources, and evading the reaper for a long time is not inherently notable, so WP:NOPAGE applies. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:01, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO1E because there is only WP:ROUTINE coverage of her that fails to demonstrate notability and there is no notability guideline that "the oldest x" is notable. The content of the article is pretty much just trivia fluff about her family and the documentation proving her age claim. There is almost nothing actually said about her in an article that is supposed to be about her, which demonstrates how the article fails WP:NOPAGE. Her age, life dates, and nationality are already recorded on three different lists, where they are easier to view, so this permanent WP:PERMASTUB is not needed. Newshunter12 (talk) 23:47, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:36, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:36, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:32, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:32, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could people please refrain from using ageist derogatory terms like oldster. It is disrepectful. I have no opinion whether or not this article is kept or deleted, but this ongoing debasing term on several of the AfD is unencyclopedic, if not bigoted. Netherzone (talk) 23:33, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:Articles_for_deletion/Aida_Mason and WP:Articles for deletion/Ramona Trinidad Iglesias-Jordan (2nd nomination) for responses to this blather. E Eng 00:05, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Even if these two sources meant she was notable then WP:NOPAGE and WP:PERMASTUB should apply. CommanderLinx (talk) 09:58, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge to list Complete and utter lack of content other than longevity fancruft like past confusion over who held the "title". E Eng 02:57, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to List of supercentenarians from the United States#List of people in lieu of deletion. There is enough sourced biographical information in the article to support a merge. Cunard (talk) 03:22, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Nothing to preserve aside from longevity trivia, which is well-covered in relevant tables. — JFG ^talk 11:49, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Kalapi. Tone 21:49, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kalapi Museum[edit]

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

No coverage in independent reliable sources, does not meet WP:GNG. Provided sources are a photo hosted on a government site, an article about Indian poets that includes a mere mention of the museum, an entry about the museum on a tourism database. I couldn't find anything more substantial online. Merge is good _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:00, 1 November 2018 (UTC)06:53, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Is this a misspelling? The word Kalapi does not appear anywhere in the text of the article. Kalpi is used throughout.~~ SpinningSpark 22:53, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge and redirect to Kalapi, or to the town where the museum is located. SpinningSpark 22:59, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:17, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:17, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:17, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:17, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, agree with Spinningspark, not notable for a standalone but some words at Kalapi and a mention at Lathi, Gujarat is appropriate. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:26, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Kalapi per Spinningspark and Coolabahapple. Doesn't pass WP:GNG on it's own, but it's worth a mention elsewhere. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 06:45, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Editors disagree about source quality, and I can't decide that by fiat. Sandstein 20:13, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Middle Finger Protests[edit]

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

Activist organization that does not meet WP:ORGCRITE. ORGCRITE specifically requires significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable, secondary sources. Virtually all coverage is in news reporting (i.e. a primary source), and most of it is mere-mentions in articles that are primarily about whatever issue was being protested (by other groups as well). Exactly one source[1] appears to be secondary coverage in a reliable independent source, but that falls short of the requirement that there be multiple such sources. I was not able to turn up more sources in internet searches, but perhaps someone with more familiarity with Indian sources and languages will be more successful and I'm open to dissent provided that better sources can be found. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:37, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep News reporting is exactly the secondary source coverage this kind of org needs to get over GNG. Legacypac (talk) 22:11, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My evaluations of the sources:

[2] Secondary, independent, reliable, but not significant.
[3] Reliable source, but the article is almost entirely reliant on direct quotes from affiliates of the subject.
[4] Reliable, secondary, independent, but mere mention, not significant.
[5] Reliable, secondary, independent, but mere mention, not significant.
[6] Mere mention of subject in coverage of murder case. No in-depth analysis.
[7] Again, mere mention of the subject in reportage about a murder case. No in-depth analysis.
[8] Reliable, secondary, independent, but mere mention, not significant.
[9] Reliable, secondary, independent, but no in-depth coverage of the subject.
[10] The one reliable, secondary, independent, in-depth citation mentioned above.
[11] Not in depth, not secondary, doesn't even mention the subject.
[12] Article about founder of the subject, no real analysis, barely mentions the subject
[13] Mere mention of subject in article about wider protest, no in-depth analysis.
[14] No mention of subject
[15] Timeline of events relating to a murder case that the subject protested around. Reliable, independent, but a mere mention, not significant.
[16] Report of a speech without analysis, not secondary, not really about the subject either.
[17] Announcement of a speech, mere mention of subject.
[18] More speech coverage, mere mention of subject
[19] Coverage of event hosted by subject, no analysis or in-depth coverage of subject.
[20] Summary of murder case and proceedings, brief mention of subject and minimal coverage

All together, there appears to be one source that meets WP:ORGCRITE's criteria (#10, also listed as #1). Note that ORGCRITE specifies that each source contributing toward notability must meet all requirements (independence, reliability, depth, secondary). Thus, we cannot combine more trivial mentions (such as #20 or #2) together to demonstrate significant coverage, as is allowed by some other notability guidelines like NBIO. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:45, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG. If every protest group got a Wikipedia page, there wouldn't be enough Wikipedia left for the rest of the world. A good amount of the article reads as promotional material for the founder - prior to my edits, it was definitely written by somebody unfamiliar with Wikipedia (coming from somebody still pretty unfamiliar with Wikipedia); a lot of spacing issues and the like. The sources are more about the matters they're protesting than the group itself, and in common a vein of AfD discussions, 'notability is not inherited.' LikeMeercats (talk) 00:27, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:58, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:58, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:58, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

News reporting is independent secondary sources. What other sources do you expect to find? The fact that the media report what they say about issues and use their quotes is evidence of notability. Mention of the founder does not reduce notability. It only affects the issue of whether the article should be about him or about the organisation. Keep. Rathfelder (talk) 09:39, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would expect to find some more in-depth coverage, such as this article about the Namantar movement, this article about the Dalit panthers (unclear about its reliability, but my point here is depth), this article about the Naxalite movement, or this article about Every Town for Gun Safety. Honestly, even just two or three more articles like #1 and I'd consider ORGCRITE to be met. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:45, 2 November 2018 (UTC)18:13, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the first source onthis list (2) Times of India looks solid: "In the film ‘No One Killed Jessica’, Rani Mukherjee is seen interviewing a group of activists from Chandigarh, who were demanding justice for the deceased model. Led by a young, self-proclaimed activist, the group swelled to a few hundreds which went on to hold candlelight vigils and protests. Not a fragment of the film-maker’s imagination, the group, known as the 'Middle Finger Protests' actually exists and continues to work at the grassroots as the Human Rights Protection Group. Not to be mistaken as an NGO, it encourages individuals and organizations to work towards the protection of human rights in India.". This is part of a signed article or essay in the "city" - presumably local - edition that is about a Bollywood film about the lal murder that portrays these protests. There may be notability here.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:55, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Per Rathfelder. Nom's dismissive analysis of sources is not convincing. LikeMeercats's argument is especially not convincing per WP:PAPER. And the use of WP:INHERITED is particularly off base. That the org's POV is cited in articles on matters being protested is precisely an indicator of notability for such a group. Finally, regardless of the "spacing issues and the like" we don't delete articles for being written by "somebody unfamiliar with Wikipedia." 192.160.216.52 (talk) 14:07, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The argument I was trying to make, that you refute by citing WP:PAPER directly supports it. It's tongue in cheek by saying 'there's not enough wikipedia' WP:PAPER makes a clear distinction by what "can be done" and "what should be done" - this article shouldn't be done. The second comment is in regard to promotion, not the poor writing. Often these promotional articles are just written at a different quality - agreed circumstantial at best, but not irrelevant. For your direct comment "That the org's POV is cited in articles on matters being protested is precisely an indicator of notability" does that mean that if a random Joe on the street gives a comment to a newspaper he is now notable? That's nonsense! Newspapers can, and will, take comments from anybody and any organization then print whatever ones get the most clicks. We should seek to distinguish between truly notable groups and ones that are good at getting quips in the paper. LikeMeercats (talk) 17:24, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment -- Nice straw man. How about this? If a random Joe on the street is sought out for comment by a number of different mainstream sources specifically to give comment on a range of issues that said random Joe has taken an official position on, then he's not really a random Joe, so your example is completely irrelevant. Newspapers absolutely will not take comments from anybody, and especially will not take comments repeatedly from the same source unless that source's POV is notable. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 17:37, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment I disagree, I just don't think being quoted in a newspaper is grounds for notability. A lot of people, organizations, and randoms are frequently quoted, it does not make them authoritative or important. It seems like this one is pretty personal to you so I'll let it be, but maintain that these do not meet requirements for notability. LikeMeercats (talk) 18:01, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment -- It seems like it's personal to me?! What are you talking about? Please, enlighten me. What did I say that makes you think that this "seems like it's pretty personal to me"? What kind of weird accusation is that? I never heard of this organization before I saw this AfD and I never expect to hear of it after the discussion is over. Please try to refrain from making unfounded insinuations. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 18:11, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Frankly, I'm astonished anybody can read through that list generously posted by User:Rosguill and think that meets the requirement of significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable, secondary sources. Emphasis on Significant. LikeMeercats (talk) 17:27, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the analysis by Rosguill. Dom from Paris (talk) 19:42, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I read the first item on the Rosegill list - see my comment above - and it is SIGCOV. out of time for now, but I think close examination of topic, searches for sources is warranted.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:58, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources include: [21], in section on Important Supreme Court Judgments, p. 162 of INDIA Handbook 2018 for Competitive Exams - Schemes, Yojanas, Policies, Bill & Acts, Amendments, Judgements, Summits, Organisations, Tribunals, Committees. Film reviews, often brief mentions, like: Review: No One Killed Jessica is the film to beat in 2011. Relevant text: "A sting operation is conducted, which brings new facts to light, and the public is stirred through a campaign initiated by activists (‘Middle Finger Protests’ among them) and the media.". but brief mentions can be validate notability. Profile of founder Prabhloch Singh. The Tribune (Chandigarh): Giving the dead, their dignity. A humanitarian, an activist and a former DJ, Prabhloch Singh’s latest initiative ensures that every deceased person gets respectful last rites.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:33, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am so appreciative when a run-down of sources is analyzed, as the nom has done. Unfortunately, I have to concur with E.M.Gregory that the first source indeeds meets criteria. Therefore I have to question the analysis and assume the article meets WP:GNG at the least. Ifnord (talk) 01:47, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is sufficient coverage to pass WP:GNG, even though some of it is in passages of a few sentences within articles about wider topics. Relatively brief material can be WP:SIGCOV, and there is a lot of it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:11, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Skimo. Tone 21:49, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Úrsula[edit]

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

nn character unreferenced 10 years Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 21:23, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Into the article about the show. Good nom by User:Kintetsubuffalo but I think we can spare the deletion and keep the info on another page. LikeMeercats (talk) 00:30, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:41, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:41, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Skimo along with Tavo Nachón, as was done with Nora and Nori back in 2015. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 08:55, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Skimo per above. Aoba47 (talk) 23:07, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 21:50, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Las Vegas Thunderbirds[edit]

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

Article on a defunct, minor league basketball team that never played a single game has only one questionably RS source. A BEFORE finds no references. Chetsford (talk) 21:10, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:21, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:21, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:22, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 21:23, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yet another minor-league basketball team in a questionable league which never got off the ground. Nate • (chatter) 02:50, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the team never existed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:13, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 United States Australian Football League#USAFL Teams. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 01:37, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Las Vegas Gamblers[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Article on a minor league team has no references. A BEFORE search finds only references to the defunct NHL team of the same name. Chetsford (talk) 21:07, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:24, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:24, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:25, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 21:29, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete articles sourced only to facebook just do not work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:12, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - likely search term. I cannot find anything sufficient for WP:NEXIST to support GNG in its own right. Not a professional league either. Redirect to United States Australian Football League#USAFL Teams. Aoziwe (talk) 12:12, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Aoziwe, as it is a likely search term, but not independently notable. SportingFlyer talk 10:37, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I think that a lot of people who would put in that search term would not be looking for information about a football or defunct hockey team. Ifnord (talk) 01:54, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Aoziwe above; WP:ATD-R. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:48, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Aoziwe. While a lot of people who type this title will be disappointed by the redirect target, some will be satisfied, and WP:CHEAP. wumbolo ^^^ 22:00, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 21:50, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

