Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 September 20

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 19 September	21 September >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Tone 13:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sangfor Technologies[edit]

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

Yet another corporation article started by someone who appears to be closely connected to the subject and repeatedly used as a dumping ground for promotional marketing material by COI (possibly paid) editors.

All the online coverage and mentions of the company I was able to find appear to be primary sources (press releases, company announcements, talks given by company representatives, etc.), trivial mentions, or thinly veiled public relations postings. There is a lack of significant, reliable secondary coverage needed to establish notability per WP:NCORP. Fails WP:NCORP, specifically WP:CORPDEPTH. EclipseDude (talk) 22:50, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 23:24, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 23:24, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article is clearly the product of undeclared paid editing. Deli nk (talk) 13:06, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Paid editing or not, the subject is non-notable. Sdmarathe (talk) 12:27, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. no basis for notability DGG ( talk ) 23:37, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG because the company lacks WP:SIGCOV proving notability. The sources are just press releases and promotional postings. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:10, 27 September 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 13:20, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Premijer liga playoffs[edit]

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

Per WP:TOOSOON. There is almost no information in the article and contains no references. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:08, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:08, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:08, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:45, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I do agree that this is WP:TOOSOON as the actual season hasn't even started yet in Croatia. Their is also the fact that the previous season didn't even have a article for the play-offs that is in question here. Not Homura (talk) 01:18, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON.Vorbee (talk) 16:54, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obviously TOOSOON, plus I'm not sure it merits an article anyway but rather a section on the season page. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 13:22, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not only too soon, but the article has almost no content, is entirely unsourced, and no other season has an article about the playoffs. LittlePuppers (talk) 23:43, 26 September 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 13:19, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Berkeley Parents Network[edit]

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

Previously nominated in 2006, even back then this could only garner a "no consensus to delete". Clearly fails WP:ORG, is actually very near a A7 if it were not for the multiple contributors John from Idegon (talk) 21:51, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:46, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:47, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no possible basis for notability -- local interest only, and no third party sources at all. The earlier afd refers to the existence of some, but they all seem to be trivial or mere notices. DGG ( talk ) 23:36, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article completely fails WP:GNG and any notability guideline as its only source is self published and there is no reliable WP:SIGCOV in third party sources about this organization. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:18, 27 September 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 Isha Sesay#W.E. Can Lead. clpo13_(talk) 19:44, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

W.E. Can Lead[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG, WP:ORGCRITE, written like a press release. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:19, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:08, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:08, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:08, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Isha Sesay. I would say merge, but I can't find any reliable secondary sources on the topic, so the existing line there is probably sufficient. MarginalCost (talk) 12:18, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a non-profit organization for the education of girls in Africa. Some of them are poor, maybe most. Do you really want to put the policy's of notability over that girls fate? It's worth a page here at least. In August 2018 there were more then 600 girls at the age from 12 to 18 participating in it <- this is notable. My opinion. Tlwm (talk) 00:52, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't see how not having a Wikipedia article is going to affect the organization. Moreover, the article as written almost exclusively cites the organization's own material, which is not reliable. Hosting unverifiable content on Wikipedia helps no one. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:09, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why does UNICEF have a page? Is this an encyclopedia? Tlwm (talk) 15:15, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is this again a size does matter discussion? Those girls learn to have self-confidence and to keep a household or even an own enterprise in some cases, maybe even states. That can have very positive effect on a society. This is why I think this organization is notable. People from Africa use the Wikipedia, too. So.....?!? Tlwm (talk) 15:21, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Those mom's will be able to educate their children, too. That is good and important, or isn't it? Tlwm (talk) 15:25, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tlwm: I understand your concerns. No one is saying that the organization is not important, or does not do good and important work. The presence of a Wikipedia article isn't intended to be a value judgement; there are plenty of bad people with Wikipedia articles, and plenty of good people without articles, and that's okay. Wikipedia's standard of inclusion is notability, which is usually measured, under the General Notability Guideline, by whether multiple reliable secondary sources have written about the subject. At the moment, all the sources cited are either from the organization itself, or not sufficiently independent of it. (The What We See article is somewhat closer, but it's almost entirely an interview with the founder, not independent reporting.) In the case of UNICEF you mention, there are several independent newspapers, academics, and foundations that have written about its work. That isn't saying UNICEF is a better organization, it's just that Wikipedia now has enough information written from a neutral party to base an article off of.