James Mirza (Drummer)[edit]

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

No coverage in reliable sources, does not meet WP:GNG, WP:MUSICBIO. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:05, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:35, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not even close to WP:NMUSIC Boneymau (talk) 22:51, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not here to help people promote their clients [22]. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:51, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cannot find anywhere near sufficient WP:NEXIST to support GNG or MUSIC. Aoziwe (talk) 12:17, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.Feels like the article is just for promotion as there is very less sources to suggest the person and his music so fails WP;GNG and WP:MUSICBIO Vinodbasker (talk) 12:36, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass WP:MUSICBIO or other equivalent standard for notability.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 10:00, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of Formula One podium finishers[edit]

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

The result was Speedily deleted under WP:CSD G4 Mjroots (talk) 09:51, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

I don't mind whether this article is deleted or not. Similar article List of Formula One drivers who have achieved a podium finish was deleted in May (AfD), but the !votes were about 50/50. The main reason I've nominated the article is that it contains about 300 incorrect table sort keys which either need to be fixed or deleted; I'm happy to invest the effort to do this, but I'd like to avoid a situation where I invest a couple of hours effort in the article and it then gets deleted, so I thought I'd start the deletion discussion first. DH85868993 (talk) 20:51, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the other AfD, WP:NOTSTATS applies here. Second place is the first loser, which means third place is the second loser. List of winners is notable, but list of podium finishers not so much. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:12, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and user above. This is not the first time that such or similar list is created and they all get deleted at some point. – Sabbatino (talk) 21:30, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:36, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:36, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTSTATS and previous AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Formula One drivers who have achieved a podium finish. Ajf773 (talk) 23:22, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:35, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all the above. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:30, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Speedy deletion should be request since this has been deleted through AFD before.T v x1 13:00, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per all of the above. --Marbe166 (talk) 08:38, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 22:02, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

National Football League lore[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Per discussion at WikiProject NFL, bringing this article to AfD. Reasons mentioned at that discussion include WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:OR, and the fact that there is no clear definition of what is considered "lore". This article has numerous edit wars over what should and shouldn't be included. Natg 19 (talk) 20:45, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 20:46, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 20:46, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:37, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There's possibly a valid list in the bones of this article, but it's WP:INDISCRIMINATE. SportingFlyer talk 01:08, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. – Sabbatino (talk) 08:31, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No clear criteria for what is and is not "lore," which results in a lot of original research and either unsourced or poorly sourced entries Frank Anchor^Talk 12:12, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While I believe that we should Delete the article, some of the data collected in there is pretty interesting and it seems to be researched and sourced well. I recommend that before a hasty deletion takes place that we find a way to best use the information in the article and merge it among perhaps a large number of other articles. It seems that they belong there... --Paul McDonald (talk) 13:28, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment most of the entries on this page have their own Wikipedia articles that provide more information than is listed on this page. Frank Anchor^Talk 13:51, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. At best this is an attempt to chronologically organize NFL-related articles without any specific criteria for inclusion other than a vague "it's what people talk about." Most of the content is discussed in more depth at their respective articles and/or articles linked from History of the National Football League. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:47, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 22:02, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doc Freemans[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Totally non-notable defunct local business. The refs establish that it existed, moved, then closed, and that's it. Zero notice outside of the Seattle area, which means it fails WP:N for lack of a non-local audience. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:56, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:39, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:39, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability shown. Reywas92^Talk 05:38, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable local store.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:46, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 22:02, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apple pie shooter[edit]

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

There are quite a few recipes on the web but I can't find any RS that discuss history, culture, or any aspect of this drink other than preparation and serving. Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:47, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article does not cite any references or sources. Vorbee (talk) 20:13, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:43, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am not saying that nobody ever did this, or something similar, but no references are given to verify the claim never mind demonstrate that it is notable. There is nothing in the search links to suggest that it is notable and the vast majority of the Google hits fail to verify that this drink is consumed in the stupid way described in the article, although they do verify that a drink of this name does exist. Most suggest it is drunk out of a glass, like a normal drink drunk by a normal person. The few that do agree with the article (1, 2) are not RS and they agree to a suspicious degree. This suggests that either the article content was largely pasted from there or vice-versa. Anyway, this is no good however you look at it. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:54, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a dictionary definition not an encyclopedic article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:02, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article clearly fails WP:GNG as there is no reliable source to suggest the history and preparation of the drink and thus fails notability.Vinodbasker (talk) 12:55, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 22:03, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tronic (band)[edit]

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

Run-of-the-mill band. No indication of passing WP:MUSICBIO. Zero coverage can be found. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 18:55, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:44, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:44, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article cites no sources, and has the tag saying that this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for music. A Google search for Tronic does not throw up many hits for this band.Vorbee (talk) 08:55, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Dom from Paris (talk) 19:44, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 08:13, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Fraser-Phillips[edit]

Almah (band) have listed the subject as a co-writer so an article was built to reflect this

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

No coverage in reliable sources, does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NAUTHOR, WP:NMUSICBIO. Appears to have been created by the subject, whose argument in favor of keeping the article on the talk page is that it would be great to have, finally, credit on Wikipedia for the work I did with the band Almah', which is not a valid reason for creating an article. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:44, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Almah (band) have listed the subject as a co-writer so an article was built to reflect this

Note: The above comment was added by the subject of the article. --Darth Mike^(talk) 19:16, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article creator, this could make some contribution to notability if it is covered in SECONDARY, WP:RS. Overall, what we lack here is WP:SIGCOV of this writer.18:58, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:46, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:46, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:47, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:47, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:47, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:PROMO for a non-notable poet/lyricist, possibly WP:TOOSOON. Searches failed to find secondary. Note that the Q&A cited on page is a blog post, and the lyrics credits are PRIMARY. Fails WP:SIGCOV. fails WP:AUTHOR.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:51, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This one ought not to have slipped past AfC.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:52, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom for failing WP:NMUSICBIO et al. Ifnord (talk) 01:57, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 08:11, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvestre Simon Samb[edit]

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

I can't find any reliable sources covering the subject. Even the provided link to his biography page on African Success just says that his biography hasn't been written yet. Per WP:WORLDVIEW, I'd encourage French-speaking editors (and particularly those familiar with Senegalese sources) to find coverage, but in the absence of sources I have to conclude that the subject does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:35, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that it is more productive to encourage English-speaking editors from the French Wikipedia ;) Regards, Comte0 (talk) 00:56, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:49, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:50, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:50, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the French article discussion. Comte0 (talk) 00:23, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the French Africa project discussions. Comte0 (talk) 00:35, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

has article on French WP. E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:55, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the French WP article has no references. It does contain some links to databases of which libraries hold the subject's books, but if I'm reading this correctly, it seems that these databases claim that very few libraries hold them. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:41, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete so few hits come up in searches, and they are so inadequate, that I am confident that there is no notability here.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:00, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Deb (talk) 13:31, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Even his own webpage, which lists some of his works, doesn't claim notability - no awards, etc. Perhaps WP:TOOSOON. Ifnord (talk) 02:01, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Numerically, it's 15:6 in favor of keeping the article. Deletion discussions are not votes, but are closed according to whatever rough consensus emerges, with opinions weighted based on the strength of the arguments expressed, in the light of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. This means that I need to determine whether there are any unusually compelling opinions in favor of deletion, or any weakly argued opinions against it. I don't think that this is the case here. The issue here is notability, as described at WP:GNG, which is essentially a function of a person's coverage in reliable sources. Most of the "delete" opinions do not address the sources that have been found to cover the subject, such as those provided in this discussion by Debra Soh herself, and one "delete" opinion has to be discounted for being just a personal attack on Debra Soh. This leads me to give less weight to the "delete" side and find that we have a consensus to keep the article. Sandstein 09:40, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Debra W. Soh[edit]

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

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

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

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

Notability TropicalFishes (talk) 18:30, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I do not think that this person meets the standards for Notability. I raised this point on the talk page two months ago and it has not been addressed. I believe that the point still holds - "On what grounds does Soh meet WP:JOURNALIST? I don't think a single interview and an off-hand mention in an article about a larger movement meets the criteria 'The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.'. Neither has she produced any significant new concepts, theories or techniques, or a well-known body of work." TropicalFishes (talk) 18:33, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See below, I have changed my opinion to keep. TropicalFishes (talk) 03:36, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting that Soh has attempted to influence the discussion by posting a link to this page from her twitter account. (https://twitter.com/DrDebraSoh/status/1059130716984885248). Also, I think it's worth pointing out an inaccuracy in her tweet. The discussion is not about whether she is a journalist (which she obviously is) or whether she is a scientist (she obviously used to be), but whether her work is sufficiently important to qualify for a Wikipedia article as set out in the guidelines for how notable a journalist must be to have their own Wikipedia article. TropicalFishes (talk) 22:12, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

She's published dozens of articles in such publications as the Globe and Mail, Quillette, and Playboy. Her interview with Dave Rubin has a total of 370K views. Her interview with Joe Rogan has 1.6 million views. She hosts a podcast which has 40K listens on SoundCloud alone. In what universe is she not notable? Signed - me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.72.202.220 (talk) 18:13, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Rogan draws a large number of views regardless of who his guest is, since the Joe Rogan Experience is one of the most popular podcasts in the world. Her own podcast is much smaller in its audience, and has only received a small amount of media coverage. It also seems to only have 5 episodes. 135.23.140.125 (talk) 22:04, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No number of views or likes or streams any piece of content has on any social networking platform has anything whatsoever to do with Wikipedia's notability criteria. We count how many pieces of reliable source coverage about the person do or don't exist in real media, not how many people did or didn't view or listen to a podcast or a SoundCloud stream. Bearcat (talk) 22:24, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Soh is known for having contrarian views, grounded in science. She's one of a select group of legit, credentialed scientists who have studied Gender dysphoria in children and dared to publicly ask the question, "How young is too young to transition?" To me, this makes her significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded. Seandevelops (talk) 22:30, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't appear to be accurate. I can find no research that Dr. Soh has done that is related to gender dysphoria in children, though she has done research on a number of other topics (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Soh%20DW%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=26494360). Her work in journalism / science communication is unrelated to her research work. Many clinicians have expressed concerns about the age at which medical gender transition is appropriate. Ray Blanchard and Kenneth Zucker are two examples, who both meet WP:ACADEMIC because of their research contributions. Far from being a select group, their views were the norm in the field until fairly recently. TropicalFishes (talk) 00:44, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TropicalFishes, I didn't mean to imply you would find original research on that topic by Debra Soh. But as a science journalist, I believe her contributions in that area (and others) could be considered to be unusual and notable. She does not sidestep taboo topics. #3 - Too Young To Transition? My two cents, anyway. Seandevelops (talk) 05:30, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:52, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:53, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:53, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience of seeing her writings' influence in online forums, it seems to be that Soh is more than adequately notable for inclusion on Wikipedia. Some indication of this is provided in this article in Psychology Today. I would strongly oppose having this article deleted. Yahboo (talk) 22:38, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines for what makes a creative professional notable are unambiguous (WP:JOURNALIST). Her work being well-received in online forums does not provide evidence that she is regarded as an important figure. A single magazine interview doesn't provide evidence of "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources". — Preceding unsigned comment added by TropicalFishes (talk • contribs) 01:01, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:36, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:36, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure - She has also published 4 articles in Scientific American, plus articles in the LA Times, CBC News, the Independent (UK), etc, and been interviewed (or had interviews published) in other languages and countries (eg Brazil, Chile). She is cited by other journalists to some extent, but I'm not sure that she meets WP:JOURNALIST, yet. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:34, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A journalist's notability is measured in terms of the extent to which she is the subject of reliable source coverage — but of the twelve footnotes here, six of them represent her speaking or writing about herself or other things; four more are glancing namechecks of her existence in articles whose primary subjects are not her; one is a primary source directory listing; and the last is her own LinkedIn. A journalist does not become notable by getting interviewed, or by getting cited by other journalists, or by being the bylined author of content about other things — she becomes notable by being the subject of reliable source coverage about her, written in the third person by somebody else, but exactly zero of the sources here represent any such thing. Bearcat (talk) 06:20, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Personal attack removed)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:640:8100:49F4:1DFA:F76E:7F55:7890 (talk) 17:29, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article needs improvement to be sure, but Soh's notability, as per Bearcat's accurate description of it, has only grown in the past six months and can likely be expected to grow much more in the coming years. Maybe it wasn't created to the best of standards, but deleting the page entirely seems radically premature. Jg2904 (talk) 20:00, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that she doesn't currently meet the standards for notability but might in the future, then it seems like the right response would be to remove the page until she unambiguously does meet the standards. The discussion can always be revisited if circumstances change. However, it doesn't seem like she currently qualifies as notable, given the criteria set by the site, which apply equally to everybody. TropicalFishes (talk) 22:36, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, TropicalFishes, and sorry for any confusion; I think the article does meet notability standards, even if it's hitherto not in the best condition. I believe the article needs improvements, not deletion, as per JFG's remarks. Also, you have to tag me in your responses, otherwise I won't get notified about them. Jg2904 (talk) 20:24, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She’s been written about in the New York Times and we’re arguing if she’s notable? Lol. This is genuinely embarrassing for Wikipedia. Try to make your grudges a bit less obvious next time. Fig (talk) 20:06, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