If you want to change our minds - and I think everyone here, myself included, is open to having our minds changed - the best way to do so is to find multiple independent, reliable, secondary sources that give significant coverage to the organization. MarginalCost (talk) 14:07, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MarginalCost:I see what you mean. I will keep searching. This small organizations have a huge potential, because with education you change the whole continent. 600 girls means maybe 500 moms or more with around 4 children in Nigeria. All will be able to learn something and give it to their children..... The importance of this overwhelming. They do not teach (pro or contra) religion in that school, which means they learn something useful. I think the importance and notability (without third party sources) can not be overstated here. — Btw. Am I the only one who find it very problematic that the Wikipedia seams to record just well established Organizations/Artists/Labels/etc.? Doesn't make this the wiki itself obsolete? I know Isha Sesay since around ten years (by watching CNN Int.). I know she is worth my trust. This policies about notability strangle the wikipedia. Tlwm (talk) 14:38, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MarginalCost:Is an article on Reuters about Idris Elba auctioning a valentine's date in favor of W.E. Can Lead a proof of notability? https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-charity-valentines/sweetheart-british-actor-idris-elba-auctions-valentines-date-for-charity-idUSKBN14W2GE

@Tlwm: we're getting closer, but still probably not. The issue is that the article doesn't really provide significant coverage of the organization itself. Check out WP:ORGDEPTH for a more detailed look at the expectations for significant coverage. MarginalCost (talk) 18:16, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill and MarginalCost: Another argument, if I am from Africa and want to find out about W.E. Can Lead, I will not search for Isha Sesay. If you want to find out information (which is the purpose of an encyclopedia) on the UNESCO, will you search for Audrey Azoulay? Isha Sesay is the patron for W.E. Can Lead. Tlwm (talk) 14:57, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I spoke in favor of a redirect. If they search for the article title they will be redirected. MarginalCost (talk) 15:09, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That will not allow to inform about that project, and would be as far as I know also a breach of Wiki policies (of notability and the relevance of sources). What can I write here? The strict interpretation of this policy leads to no new articles on independent topics. Tlwm (talk) 15:49, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill and MarginalCost: So you want to know about a Ford F150 you search for Henry Ford, to find a one liner in Henry Ford's article? ....?!?... There are over 600 children and multiple adults involved in this project. You find 600 children who else highly likely will end in some kind of poverty irrelevant? :| Tlwm (talk) 15:54, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is not really a useful line of argumentation: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a humanitarian outreach organisation. From what I see in the guidelines, there's no provision for a moralistic exception to what qualifies as a subject for/what constitutes a proper article. If it's that important a group, someone is bound to have done objective reporting on it. PaulCHebert (talk) 06:33, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill and MarginalCost: I merged it into Isha Sesays page and created a redirected in the W.E. Can Lead page. Please prevent User PaulCHerbert again from destroying it, he has deleted a lot in articles I have done before. He follows me and destroys my work. Tlwm (talk) 15:06, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@PaulCHebert This is not how the world works. Else I would not need to discuss here. -- Yes, this is an encyclopedia, that is why I added it. Tlwm (talk) 15:48, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@all I excuse myself for complications I created. Tlwm (talk) 16:00, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken the bold step of redirecting the article in question to the relevant section in the founder's article and removing the deletion notice. PaulCHebert (talk) 18:14, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 20:48, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article's creator has moved the relevant content to a section within the article about the organization's founder. Replacing the article with a redirect to that destination seems like the best possible solution. PaulCHebert (talk) 20:50, 20 September 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 13:19, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Duncan Joiner[edit]