She has not "been written about in the New York Times". One New York Times article about other people glancingly mentions Debra Soh's name a single time in the process of not being about Debra Soh, which is not the same thing as notability-conferring coverage about her. Bearcat (talk) 21:46, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She's regularly published in Canada's biggest national newspaper, as well as Playboy & Quillette. She's been written about repeatedly in the New York Times alone, her appearance on Joe Rogan's podcast has 1.6 million views. She is noted for defending James Damore & she's also a notable voice in the criticism on how transgenderism is studied in academia. It should be noted she's often been targeted for censorship (YouTube just banned an ad for one of her videos with We The Internet for example), this AfD might be part of such a campaign. --TheTruthiness (talk) 23:26, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where she's published has no bearing on notability — the notability test is not passed by being the bylined author of content about other things, it's passed by being the written-about subject of content by other people. And it wouldn't matter if the podcast had eleventy squillion bazillion views, either — if the correct kind of sourcing to get her past WP:GNG is not present in the article, then no number of views or likes or streams on any piece of unreliable social networking content counts as "inherently" notable enough to exemot the correct kind of sourcing to get her past GNG from having to be present. It's also not our job to concern ourselves with whether an article subject perceives themselves as being "censored" or not — our job is to concern ourselves with whether the person is properly sourceable to the correct kind of coverage needed to make them notable, not with anybody's political agenda in either direction. Bearcat (talk) 02:42, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: We've heard you. Please refrain from bludgeoning the discussion with further repeats of the same argument. — JFG ^talk 08:57, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She is a widely published writer, research scientist, and public intellectual (of a sort). Many people view and refer to her work, and I personally searched for a Wikipedia article about her the first time I saw her name mentioned in an article. Aaron Muir Hamilton <[email protected]> (talk) 02:26, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

People do not get Wikipedia articles by being widely published, they get Wikipedia articles by having other people write about them. Yet the kind of sources it takes to make her notable have not been and are not being shown here at all — wonder why that is, could it be that they don't exist? Bearcat (talk) 02:42, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the media appearances and interviews listed by others, here are 10 links to coverage written by other journalists about me, of which I am the main subject. I'd be happy to provide more.

(1) The Independent: https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/love-sex/paraphilias-sexual-fetishes-medical-issue-voyeurism-exhibitionism-fetishism-atypical-expert-name-a7594846.html

(2) The Federalist: https://thefederalist.com/2018/10/26/youtube-bans-dangerous-ad-video-critiquing-transgenderism/

(3) National Review: https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/common-sense-part-ii-not-every-sex-researcher-thinks-young-kids-should-transition/

(4) Discover Magazine: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/2014/11/26/peek-inside-furry-convention/#.W-DD_xNKiL8

(5) Esquire: https://www.esquire.com/lifestyle/sex/news/a52596/sex-in-brain/

(6) Cosmopolitan: https://www.cosmopolitan.com/sex-love/news/a56050/warning-signs-hell-be-dangerous-in-bed/

(7) Psychology Today: https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/standard-deviations/201709/sex-researcher-turned-journalist-challenges-sexual-dogmas

(8) The Daily Wire: https://www.dailywire.com/news/13257/neuroscientist-yes-men-and-women-have-brain-aaron-bandler

(9) Politiken, Denmark's leading newspaper: https://politiken.dk/udland/art5861789/Derfor-har-Debra-Soh-vendt-feminismen-ryggen

(10) The Stranger: https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2018/05/31/26879132/wrong-speak-is-a-safe-space-for-dangerous-ideas Debra Soh (talk) 21:37, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This actually convinces me that there's enough coverage to merit an article. Since most of the stories from mainstream sources (except Politiken / Discover / Psychology Today) are quoting you rather than directly about you, they were difficult to turn up with a google search of your name. This list will be valuable in helping to improve the article - thanks for taking the time to compile it. TropicalFishes (talk) 03:36, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The arguments that she is not yet sufficiently "notable" seem rather petty and ignorant. She seems to be already adequately notable for there to be a Wikipedia article about her. Yahboo (talk) 02:45, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Soh is primarily known for her opinion pieces in various publications, and is not widely cited by other authors. She has been mentioned briefly in a number of articles, but nothing that would suggest she is any more notable than many other journalists who do not have their own Wikipedia articles. I am willing to be convinced otherwise, but neither the references given in the article nor any other sources I could find support the case for her being notable. Hpesoj00 (talk) 05:59, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – While a lot of the article's sources are indeed citing the subject's own writings, which do not qualify her for notability, her coverage in The New York Times by itself passes WP:GNG. A case could also be made that her work has attracted "significant critical attention", per criterion 4(c) of WP:AUTHOR, or that she is "regarded as an important figure" per criterion 1 (although it is debatable who regards her as important). I hate to delve into WP:OTHERSTUFF, but we have hundreds if not thousands of articles about less-notable journalists, academics and scientists. — JFG ^talk 09:06, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If that case could be made, people should provide evidence for it by adding reliable sources to the article. As it stands, I disagree that the NYT coverage suffices to meet WP:GNG, because both are passing mentions to her or her work. In neither case is she the focus of the article. TropicalFishes (talk) 18:16, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This appears to be a rather childish attempt by two individuals to remove a page by a known and frequently published author, journalist, and neuroscientist. Wikipedia users rely us to provide accurate information, without injecting our biases or personal points of view. The article clearly needs further editing, but that's no reason to delete it. I agree with JFG. Keep. — Omegabyte7 ^talk 09:40, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A well known neuroscientist, who is also a journalist and writer. Passes WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Searching turns up numerous reliable sources. Netherzone (talk) 03:17, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not particularly well-known as a neuroscientist more than the average neuroscience grad with a PhD and has a verified Twitter account. This does not make someone notable just by the virtue of her following and her verified status. --Parkbenchmonster (talk) 03:35, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Straw man. No one is arguing that she would pass N as a neuroscience researcher. The argument is that she earned the doctorate, then segued into a notable writing career, as Edward Rothstein, Charles Krauthammer and many ohters have done.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:09, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Many of the reasons for deletion have already been outlined above, but it is worth noting that even within her opinion pieces, that she claims is scientifically valid, she uses evidence that is either put in the wrong context or has been repeatedly debunked. She has a large following as a contrarian, transphobic writer, but this does not make her notable than the next reactionary grifter. Controversy is not a measure of notability. --DiasporaCryptid (talk) 03:38, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DiasporaCryptid, a closer look and an open mind will reveal to you that Soh argues in good faith, and most certainly is not transphobic. I say this as someone who is politically liberal (if that grants me any extra credibility ). Thanks. Seandevelops (talk) 08:37, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not you think her arguments are good doesn't affect whether or not she is notable. Plenty of people who might be labeled 'transphobic' meet the guidelines for notability, and so they have articles. However, I agree with you that contrarian views (without significant coverage in reliable secondary sources) are not a stand-in for notability. TropicalFishes (talk) 04:19, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia editors don't get to decide whether something is factually correct or not. Secondary sources do and wiki articles present them in unbiased manner. Its astonishing that this has to be said, its basic rule and I would recommend anyone who isn't aware of it to take time off their day and re-read them. EllsworthSK (talk) 09:31, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Science journalist, sexologist, neuroscientist. Published in Globe and Mail, Playboy, Scientific American, at least a dozen others. Appearances on several major podcasts: Joe Rogan Experience, Rubin Report, Savage Lovecast, Hidden Brain. Cited in New York Times articles by David Brooks and Bari Weiss. The article by Weiss alone should pass WP:GNG. Note how the guideline defines "significant coverage" and compare with how Weiss covered Soh. Soh is an influential thinker, an influential writer, and in contrast to above, surprisingly more notable than the "average neuroscience grad with a PhD and verified Twitter account". Keep. Seandevelops (talk) 08:27, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG defines "significant coverage" as, "addresses the topic directly and in detail", and, "more than a trivial mention". I would probably consider the mention of her in the NYT article (one short paragraph describing her as one of two "other figures" associated with the IDW) to be trivial, and I certainly wouldn't say it covered her in detail. Most other mentions of her in the media are even more trivial, and are usually quotes taken from her opinion pieces which, again, I wouldn't say qualify her as "widely cited", in support of WP:AUTHOR. Hpesoj00 (talk) 14:04, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep reading below that first paragraph, you'll find a couple more. While not the main topic of the source material [and doesn't need to be], I'd say the coverage is non-trivial with respect to the topic at hand. The coverage is quite clearly something in between Bill Clinton and Robert Sobel in WP:GNG-speak. Seandevelops (talk) 20:22, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Published author, sourced wiki article. I can't understand why someone would nominate this for deletion. While No-Gatekeeping isn't Wikipedia official rule, it goes without saying that this shouldn't be tool for any editor. EllsworthSK (talk) 09:29, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:SIGCOV. And I do think it meaningful that she has been getting hundreds of hits ever day for for a long while - page is reliably sourced and useful to readers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:00, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: coverage in The Independent and [https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/standard-deviations/201709/sex-researcher-turned-journalist-challenges-sexual-dogmas an interview in Psychology Today seem to cover notability. PamD 12:51, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Seems to pass WP:SIGCOV. Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 14:03, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough for notability. Volunteer Marek 14:21, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SIGCOV of her podcast Wrongspeak here: Wrongspeak Is a Safe Space for Dangerous Ideas.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:21, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bearcat's reasoning. Rab V (talk) 23:09, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see 4 interviews (Quillette, Joe Rogan, Psych Today, some Brazilian site), and a bunch of mentions in various large media. Soh herself provided a list of these above (>=10). Also, contrary to stated above, Politiken is a mainstream media, large general purpose Danish newspaper with center-left leanings. Deleet (talk) 08:22, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 08:04, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Megan Bernard[edit]

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

Non notable individual. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:23, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:05, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:05, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:05, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could not see a single IRS on this subject. Fails GNG. At best way TOOSOON. Aoziwe (talk) 11:56, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Member of several ensembles, toured nationally and has been reviewed in various media. Content and refs add recently support notability per WP:MUSICBIO.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 05:47, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I have reversed my position per duffbeerformore below.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 10:03, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AmericanAir88^(talk) 11:07, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 18:08, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May be a member of several ensembles but WP:MUSIC talks of notable ensembles which is not the case here. Touring lacks coverage. Reviewed in various media? I see one OK review, the AU Review. That is not various. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:02, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would have to say WP:TOOSOON - the AU Review talks of her as promising, hopefully more to come - and as others have noted, that's the only in-depth review. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:55, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:44, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Damijo Efe-Young[edit]

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

I'm a bit torn on this one so I'm bringing it to AfD for more editors to weigh in. On the one hand, there's no in-depth coverage of the subject in reliable sources (none cited in the article, and I wasn't able to find anything else online) so they don't meet WP:GNG, and the subject's filmography does not appear to be significant or well-known enough to meet WP:DIRECTOR. Their strongest claim to notability is having won awards at the Best of Nollywood Awards and Abuja International Film Festival. The latter doesn't seem to be particularly notable, but the former festival does appear to get extensive coverage in reliable Nigerian sources like Vanguard. However, "Movie with best social message" doesn't really sound like a top-tier award, and I am thus skeptical that this meets the criteria in WP:ANYBIO of receiving a well-known and significant award or honor. Thus, I am currently leaning toward delete, but would appreciate dissenting opinions per WP:WORLDVIEW _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:05, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:59, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:59, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I first noted issues of notability in the talk page, while doing page reviewing, and there was no response. This article, in its current form, does not meet the WP:AUTHOR requirements.--1l2l3k (talk) 15:35, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I usually !vote keep for a filmmaker that has directed at least 3 notable films. I tried searching for his films in the regular Nollywood review sites, but the results wasn't so impressive. Yawa:Nemesis, which is a short film and Love is a Prank won/nom some modest awards that should automatically mean there should be some reviews for it on the internet, but I'm not seeing that. I found a review on Stop! from Nollywood Reinvented, which also got an AMVCA nomination. Excess Luggage and Two Sides of a Coin also have some decent reviews on the internet. I don't know, I would have voted keep if not for the peculiarities of this article. HandsomeBoy (talk) 19:46, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 22:03, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Boller[edit]

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

So after a fair bit of research, I don't see how this person can meet our inclusion criteria. The claims of grammy nomination/wins are...loose at best and the sources contradict the actual claims of notability, like working on an award winning album, specifically here. I can't find anything else in the way of coverage or sources. Praxidicae (talk) 16:02, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:31, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:31, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like he fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:CREATIVE. I don't see significant coverage in reliable sources to get him a pass under WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. PohranicniStraze (talk) 17:37, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 17:38, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Having a Grammy nomination is notable for a musician, but this article just doesn’t meet Wikipedia standards.Trillfendi (talk) 18:26, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The grammy nomination is a feeble claim in that he was given co-producer credit on a single track off an album containing 17 songs and 12 other credited producers. There is no significant independent sources to confirm his importance to the the nomination, nor does his involvement even merit an entry on Grammy's website, where they typically catalog nominees. Same case with the Dove award and nominations, often sharing credit with multiple people via the presence of a single track. ShelbyMarion (talk) 14:51, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:44, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arthritis Foundation Aquatic Program[edit]

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

Not notable enough for its own article Rathfelder (talk) 17:21, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:29, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:29, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 18:22, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 17:38, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent coverage. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:42, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn, stub, niche. Szzuk (talk) 09:15, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speed deleted per WP:G5. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:20, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

7ujuh (film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFF draftified once already but moved back with insufficient sources. In a before search only routine stuff like this [23]. WP:TOOSOON Dom from Paris (talk) 15:21, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:21, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:21, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft move back to draft for AFC as there is not much coverage now but it is released 8 November so there could be reviews in reliable sources then in which case it can be accepted at AFC. Any moves back without AFC could be reverted if this AFD closes on drafting, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 13:09, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Atlantic306: The page has already been draftified once and the creator recreated it and so effectively objected to the draftification and as such I do not think we can DRAFTIFY again hence this AfD as per WP:DRAFTIFY. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:03, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- - An AFD decision to draft carries more weight as per the second paragraph of WP:DRAFTIFY: "Articles may be moved to become a draft as a result of a deletion discussion, indirectly following deletion and a request for undeletion. When performing such a move, link to the original deletion discussion and the decision to move the article into draftspace. Authors should try to understand and respond to the reason for moving to draft status, and then use the AfC submission process to have the page moved back to mainspace. The author is encouraged to ask other editors questions, or to use the Help me template." so it suggests a move back to mainspace after an AFD draftify has to be through AFC, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 15:44, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah Ok, that makes sense, I must admit I hadn't read it like that because this "indirectly following deletion and a request for undeletion." threw me! Dom from Paris (talk) 16:36, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 16:35, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move Back to draft. Has quite a few notable actors so there is a large chance it will receive suitable coverage. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 17:03, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with User:Domdeparis initial nomination. Poorly constructed article, actors aren't especially notable, and notability is not inherited. Even if actors are notable, doesn't mean the film is. LikeMeercats (talk) 17:24, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 22:03, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

St. Aloysius Institute of Management & Information Technology[edit]

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

Perhaps an independent campus but for the rest part of St. Aloysius College (Mangalore). Fails WP:GNG and insufficient notability to warrant a separate article. The Banner talk 12:12, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:43, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:43, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:43, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 16:26, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In addition to the above, a good number of the references are dead links. LikeMeercats (talk) 17:25, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG Spiderone 13:45, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NOTDIRECTORY.∯WBG^converse 20:12, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to St. Aloysius College (Mangalore). — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 20:55, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ignoring socks, clear consensus to delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:21, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shiyas Kareem[edit]

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

Deprodded without rationale, and very little improvement. Might be a case of WP:TOOSOON, but currently doesn't meet either WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Also, written in a highly promotional tone. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:26, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:27, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with User:onel5969's assessment regarding WP:NOTPROMOTION — Preceding unsigned comment added by LikeMeercats (talk • contribs) 17:26, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:07, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:07, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - TOOSOON at present, Fails NACTOR & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 15:38, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Spiderone 09:21, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep satisfy WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Has independent sources from The Times of India, Deccan Chronicle, Malayala Manorama. He has also a cult following in social media platforms, they are known by the name "Shiyas Army". 137.97.79.204 (talk) 06:46, 5 November 2018 (UTC) comment - SPA IP with only 4 edits, only here and on the subject article.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:28, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article already has a reference and significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, i agree that the article surely need some improvements. satisfy WP:NACTOR as he represented a country in World level competition, participated in popular television reality show and become the finalist as second runner-up, acted in movies and short films etc. ( Hbinu (talk) 11:23, 5 November 2018 (UTC) ) Struck per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hbinu. – Athaenara ✉ 04:21, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he is popular in kerala and middle east countries (37.245.239.159 (talk) 11:53, 5 November 2018 (UTC))[reply]
Comment The 137.97.79.204 and 37.245.239.159 users both edits are only on this page related. Could be a sockpuppet situation, I will tag all the people who participated to see. @CAPTAIN RAJU: @Onel5969: @Davey2010: @Spiderone: @LikeMeercats:. Also the first delete which was not signed was by LikeMeercats as seen in the edit history. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:30, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree about the possible socking. I opened a sockpuppet investigation. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:33, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed and thanks Onel5969 for starting an SPI, My spidey senses tell me this is all one editor so yeah thanks for doing that. –Davey2010^Talk 13:56, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: there's a handy tag for those, Template:Single-purpose account. – Athaenara ✉ 06:33, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article was edited by some random user that made the article to appear in promotional light. Being the creator of this page, I have made the necessary deletion and corrections with proper references, and I believe that this should be sufficient to keep the article factually relevant. ( Emissaryj (talk) 14:26, 5 November 2018 (UTC) ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emissary j (talk • contribs) [reply]

Delete or redirect to Bigg Boss Malayalam. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. At most, this is WP:BLP1E, but finished 3rd so there is no lasting notability from this. Ravensfire (talk) 20:09, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ The article has been further updated with recent events(with references) that has happened in Shiyas Kareem's television career. ( Emissaryj (talk) 06:20, 6 November 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emissary j (talk • contribs) [reply]

You have already voted Keep, so to avoid confusion I have struck out your previous Keep. GSS (talk|c|em) 06:29, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and fails NACTOR and GNG, I redirected this page to Bigg Boss Malayalam per WP:ATD-R as I found it non-notable by WP standard but it was removed by the creator so I'm afraid this will continue. GSS (talk|c|em) 06:50, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The redirect to Bigg Boss Malayalam would only result in a trivial mention of Shiyas Kareem in the article. This article is dedicated to the individual and includes his career and other achievements which would not be available on the page Bigg Boss Malayalam.( Emissaryj (talk) 14:26, 5 November 2018 (UTC) ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emissary j (talk • contribs) [reply]

Can you specifically show how this person meets WP:NACTOR? Not just saying they meet it, but going point by point and giving specific examples of how they meet each point please. Ravensfire (talk) 16:47, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article includes references that satisfies WP:NACTOR as per the following points;

1. The career section covers his filmography and his participation in television shows (Satisfies condition number 1 in WP:NACTOR).

2. The 'External links' section includes a link to his fan page which signifies that he has a large fan base (Satisfies condition number 2 in WP:NACTOR).

3. His participation and achievements at the Mr. Grand Sea World competition in 2018 shows that he has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment (Satisfies condition number 3 in WP:NACTOR).Emissary j( Emissaryj (talk) 05:04, 9 November 2018 (UTC) ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emissary j (talk • contribs) [reply]

1. Sources fail to show significant roles in multiple shows. Minor parts don't cut it. Fails Criteria 1.

2. Linking to a fan club is not a way to show significant fan base - you need multiple reliable sources from WP:SECONDARY sources. Fails criteria 2.

3. Competing at a show is not unique, prolific or innovative, especially when they don't even win.

So sorry, no way is WP:NACTOR met or even close to being met. Ravensfire (talk) 14:16, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1. Having entered the show Bigg Boss Malayalam on the 14th day, he went on to reach the final. This represents that he had a significant role in the 100-day show. He is a model who has recently started acting in movies, so his acting roles might not have been significant enough to satisfy WP:NACTOR, but his significant presence in the television show Bigg Boss Malayalam does satisfy WP:ENTERTAINER.

2. Under the list of references, the reference number 9 is an article that describes the fan following Shiyas Kareem has. The article is in Malayalam. I am not sure if you would be comfortable trusting an auto-translated article, but for verification you can cross-check with an admin who has proficiency in reading Malayalam. This should satisfy WP:CELEBRITY.

3. Competing at a show might not be unique, but representing a nation at an annual international event can be considered unique, particularly if you are the first person from the state of Kerala to do so. This should be enough to satisfy WP:NMODEL, along with references that cite that he has been a professional model since 2010.Emissary j( Emissaryj (talk) 07:21, 10 November 2018 (UTC) )[reply]

Re:#2 – Malayalilife.com doesn't seem to be a reliable source to me. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:43, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GSS Malayalilife.com is a website that primarily focuses on entertainment and lifestyle news of the people of Kerala. Most of the sources that are usually considered reliable might not cover every event that happens in the state. Being a regional news, Malayalilife has covered the events that occurred(mentioned through reference 9 in the article), which the other major sources such as Malayala Manorama, Mathrubhumi, Times of India, The Week etc. might have not been able to furnish in their articles.Emissary j( Emissaryj (talk) 08:51, 10 November 2018 (UTC) )[reply]

Delete based on notability concerns and history of sockpuppetry. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:59, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 22:04, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Asoke K. Talukder[edit]

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

Very promotional article, without a single in-depth source. Searches turned up virtually zero in-depth coverage so fails WP:GNG, and also does not meet WP:NSCHOLAR. He's accomplished, simply not notable. There also might be a COI issue with the editor who created the article, since the photo in the article was their own work. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:30, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:30, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:30, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are correct about the COI and will warn the article creator as a prelude to possible draftifying. Deb (talk) 11:15, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Deb - I thought about draftifying, but in my WP:BEFORE didn't really find enough to show notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:45, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 11:46, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The creator seems to be a very occasional editor. If we draftify it and he doesn't improve it, it will be deleted after a certain length of time in any case. Some of his other creations don't bear much scrutiny either. I'll leave it a couple of days before deciding what to do about this one, just in case someone else comes up with some better content. Deb (talk) 14:37, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 16:22, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Spiderone 09:25, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG as well as NSCHOLAR, comprehensively.∯WBG^converse 09:31, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Only no consensus because there still aren't any reliable sources in the article itself... Sandstein 09:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mina Cvetković[edit]

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

Cvetković is not a relevant or notable person. The only reference shown does not show any relevance and does not comply with WP:SIGCOV. Vercelas (quaestiones?) 18:37, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:09, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:09, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:10, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NEXIST. Cvetković is a world-class model, as can be evidenced from
- "Instagramming Model Mina Cvetkovic Loves U2, and We Love Her for It". Vogue. July 20, 2015. (fully about her)
- "Mina Cvetkovic Transforms at Rick Owens". New York Times. March 3, 2016. (photo gallery)

as well as several articles from Serbian press:

"Na ljepotu ove Nišlijke niko nije ravnodušan". Nezavisne novine. July 21, 2015.
"ELLE STYLE AWARDS: Dobitnici priznanja za 2016!". Kurir. November 10, 2016. (best model of 2016 award from Elle magazine)
"(FOTO) NIŠLIJKA ZALUDELA HOLIVUD: Model Mina Cvetković zasenila je i Adrianu Limu". Kurir. February 17, 2016.
"Nišlijka muza Dolčea i Gabane". Blic. May 21, 2012.
"Ekskluzivni intervju: Lice sa naslovnice". Harper's Bazaar Serbia. November 23, 2015. (interview, appears on cover photo)

No such user (talk) 08:44, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On the last link, appear only on a cover of a known magazine does not grant immediate relevant. Please note that this reference just names it and this is less than a journalistic note. --Vercelas (quaestiones?) 16:16, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to know much Serbian to figure out that "Ekskluzivni intervju" means "Exclusive interview". While an interview may not be very useful as a source for facts (except for her own statements and opinions), it certainly helps establish notability and SIGCOV. A respectable magazine does not perform "exclusive interviews" with little-known people.
Actually, she was featured in over a dozen issues of several fashion magazines, see http://www.designscene.net/female-models/mina-cvetkovic for the full list. I'm not into the fashion scene at all, but I the sheer range of sources I found negates your statement that she is "not a relevant or notable person". No such user (talk) 09:18, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For more prestige possess a publisher, an interview should only be used as a source to support a statement, not to demonstrate relevance. An interview is merely the publication of someone's personal objections. Wikipedia is not a directory or annex of any model or similar. Probably dozens, or hundreds of models, mostly devoid of enciclopedic relevance, have posed in such magazines, such as Elle. --Vercelas (quaestiones?) 23:36, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 18:42, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dom from Paris (talk) 16:16, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, reading the article says delete, the refs above say keep. Szzuk (talk) 09:20, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 22:04, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas Eppink[edit]

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

Sourced almost entirely to his CV or own work and fails WP:GNG Theroadislong (talk) 16:11, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. Unambiguous WP:PROMO, previously BLPPRODed but recreated by the same SPA, blanked and recreated after AfC submission was rejected for copyvio, article creator continues to add copyvio text to the article despite being reverted multiple times. It is a waste of editor and administrator time. Bakazaka (talk) 19:52, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:10, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:10, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NBIO. No coverage in independent reliable sources. Sources are all self-published. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:18, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too much promotion here. Qualitist (talk) 09:45, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus that individual doesn't need to be redirected to event via both BIO1E but also occurrence in more than one notable event. (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 08:31, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kenichi Hirose[edit]

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

Should be a redirect to Tokyo subway sarin attack#Kenichi Hirose. Classic case of WP:BIO1E. But an editor is insistent on continuously recreating the article. So here we are. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:20, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The reasons are as following:
The WP:BIO1E said that "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." Besides, if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. I believe this article meets such rules. Tokyo subway sarin attack is highly significant, Hirose also plays a very important role in this event. I understand WP:OCE is not a good idea. However, participants in 9/11 such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Mohamed Atta is even related with a featured article Jihad (song). To be honest, it's a little bit irony.
Hirose was involved in a series of events, not only the Tokyo subway sarin attack, but also the secret assault rifles production by Aum Shinrikyo (ja:自動小銃密造事件) and production of other weapons in Aum Shinrikyo. Please see this and this

I understand that many editors can't read articles in Japanese or Chinese, but a lack in articles/documents in English doesn't mean this article doesn't meet the notability standard. --クオン·翡翠·鵺鳥·十姉妹·夜啼鳥 15:29, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep User:Kuon.Haku's point regarding language barrier is a reasonable one. While it will stop us from understanding or getting as much context as possible, we should strive to include as much information in English as possible. LikeMeercats (talk) 17:29, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:08, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:09, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:BIO1E and WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 19:18, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
restore redirect, WP:ONEEVENT. Unless the article is significantly expanded, topic is entirely covered in redirect target.TheLongTone (talk) 13:14, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Involved in a series of events in Aum Shinrikyo. Significant and continuing coverage even with English sources alone. Icewhiz (talk) 14:17, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because his activities in the years before the subway attack are notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:02, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:46, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Howes[edit]

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

Unsourced article on an actor who doesn’t seem too noteworthy. No sources to support his birth or death. Merely serves as a rundown of some of his appearances. Rusted AutoParts 14:45, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Of the appearances shown in his IMDB list, only one (in "There Will Be Blood") appears to be at all notable, and even there it is more a peripheral role than a starring one. Doesn't look like he meets WP:NACTOR. PohranicniStraze (talk) 15:16, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:12, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:12, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:12, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia does not aim to be a comprehensive directory of actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:37, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (talk) 00:07, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing Is Free[edit]

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

|I favour redirecting this to Justin Broaderick discography & did so; this was reverted with a claim that 'articles from Exclaim, Stereogum, and Fact that focus on the EP.' None of these are anything more than notices that this recording has been released. Nothing approaching any in-depth coverage. TheLongTone (talk) 14:13, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Fact, Stereogum, The Quietus, Exclaim!, and Metal Injection all found the EP notable enough to write about. These articles offer enough substance to support a section beyond a lead. What's more, this is an EP, not an album, so the requirements for notability shouldn't be as steep. It's my opinion that these sources are non-trivial. Note: I started the article a year ago. CelestialWeevil ^(talk) 14:42, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@CelestialWeevil: - not a response to your primary argument, but why should an EP have gentler notability requirements than an album? Nosebagbear (talk) 19:08, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nosebagbear: I read on some rule page once that older albums require less sources to be notable than newer ones (sorry, I don't have the link right now). I figure smaller albums (EPs) could be treated the same way, but with size instead of age. Maybe not, though. CelestialWeevil ^(talk) 19:45, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@CelestialWeevil: Are you talking about WP:NALBUM? – The Grid (talk) 00:26, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Grid: I wish I was, but I don't think so. I'll have to look further. CelestialWeevil ^(talk) 14:08, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: just because Broadrick says it's an EP doesn't make it one. At nine songs and 55 minutes, this would be classified as an album under the chart rules of any country and it should be treated as such. Richard3120 (talk) 12:30, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:13, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:13, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard3120: Good point! I'm inclined to agree with you. I wouldn't call it an EP, regardless of it being on the cover and it being referred to as such. But it is, so what can ya do. CelestialWeevil ^(talk) 14:08, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard3120: It's definitely not an album either though, since every article I've seen refers to Rise Above as the official second album. Nothing Is Free is a compilation of tracks that originally weren't intended to sit on an album together. PalmTreeEden (talk) 19:27, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment My point is that the souces don't write about this ep. They mention it, presumabably because they can find nothing of any interest to say about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheLongTone (talk • contribs) 08:01, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably because they can find nothing of interest to say about it? Sorry, but I can't buy that. I don't want to talk about the musical content here, it doesn't seem relevant, but there could be so many more reasons. Lack of time, lack of readership interest, an over-saturation of similar material. And even then, like I said, they write enough to warrant more prose than just a lead. CelestialWeevil ^(talk) 14:08, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can it at least be demonstrated that the EP meets one of the criteria listed in WP:NALBUM? Note that criteria 1 would mean anything outside of reviews of the EP. – The Grid (talk) 16:59, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Grid: Sorry, but I'm not seeing where criterion 1 precludes reviews. The references are reliable (I verified with WP:RSMUSIC), not self-published, and independent from the musician. CelestialWeevil ^(talk) 17:26, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I got a few more references from Resident Advisor and Crack Magazine now. CelestialWeevil ^(talk) 17:36, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another update, User:PalmTreeEden has added some reviews. I don't really think these are necessarily reputable sources, but someone might know better than me. CelestialWeevil ^(talk) 19:15, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TheLongTone: @CelestialWeevil: All three sources seemed unbiased (not promotional) enough to me. They all have a large following in the thousands on their Twitters so they aren't exactly fan blogs. PalmTreeEden (talk) 19:27, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@PalmTreeEden: Right. I appreciate your help, by the way. I think the main issue is establishing credibility of the authors. Honestly, though, I don't know how to do that. I've never tried before. CelestialWeevil ^(talk) 19:28, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So there are a few reviews (there's actually another here) which easily pass Sig Cov. A couple fail independent (or at least, I'm fairly confident in that), Freq is an interesting example. It doesn't have any direct bias (since it generates no revenue), that said, whether it has sufficient editorial control to be reliable, I don't know. BrooklynVegan (and Freq) are fairly big - it's not just some random unreliable blogs. But whether they are sufficiently reliable to count, I'm just not sure.

I added that one and moved down the Crack Magazine quote since it's de facto a review too. PalmTreeEden (talk) 20:14, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I think there is now enough interview and review coverage from multiple independent sources to make the subject notable. PalmTreeEden (talk) 15:34, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Between redirect and keep. Sandstein 20:19, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 2013 New Haven Line Power Outage[edit]

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

The subject of the article may not meet the notability guidelines, it is not blatant enough to warrant a CSD. Kb03 (talk) 13:27, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to New Haven Line/weak keep. This was an incident requiring intervention by a member of U.S. Congress, and had minor lasting impact. As such it was barely notable, and should probably be redirected. Pinging @Smellyshirt5:, the article's creator, and @RoySmith and Pi.1415926535:, who also discussed this matter at Talk:New Haven Line. epicgenius (talk) 13:31, 1 November 2018 (UTC) Edit: a few words. epicgenius (talk) 14:02, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Newsworthy, yes; notable, no.TheLongTone (talk) 13:53, 1 November 2018 (UTC)#REDIRECT [[]][reply]

It is certainly notable as it effected the busiest rail line in the United States, at 125,000 daily week day riders, reducing service for 12 days, warranted a Congressional Hearing where the MTA's president was held accountable, and includes interesting technical details and findings from a public report that epicgenius and his associates seem to enjoy removing and hiding. Thanks. Smellyshirt5 (talk) 14:47, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Before this article was created, I was thinking that a spin-out might be a reasonable way to resolve the debate on the talk page. I'm not really convinced this is notable at all, but having it spun out into a side article is certainly preferable to putting this level of technical detail in the main article. To do so would be WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTISM. Compare, for example, the coverage we have of an earlier event which inflicted a similar scale outage: The Great Blizzard of 1888 blocked the rail line in Westport, between the Saugatuck and Green's Farms stations. It took eight days to restore service, as snow was dug out by hand.. That's all we say about that. Why should this event require anything more than a similar two-sentence mention? Railroads are constantly having technical problems. Power outages. Fires. Derailments. Crashes. Not every one is so notable that it requires this level of detailed coverage in an encyclopedia. But, as I said, if we are going to cover it, at least don't clutter up the (already overly detailed) main article. I have no particular objection to a redirect, but given that it's an unlikely search term, I can't argue that it's necessary. Certainly, merging this back into the main article would be inappropriate. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:48, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak arguments for political censorship: @RoySmith, why is it so imperative for you and your associates to remove the findings of a public report that impacted the busiest railroad in the United States, at 125,000 daily weekday riders, in the modern era, for 12 days. Not to mention that the MTA has consistently been in the news for poor maintenance and service, which makes this an even more important and enlightening issue for public consumption. The Wikipedia platform is meant to enlighten, not hide. Thanks for your concerns for the laymen.Smellyshirt5 (talk) 14:53, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is not political censorship, but this is better than having excessive detail in the main New Haven Line article. And please don't ram your argument through. It's not likely to convince people to support keeping this article. epicgenius (talk) 16:47, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per RoySmith and explicitly not per Smellyshirt5 who is attacking all the wrong people in the interest of teh frees peechs. The information on the incident is encyclopedically useful, and RoySmith's statement here is a pretty good explanation of why a merge is not preferable. It's a thing that happened, it was noteworthy on a regional scale (maybe national considering it was investigated by an agency of the US government), has had a lasting (albeit minor) impact, and is sufficiently well-documented. Just for the hell of it I'm also going to throw in that I like it, having been around for the 1995 Russell Hill incident and lived through the 2003 Northeast Blackout. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:08, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:14, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:15, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep though the background section is a little weak and could use some improvement, it definitely seems like a notable event that affected many people and attracted mass media coverage, and I think the article has potential to be an informative one with some improvement in the background section and perhaps some additional detail on the measures Metro-North took to provide alternative service. TITANOSAURUS 00:24, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Passes wp:gng easily. Markvs88 (talk) 01:28, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided but waving over redirection because this (and I'm sure it has been) is a common event, it happens in part in the UK but most of them don't reach national news. This would benefit being in the New Haven Line article as per EpicGenius as in its current form it doesn't warrant an article of its own. Nightfury 15:46, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Note adding because of Senator's request for hearing.Night fury 15:48, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The content is clearly significant, and as RoySmith explained, a merge is impractical. Smartyllama (talk) 18:30, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In this case, disputes at the New Haven Line page, length of that article, and WP:SIGCOV of this particular power outage justify a separate page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:44, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I'm going to assume this is notable/that reliable secondary sources exist (other users have noted there may have been media coverage) from the consensus above so I'm not going to vote delete, but the sourcing is terrible and I think the article fails WP:GNG on its face. I'm not sure any of the sources are truly independent of the incident, several are obviously primary, and I think this can be easily written up concisely in the main article. SportingFlyer talk 05:41, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose redirect as WP:UNDUE. WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP. This outage received intense regional coverage, which continued for a couple of years. I just added a series of sources to the page from which article can be expanded. The fact that the page needs improvement is not a reason to delete (or effectively delete via redirect,) since sourcing, including SECONDARY sourcing does exist.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:27, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't understand the WP:UNDUE link. All of the new articles are by the same author in the same time frame, which was all during the outage. I'm also finding this topic incredibly hard to search for on WP:BEFORE grounds. It's not obvious on its face that this is a notable event to me, or that it can't be covered in a couple sentences on the main page. SportingFlyer talk 11:58, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

thinking out loud I wonder whether the thing to do might be to broaden this article into a page about maintenance issues in the 2010s.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:42, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep -- this event was widely covered and affected the USA's busiest rail line. It appears to pass WP:GNG. I am not against a redirect if consensus prefers that instead. Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 02:52, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:46, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Swati Sharma[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Notability has not been demonstrated. Hitro talk 13:03, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:09, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:09, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:09, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. I looked for significant coverage and failed to find anything that would add up to WP:GNG. Yilloslime (talk) 23:27, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:07, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ndaba Mandela[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject is not notable independent of his grandfather, Nelson Mandela. Provided coverage consists of interviews with the subject on the topic of his grandfather (including a book that the subject wrote about Nelson Mandela, which does not appear to be notable enough to qualify the subject via WP:NAUTHOR). Coverage online appears to be more of the same, although I was able to find this coverage [24] in the NY Daily News which attests that the subject won an award of dubious notability and was profiled as part of a BET feature. I was able to find BET's coverage [25], which appears to be almost entirely an interview with the subject and is thus not sufficiently independent to satisfy notability guidelines. He's cooperated with celebrities to promote AIDS awareness, but coverage of Mandela in relation to this is not in-depth. He's also the founder of the Africa Rising foundation, which does not appear to be notable (note: there are several unrelated organizations that are also named Africa Rising). In sum, current coverage does not appear to pass WP:GNG–there's a lot of smoke here due to his connection to Nelson Mandela and his eagerness to defend his grandfather's legacy in the public eye, but no flame. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:52, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:50, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:50, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:51, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability is not inherited, but I believe there is coverage in reliable sources with regards to his campaigning on AIDS. There is a lot of significant coverage about his life growing up with Nelson Mandela, which although is clearly related to Nelson Mandela they are specifically about Ndaba's own experiences. I think this makes them notable in their own right. Polyamorph (talk) 21:23, 31 October 2018 (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/2018 November 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:59, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Notability is not inherited. User:Polyamorph Would you still think his work is 'notable' or meetings WP:GNG without the relation to Mandela? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LikeMeercats (talk • contribs) 17:32, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in my comment, the significant coverage about their own life, even though it is intertwined with Nelson Mandela's, make them notable in their own right. The important thing is there are reliable sources giving this person significant coverage. It's not someone who just happens to be Nelson Mandela's grandson and has kept out of the public eye, in which case I would agree that notability is not inherited. There is sufficient coverage to satisy WP:GNG. Polyamorph (talk) 09:12, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- The two interviews, one from The Independent and the other from BET, are sufficient to establish notability. Before you all start going on about whether interviews are reliable sources keep in mind that that's not what we're talking about here. No doubt interviews are not RS for facts about a subject, but they are perfectly reasonable indicators of a subject's notability. Why are these mainstream high quality sources interviewing this guy if he's not notable? 192.160.216.52 (talk) 18:17, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Media sources generally don't follow WP:NOTINHERITED and are more than happy to interview people because they are related to more notable people. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:31, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. So? The point is that regardless of whether media sources follow any particular WP policies, if they choose to interview people, especially if more than one of them choose to interview people over time, then those people are notable. We don't worry about why sources are choosing their interview subjects, only that they are choosing them. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 18:44, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Independent interview is primarily the subject talking about Nelson Mandela, so I'm not sure how much that counts. You may have a point about the BET interview, but I'd like to see what other editors have to say as well. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:57, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If this person had kept out of the public eye, then sure, notability would not be inherited. But they are the subject of numerous reliable sources for their own experiences and charity work. So they are notable in their own right. Polyamorph (talk) 09:12, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is an interesting discussion of WP:NOTINHERITED, I had to go re-read a policy I thought I knew. To the point that I found the line "Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG. [My underlining]. There is sufficient coverage across the articles, even if you filter out everything specifically said by the subject. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:54, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:47, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bethel Bible College & Seminary (Troy, Alabama)[edit]

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

For-profit educational organization, not accredited by the United States Department of Education judging from a DAPIP search, but accredited by Transworld Accrediting Commission International (article deleted in 2008 under G11), one of the many unrecognized higher education accreditation organizations in the US. The article was initially sourced entirely to the organization's own web-page and searches for sources brought about local mention only.
Based on these observations I PRODed the article:

Historically there have been multiple colleges by this or similar names, we have already e.g. articles about Bethel Bible College and Bethel Bible College, Guntur. This college in Alabama, founded in 2012, does not appear to be notable under WP:NCORP.

DGG dePRODed the article with the reason:

Can be moved to distinctive title; we almost always keep colleges at afd, tho I'm not sure about this one.

I have since added this source, an interview in the local Troy Messenger; article still fails NCORP. Sam Sailor 11:09, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 11:10, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 11:10, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 11:10, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "We almost always keep colleges" is outcome based and does not address the notability issues at hand.
I could not find an independent source covering the college except for the Troy Messenger source; to assert notability we need multiple independent sources. BenKuykendall (talk) 16:58, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we keep most colleges because they are accredited and impactful. This is a local Church that put together a prgram to give degrees in divity, within a tradtion that does not put a premium on standards of education for ministers. If we had more 3rd party sources it would be keepable, but not every fly by night basement seminary is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:45, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:47, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eighties Matchbox SOAD Tour Sampler[edit]

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

Non-notable promo sampler album. --wooden superman 11:08, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:15, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:15, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Eighties Matchbox B-Line Disaster as there doesn't appear to be anything more than mentions on the album. Thus notability is not demonstrated. As an aside, @Woodensuperman: - do you have anything against it being a redirect to the band as the logical link? Nosebagbear (talk) 19:12, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No strong objection, although it doesn't seem to be a likely search term as it appears to be a fabricated name for the sampler. --wooden superman 11:32, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

True, but as always, redirects are cheap Nosebagbear (talk)

The title of this article is wrong because that is not the name of the record. So a search for that false title is certainly unlikely. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:43, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I do realize that redirecting to the band's article is now the accepted procedure for non-notable albums, but see my comment above on the actual title of the record. The article under discussion here has a title that is unlikely to be used as a search term because it's not the item's name, thus making a redirect nonsensical. Therefore my recommendation is to simply delete due to lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. In effect, the record is a one-time curiosity for fans that has not been noticed by the rest of the world. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eighties Matchbox Original Two Track Demo, which has a false title too. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:50, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The album doesn't appear to be notable. This title doesn't seem useful to retain as a redirect. --Michig (talk) 07:57, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Triple zero. Consensus is definitely against Keep, but per WP:ATD and WP:CHEAP, I find that power~enwiki's suggestion to redirect is best suitable here. (non-admin closure) Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 02:49, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

000s[edit]

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

This, well, it's unclear what it actually is, a disambiguation?, is filled with things which are not called the "000s" in reliable sources. In fact, "000s" seems to be used almost exclusively to mean "thousands", as in "in 000s" in tables or charts. Looking for e.g. "lived in the 800s" yields some results[26], but looking for the similar "lived in the 000s"[27] gives no results at all. This article seems to be based on some OR extrapolation that if we have 800s or 900s or 1000s, we should have a page for "000s" as well, but I think we shouldn't actually, as it would be a novel invention, not a common expression. Fram (talk) 13:00, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing links as originally linked at Special:Permalink/864450916 Cabayi (talk) 13:34, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's used with thousands such as 1000s, 2000s and 3000s. – BrandonXLF ^(t@lk) 13:36, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Any evidence for this? "Born in the 00s" gives 63 results[28]: "born in the 000s" gives no results at all[29]. I doubt it is used for most of the entries on that page (has anyone really ever used "000s" for "The century from 0-99 almost aligned with the 1st century.", even ignoring that the century starts at 1 and there is no year 0?), so if it is only used for the 2000s (which remains to be seen), it could be a redirect to that at most. Fram (talk) 13:51, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 13:38, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Contrary to BrandonXLF's claim, a search of the wiki shows that 000s is only used as a method for neatly tabulating numbers in multiples of 1000. I'm not seeing a usage in relation to years. This article creates its own ambiguity in need of diambiguation. In its lack of usage elsewhere it verges on WP:A11, something made up. The same argument holds for 000s (century). Cabayi (talk) 13:52, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cabayi, That's metioned first on the page. Doesn't the argument hold for 0s and 00s aswell? – BrandonXLF ^(t@lk) 13:56, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BrandonXLF, "00s" is actually in use to refer to at least the eearly 2000s, as in "music of the 00s". "000s" however is not in use for this. No one says "music of the 000s" or "books of the 000s", but the "00s" versions of these is relatively common. Fram (talk) 14:01, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BrandonXLF, if you nominate them I'll consider them & !vote. You've been around the block enough times to know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't work. Cabayi (talk) 14:04, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DElete -- This is a particularly useless disambiguation page. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:23, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are certainly useful things to direct people to at this page, but I'm not sure the present ones are the best. The 000s play an important role in the Dewey System, for instance List_of_Dewey_Decimal_classes#Class_000_–_Computer_science,_information_&_general_works. I have found a few instances of people using 000s to refer to thousands over the internet, including some in WP:RS such as [30] to refer to thousands of people. I am dubious, however, about 000s referring to the millennium/century and would like evidence of this from Brandon. JZ CL 22:06, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Triple zero - an existing disambiguation page that covers any of the theoretical suggestions for possible topics here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:14, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 15:27, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:20, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Triple zero is the best solution. The points on the existing page are pretty far fetched. Add the Dewey system to Triple zero Legacypac (talk) 10:29, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This page disambiguates between a number of completely unambiguous things, none of which are called the "000s". No one calls the decade 1000-1009 CE the "000s" (if anyone refers to this decade at all). No one calls the century 1000-1099 CE the "000s" either. I can see how "000s" could mean "milenia", as in the 0000s, the 1000s, the 2000s, ..., but I have never seen this usage; plus we already have the page List of millennia.
I'm neutral towards redirecting to Triple zero. It seems like all the usages on that disambiguation are for "000" and not "000s".
The usage as "In fact, "000s" seems to be used almost exclusively to mean "thousands", as in "in 000s" in tables or charts." is plausible; however, this is a dictionary definition, and should not have an article.
Someone should AfD 00s for similar reasons. BenKuykendall (talk) 17:20, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - After some internal dithering I think BenKuykendall's reasoning is correct. Almost none of the things currently on it belong and the only remaining bit would appear to be fail DICDEF - and the fact you don't need a DAB for 1 meaning - or even two. I also don't think triple zero, as it stands, covers the 000"s" - it would need a change in title and content to do so, thus a redirect seems unsuited. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:21, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I would agree with the arguments put forward by BenKuykendall and Nosebagbear. I do not think the page is a useful one and I cannot really see some one searching for 000s when they are looking for any of the articles it lists. Dunarc (talk) 23:39, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 07:54, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Era Online[edit]

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

Non-notable MMO. Article created by COI account back in 2006, before it was so heavily frowned upon.

References are poor. The four simply under "external links" are all related to the project so I've ignored them. The ones under "further reading", as follows:

PC Gamezone: short, mostly interview, clearly pre-release
RPG Vault Archive: merely a link to an interview, whose link is dead even on archive.org
Stratics.com: link dead even on oldest archive.org copy. Bottom of page notes it's a fansite, so probably not reliable
RPG Vault Archive: reprint of press release
Indews.com: too short to be in-depth, actual domain now totally dead, archive.org copy barely has any info about what it was so can't even say if it was reliable anyway
Gamer.no: personal reflection about RPGs in general, Era Online mentioned at the bottom as something the author played. rest of article not captured on archive.org that I can tell
Gamer.no: interview with creator (and author of the article), not independent
Novinky.cz: unclear from context what kind of site this was, or how reliable. Domain is now a news site; not sure if it's the same publication as it was then.
[31]: Content on photobucket is not a reliable source.

I wasn't able to find any other reliable information about the game. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:33, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 04:09, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 04:28, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 06:11, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 09:25, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 01:47, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 22:56, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 22:05, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ajay Srinivasan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Full of interviews, PR articles, routine coverage like stock news, price there are lots of spammy articles about aditya birla subsidiaries being created and getting deleted. It is probably a big undisclodes marketing campain by the organisation like User:Rural guy6681/sandbox, MyUniverse, A. Balasubramanian, Aditya Birla Capital. - Editor General of Wiki (talk) 17:13, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:16, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 17:01, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 07:51, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable, notability is not inherited. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:27, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of sources dedicated to the subject Spiderone 13:47, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: promotional walled garden; does not meet WP:BIO. Likely UPE based on other pages from the same cluster, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aditya Birla Capital. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:42, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:48, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nerd3[edit]

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

Similar article at Draft: Daniel Hardcastle on the same subject recently rejected. Pages Dan Hardcastle and Daniel Hardcastle previously deleted due to lack of notability, the latter being indefinitely protected. There’s just not enough content to justify an article. Koldcuts (talk) 15:38, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:18, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:18, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:18, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:18, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a rather large body of evidence for a content creator, who has in excess of 2.6 million YouTube subcribers on his primary channel alone, a published book and a number of other works that have been outlined in this source.

Surely there must be precedents set by the likes of Jacksepticeye that such figures are of public interest.

Any pointers on how this can be supported with additional content to demonstrate its relevance? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrPaperwings (talk • contribs) 20:02, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me if anything I’d be biased towards keeping the article as I’m a fan of Dan. However the largest problem for him continues to be third-party reporting. There’s just not enough of it (though maybe that’ll change when his book comes out, as it hasn’t been published yet). In a case like Jacksepticeye, as you can see by searching Google news for his name you get numerous reports from sources like Polygon, Independent, BBC about his recent split. Searching for Dan doesn’t have nearly as much coverage, with only passing mentions in good sources and only a few less-decent sources with full articles about him. The problem now is the same it was 3 years ago; despite his following he just doesn’t have enough external coverage. Koldcuts (talk) 22:29, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 16:43, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Hardcastle and multiple recreations under other titles. @MrPaperwings: "Surely there must be precedents set by the likes of Jacksepticeye that such figures are of public interest." Look at the history of George Miller (entertainer), a more popular YouTuber which was deleted and salted until he charted on Billboard. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 05:35, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 07:47, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 keep vote presents a rationale that satisfies NFOOTY or GNG. Am happy to restore to userspace if someone specifially requests it. Fenix down (talk) 08:06, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Arce (footballer)[edit]

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

Footballer who fails WP:NFOOTY and GNG BlameRuiner (talk) 07:37, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 07:43, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 07:43, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:06, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:07, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:42, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG and NFooty, Govvy (talk) 12:28, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draftify - fails GNG and NFOOTY pretty clearly. However, I would consider moving this to draftspace as he has previously trained with the Puerto Rico national team, and has a fair chance of making his debut for them at some point in the future – this page has enough info that it may be useful to not delete it entirely. 21.colinthompson (talk) 16:16, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Has played for Puerto Rico before, we just need to wait until he plays against another FIFA member. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 17:05, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He has played with the U17 and Senior team, and he's gonna make his debut tonight with the U20. Also playing college. I've read wikipedia articles about college players with much less information and sources. He's also a regular player in the last 3 Senior National team call-ups. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JavierAlejandro23 (talk • contribs) 17:08, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Has he played against any FIFA member nation at senior level, JavierAlejandro23? If so, post evidence because then he will pass WP:NFOOTY. If not, the page fails notability. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 17:11, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pretty clear WP:NFOOTY fail, but he did sit on the subs bench for a recent game (though no idea if this is a RS or not): [32] SportingFlyer talk 11:56, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sitting on the bench is not enough to pass Spiderone 13:41, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep* Next week Puerto Rico plays against Belize and there's a pretty good chance he could get some minutes and make his debut.

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 22:05, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle De Laurell[edit]

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

fails WP: NHOCKEY and fails WP: GNG Joeykai (talk) 05:51, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:53, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:54, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:54, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. SportingFlyer talk 04:27, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage to meet WP:GNG and also fails WP:NHOCKEY with a pro "career" of apparently 4 ECHL games. Being all-conference is not enough to meet WP:NCOLLATH. Papaursa (talk) 19:38, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't meet NHOCKEY and not finding significant coverage. Rlendog (talk) 15:57, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find anything meeting GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 14:15, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Strong consensus that NPOL is satisfied and sufficient consensus that there is sufficient sourcing to satisfy any coverage aspect of that. (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 22:23, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Elena Parent[edit]

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

This politician has 0 reliable sources (I checked) and notability cannot be established, as of yet. If she were a U.S. Senator, it’d be a different story, but as a relatively unknown state senator with no sources to verify anything, I propose deletion. Trillfendi (talk) 05:20, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:55, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:55, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:55, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She has certainly been in the news in the last year or so, with articles about draft bills she has introduced on gun control, confederate monuments, sexual harassment training for legislators, controversial issues in her state. RebeccaGreen (talk) 06:00, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Member of the Georgia State Senate since 2015. Passes WP:NPOL. While the current sourcing (as I type) is not nearly adequate, the CV of the subject is housed on the website of the State Senate. --Enos733 (talk) 06:44, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Having now read WP:NPOL, which clearly states that politicians who have held statewide office are presumed to be notable, I don't understand why this article was proposed for deletion at all. RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:25, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RebeccaGreen Show me any reliable source on her, I’ll wait. That same WP:NPOL section says: Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article".Trillfendi (talk) 14:18, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The "major local political figures" criterion is for mayors and city councillors, not state legislators. State legislators hold office at the state level, not the local one, and are covered under NPOL #1, not NPOL #2. Bearcat (talk) 22:22, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 870 current results in Google News under her name (even if just quick comments on constituent issues). If WP:BEFORE was done by nom, it was in a sloppy manner and without good search modifiers. Subject easily passes NPOL. Nate • (chatter) 13:48, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I’m reminding you... no reliable sources to verify any statement made in this article. Wikipedia is not for CVs, it’s not supposed to read like a resume, there have to be sources to back it up.Trillfendi (talk) 14:13, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As the nominator, it is incumbent on you to do a proper BEFORE. You clearly haven't in the barest sense; her name is regularly in Atlanta news media sources. This should be easy to source, and your claim there are 'zero' sources is undone by her state page and the minimum GN sources. Nate • (chatter) 16:40, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Mrschimpf Obviously I did do a “before” and that’s how I came to my initial conclusion. The very most I could find was a brief, one sentence mention in the New York Times on the 3rd page of Google. But I guess that’s significant coverage these days. Those new sources you speak of were added by another user after I had proposed deletion of this article. Show me all these other Georgian reliable sources that substantiate the criteria of significant coverage and I would happily add them, but I won’t hold my breath.Trillfendi (talk) 17:18, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Would you like a hint? Try the "news" tab instead of the "all" tab. You'll suddenly see what everybody else is seeing. Bearcat (talk) 22:22, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - Even in that case I still only see fleeting mentions.... Whenever she decides to run for a higher office or maybe becomes embroiled in a controversy, on then could the article even have room for improvement. But as I said, if you find these wonderful sources be my guest.Trillfendi (talk) 23:14, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        State legislator is in and of itself a high enough office to justify a Wikipedia article. Bearcat (talk) 02:32, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - 'Local' is clearly distinguished from state level. She is not a local official, she has been elected to statewide office, and is therefore presumed notable. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:32, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Show me the ~~money~~ sources. (Holding the office is one part, but notability itself simply has to be established through significant coverage which she clearly lacks. These are halves.)Trillfendi (talk) 15:17, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as subject verifiably meets the "members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature" criterion of WP:POLITICIAN. That criterion, as is explained in the notes of the guideline, is intended to ensure complete encyclopedic coverage of such subjects even if they do not satisfy other coverage guidelines, so the premise of the nomination is dubious. Bakazaka (talk) 18:02, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep erroneous nomination. A quick Google search turns up many reliable sources. Elected to Georgia Senate November 2014. Netherzone (talk) 04:59, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Parent meets WP:NPOL and therefore her notability is presumed. Google News brings up many independent RS such as [33] and there is a fair bit of coverage in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution too (e.g. 22 May 2014, pages B1 and B8); there is more than enough material to show that Parent meets WP:BASIC. Furthermore, she is not a local official as she has held statewide office. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 19:28, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly meets NPOL as a member of the Georgia state senate. Deletion is not cleanup. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 15:32, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, the article does need some improvement — but state legislators pass WP:NPOL #1 just the same as federal ones do, and there most certainly is media coverage out there about her to improve the article with. Bearcat (talk) 22:18, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NPOL. Article should be improved. SportingFlyer talk 00:09, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 22:05, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clinton Morgan[edit]

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

This article is surely non-notable. Morgan's acting career apparently totals 4 appearances in Korean productions (at least 1 of which is only a single episode) and 1 episode of an Australian series. There are no sources and are highly unlikely to be any.Cabrils (talk) 04:47, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Cabrils (talk) 04:54, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:57, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:58, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete speedy even. Unreferenced and out of date BLP. Also style is PROMO, and this and this indicate his two movie roles were very minor. I cannot find anything at all to indicate any IRS to meet WP:NEXIST so big fail on GNG. Aoziwe (talk) 12:58, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No strong evidence if the subject is notable. Orientls (talk) 06:34, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, whether or not it happened, reliable sources cover it, and therefore so should we. Any well-sourced doubts about the event should be discussed as part of the article. Sandstein 20:16, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bình An/Tây Vinh massacre[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This page was deleted previously in 2016, see here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bình An/Tây Vinh massacre. It was reinstated in June 2018, based on new references and edits of User:A Bicyclette who has since been permanently blocked. I have critiqued those new references here: Talk:Bình An/Tây Vinh massacre#Restored, but no more WP:RS provided as I do not believe that they are any more reliable than what was there when the page was first deleted. I don't think there are enough WP:RS to say what went on at Bình An/Tây Vinh and certainly not enough to say that a massacre took place there. This page should be deleted as an unconfirmed event as WP:V applies Mztourist (talk) 03:41, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions Mztourist (talk) 03:44, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is at least verifiable that there are allegations of a massacre and none of the sources are suggesting that it didn't happen, so this does not amount to a hoax. The sources are largely newspapers and press agencies, so the claim of PRIMARY does not really stand up. This AfD sounds to me very much like an attempt to whitewash the ROK army. In their critique of the sources, Mztourist says that they cannot access Clodfelter's book. Well I can, and this unarguably independent, secondary, reliable source has this to say,

The ROK Capital Division hunted Charlie in its AO in Binh dinh Province. Between September 23 and November 9, the Tigers of the South Korean division reported 1,161 enemy deaths in the course of operation Maeng Ho. A good many of the reported enemy KIAs may have been noncombatants, for the ROK had a reputation for brutality against the pro-VC peasantry of the region. On February 2, 1966, for example, 380 civilians were killed by ROKs in the village of Binh An, in Binh Dinh province. As many as 1,600 noncombatants may have been killed in the provinces of Binh Dinh, Phu Yen, and Quang Ngai in January and February 1966
— Micheal Clodfelter

SpinningSpark 20:54, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The newspaper accounts are interviews with villagers many years after the purported events and so they are PRIMARY. There is no photographic evidence or contemporary reporting of the purported events. The AP story shows proper journalistic investigation and indicates serious doubts as to what, if anything, occurred. In relation to Clodfelter, use of "Charlie", "Tigers" indicates a lack of standards in what you say is an "unarguably independent, secondary, reliable sources". What actual sources does Clodfelter give in relation to a massacre at Binh An? Or is he just repeating the same dubious stories that are included on this page? I am not attempting to whitewash anything, but a massacre is a serious allegation and it shouldn't be included on WP without very solid evidence. This page has been deleted once before for lack of evidence. Mztourist (talk) 07:05, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The AP source does not express "serious doubts" of the truthfulness of the eyewitnesses. On the contrary, the whole article is premised on the assumption that their stories are, in fact, true. It is true that the journalist says "[t]he AP was unable to independently confirm their claims", in part because "[a]s is routine with foreign reporters, several government escorts accompanied the AP staff. The AP was unable to search for documents that would back up the [local] officials' allegations." But that is hardly the same as actually casting doubt.

Clodfelter's book is published by McFarland, a serious, well-eatablished publisher specialising in academic and reference works. On sourcing, Clodfelter says,

Cross-checking and comparison of sources and, most of all, common sense have guided my research and results. i have employed official and supposedly authoritative sources wherever available, have sought statistics from both sides in each war to evaluate the inevitably conflicting claims, and have tried to verify the numbers reported on the battlefield with the records of the various medical corps and military surgeon-general reports.

This does not sound to me like someone with a "lack of standards" or "just repeating the same dubious stories". It is not for Wikipedia to assess the significance of lack of photographic evidence, contemporary reports, or the primary sources used by RS (although Clodfelter has a nine-page bibliography if you really need to know). That kind of assessment is the job of the reliable secondary sources. That's why we use them. SpinningSpark 11:49, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned by the low standards being applied here. A massacre is a very controversial accusation, but you seem willing to accept the existence of an event based on minimal details and very dubious sources. The lack of photographic evidence and contemporaneous reporting should be of concern, because that was available for other massacres, such as My Lai Massacre, Đắk Sơn massacre, Hue Massacre, Phong Nhị and Phong Nhất massacre, Son Thang massacre etc. Re the AP, I don't agree that "the whole article is premised on the assumption that their stories are, in fact, true" what gives you that impression? Once again I am asking you specifically what Clodfelter gives as his sources for the Binh An massacre, not general statements as to sourcing, so what are they? If all Clodfelter has done is copy details from WP or those same newspaper reports then it isn't any more reliable than those underlying sources. Mztourist (talk) 16:47, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the accusations are dubious, it is down to you to find reliable sources saying that. The article can then be balanced with that material. Until then, your position is entirely WP:OR. SpinningSpark 17:04, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is a rubbish argument. WP:V and WP:RS are the pillars of Wikipedia. Vietnamese POV pushers have created a number of pages regarding purported massacres based on tenuous sources, I am simply challenging them to ensure that WP:V and WP:RS are met. You haven't answered any of the other issues I raised on the talk page and are refusing to answer the simple question of what Clodfelter gives as his sources for the Binh An massacre. Mztourist (talk) 04:33, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what sources Clodfelter used. Presumably they are in his nine-page bibliography that I already pointed you to. There is no reason why I should be required to name Clodfelter's sources; Clodfelter is the source I am citing. If I were to name his sources, would you then ask what sources they used? Eventually, we would get back to primary sources which you have already made a big case of rejecting. I can only surmise that nothing will ever satisfy you. SpinningSpark 08:58, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another copout. If Clodfelter refers to WP or those articles then it becomes circular and he is of no value as a ref. Mztourist (talk) 10:02, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that he used Wikipedia as a source is ridiculous. SpinningSpark 11:06, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources report that something (may have) happened; we report what the sources say. ——SerialNumber54129 12:34, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That sets a very low bar for a very controversial accusation. The sources are minimal and IMO not reliable.Mztourist (talk) 16:47, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep We need to cover what the sources say, otherwise, if the article is deleted, other mentions may creep in at other articles without a linked place to discuss what the sources say dispassionately. If Mztourist wishes to challenge the veracity of the sources, then there are other avenues for that (eg RS noticeboard, which I have repeatedly directed him to). Buckshot06 (talk) 19:36, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

read the refs, they're rubbish, particularly Tuổi Trẻ which is the official publication of the Ho Chi Minh Communist Youth Union... Mztourist (talk) 03:35, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I retain *serious* concerns about your complete disregard for anything but official U.S. DOD sources, whether that's the AP or Vietnamese sources (just because it's the other side doesn't *automatically* mean it was falsified). I remain also concerned as to whether this disregard may extend to your not being able to be neutral in these matters. My vote stands. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:30, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We have history, I don't expect you to be objective wrt anything I write. Mztourist (talk) 03:08, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think WP:BLUDGEON should probably be mentioned at some point too... ——SerialNumber54129 12:19, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sufficient coverage to meet GNG. Whether the event happened or not doesn't seem particularly relevant. A hoax popularized by numerous sources could still be notable. If the information comes from multiple reliable sources (and the Associated Press, Globe and Mail, and Asian Human Rights Commission articles are sufficient, regardless of the others, for which I would need to look closer to make a determination), it meets WP:V. All of this is not to say that I don't believe the event happened--I am simply speaking to the reasons for opposing the article's inclusion. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:00, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deleted per WP:G5. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:03, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Siyaram Singh[edit]

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

Simply fails WP:GNG. Might be an undisclosed COI issue with the editor. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:16, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete completely fails GNG yes. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:26, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:04, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 22:05, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Willoughby Mason Willoughby[edit]

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

I'm not convinced that being the Medical Officer of Health for London satisfies WP:BIO. I'm also not seeing anything other than the cited obituary, so he fails WP:GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:51, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:26, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 'Medical Officer of Health' is a rather greater role than the name might suggest. Also he was appointed to this at a particularly fraught time during the Great War, and he served through the Spanish Flu period. The idea that "there are no other sources" is of course nonsense: we base such judgements on the existence of such sources, not whether they're currently cited in the article.

His brother probably warrants their own article too, as a president of the BMA. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:54, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:48, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:48, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:40, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Quite a lot of references for him come up on a search for "Dr W M Willoughby". As well as journal articles and government reports, there are articles about his work on plague on ships, food contamination, pigeon, etc. RebeccaGreen (talk) 04:17, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there are multiple detailed obituaries as well as various articles on his work. More than sufficient coverage, particularly for a historical figure. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:31, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus that there is sufficient sourcing to demonstrate notability. (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 22:41, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Lambert[edit]

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

Unclear notability. The article states that he was a pianist and piano teacher who was killed by a taxicab. Was he independently famous before his death? It appears that he was quite wealthy, but that does not assume notability. Natg 19 (talk) 00:38, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:39, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:39, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:39, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article was created by a now-blocked user: User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). Natg 19 (talk) 00:42, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Natg 19: - I don't actually see that User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) is currently blocked. Is that something forthcoming? --Kbabej (talk) 00:57, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Found it here: [34] Natg 19 (talk) 00:59, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:46, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:46, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While the article is in pretty sorry shape, it does look like he meets WP:GNG. There is a chapter on him here in a 1911 book of interviews with master pianists, and another one here in a similar work. He has some recordings listed here at the Discography of American Historical Recordings. I can't see this one at the NYT, but someone with a subscription might be able to check it out, and the title sounds promising: "Hail Alexander Lambert; Musicians honor him as he rounds out 50 years of teaching piano." So, evidently some people thought he was notable back in his day, and notability is not temporary. PohranicniStraze (talk) 02:44, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources found by PohranicniStraze (talk) confirm notability. I suggest update/improve article rather than delete. ShelbyMarion (talk) 09:52, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – It seems he taught Jerome Kern and Alfred Newman (sourced), and Margot Rojas Mendoza studied under him (unsourced), as did, according to Grove, Nadia Reisenberg. He was on the faculty of the New York College of Music from 1887 to 1905 (sourced). He has an entry in Baker's Biographical Dictionary of Musicians. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:54, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 22:05, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Positive Lives[edit]

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

Non-notable organization with no sources or references. Kbabej (talk) 00:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:38, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:38, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

del No any notability. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:30, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Remagoxer (talk) 11:26, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sourcing does not show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:06, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 RuPaul's Drag Race (season 6). Tone 22:07, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

April Carrión[edit]

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

Is not independently notable outside of Ru Paul's Drag Race and does not meet general, entertainer, or biographies notability guidelines. Attempts to restore redirect to Drag Race have been undone and so I am seeking community consensus that Carrion is not yet notable and the redirect should be restored. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:09, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Barkeep49. Searches did not turn up anything to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:15, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have not assessed notability or secondary coverage, but if the subject is deemed not notable, the page should be redirected to RuPaul's Drag Race (season 6), not deleted. The redirect serves a purpose. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:24, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Another Believer: I agree and hope I made that clear in my nomination. Best, Barkeep49 (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:41, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have told you multiple times that the sources I gave for this person ARE reliable and you have completely ignored their other appearances in the documentary, music video, etc. so the claim that their only notable for Drag Race is straight up incorrect. Plus their social media following, and lower placing and lower successful queens from the show have pages, there is no reason this is not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ratherbe2000 (talk • contribs) 01:00, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - minor appearances with no significant coverage - fails WP:GNG. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:33, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are over 20 sources in the references section, so no, there is significant coverage to the article. I don't know what you're on about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ratherbe2000 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 21:06, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michael O. Johnson[edit]

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

This article was accepted for mainspace and there has been no attempt to expand the article as it has only three sentences. There has been no attempt to establish notability. Doing a search for sources and all that was found was what is already in the article. All they said is he was Herbalife CEO and only one said that he helped the company through their troubles. Other than that, there is nothing notable about him.

Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 15:46, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since when does CEO of an $8b dollar company for 15+ years not warrant an article on Wikipedia? The guy was Walt Disney International’s President. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1000:b07a:99fb:9d36:724:55d1:9941 (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:40, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO, massive amount of coverage of Johnson available, here are some examples: Fortune - "Why Herbalife CEO's Departure Is a Body Blow to the Company", The New York Times - "Chief Who Guided Herbalife Through Troubles Will Step Down", from The Guardian - "Michael Johnson of Herbalife: America's highest paid CEO in 2011 ". Coolabahapple (talk) 21:48, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

oh, and heres a profile from Bloomberg. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:55, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Coolabahapple: The first couple of sources you linked to are already in the article. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 04:55, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

yep, and they are good for notability. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:10, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Former CEO of notable multinational corporation. More detailed coverage in reliable sources like Boston Globe, LA Times, NYT. –Ammarpad (talk) 05:52, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:TOOLITTLE is not a valid reason to delete an article, and there's plenty of sources available to use to expand it. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 08:48, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nathan2055: There has been no attempts to expand the article. If nothing else, it should be back in draft until it is suitable for mainspace. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 17:59, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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