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

Non-notable actor lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. "References" are a single name listing. WP:TOOSOON reddogsix (talk) 20:33, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:48, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:50, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Obviously fails the WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. WP:TOOSOON applies. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 19:55, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG because the individual lacks any WP:SIGCOV demonstrating notability. He is a run of the mill actor with roles in a fair number of projects, but nothing that makes him notable. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:25, 27 September 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 13:19, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Flip (TV Show)[edit]

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

I cannot verify that this TV series ever aired. If it didn't, it clearly fails WP:TVSHOW and merits deletion. If it did reach air, the current article certainly doesn't demonstrate the show's meeting WP:GNG, and I couldn't find any evidence or coverage of this show after a quick look around. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:26, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:28, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:28, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article's creator appears to have a WP:COI(?) based on the username, and was immediately blocked after creating this article. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:34, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I also tried searching for it when I was tagging and couldn't find a mention of it. The article talks about a pilot being completed in 2010 (when the article was created) but nothing has been mentioned. I also believe that, even-though my opinion seems unpopular in AfD, there is no harm in even deleting a might-be-valid article if it's currently crap. There is no loss and later on someone, if needed, can recreate it with real sources and information (and not sourcless information or sourced to a blog like there is now). --Gonnym (talk) 20:45, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly a never-aired pilot that never aired anywhere, and doubtful it's still on the market unless the producers expect now-30 year olds to play kids twice their age. Nate • (chatter) 22:48, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article fails WP:GNG because the topic is poorly sourced, and appears to be about a defunct project that was never notable. It also clearly appears to have been created by an editor with a conflict of interest, whom was swiftly blocked afterward. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:33, 27 September 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 13:17, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Denard[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Only non-trivial mentions about Denard that I can find are about his altercation with a JBA player, which alone doesn't make him notable. Runningibis (talk) 20:20, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:54, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:54, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:54, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:55, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Again, I have to ask why you and Bagumba are so intent on purging JBA articles? The pushing incident got major press, including in newspapers that wouldn't usually cover the JBA. Also, there were several bios from him from the schools he coached at before the Ballers, so it's not as if there was nothing before the incident. Also, you must not have looked hard for sources, since this is pretty substantial and from his playing days. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:44, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I can't speak for Bagumba, but I personally believe most of the JBA articles that have been created fail WP:GNG and that inappropriate reasoning is being used to try and keep them. The Chicago Tribune article you posted is a viable source in my opinion, but it isn't enough to change my view. Also, I am curious as to why you created the Brandon Phillips AfD discussion but are voting to keep the Eddie Denard article, even though both subjects have received similar coverage (a lot of coverage for a single incident and one/two other articles). Same for Taylor Kirkham, Caleal Walker, Niles Malone, etc., who received even less coverage. Runningibis (talk) 02:19, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I created the Phillips discussion because he was really only known for one event. Denard, on the other hand, has been a coach at several other places and had a playing career. Looking back I probably would have just left the Phillips article alone. I fail to see the incorrect reasoning, and I hope that others will judge whether thee coverage will be necessary to keep -- hopefully so. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 03:27, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think there's a team called "Hong Kong Bulls" in China or Hong Kong. User:CAPTAIN RAJU can you please add this to the HongKong-related Delsort? Timmyshin (talk) 17:15, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- They did exist, at one point, but confusingly, they played in Shaanxi! (Mentioned here -- though that article has nothing to do with Denard.) Zagalejo^^^ 15:06, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Great find. This is a team that played in the National Basketball League (China) in both 2013 and 2014. In both years they played in Shaanxi, but apparently the name change to "Shaanxi Wolves" did not happen until right before the 2014 season. From what I could find, their import player in 2013 was Craig Smith (basketball player) (the subject of that interview) and their import in 2014 was Keith Benson. I can find no reference collaborating the claim that Denard played on that team. His name also doesnt appear here. The NBL season runs in the summer, and considering the fact that Denard played in the 2013-14 NCAA season he couldn't have played for them in 2013. In 2014 the team changed its name from Hong Kong Bulls. I I think he did try out for the team in summer 2014, obviously before the name change (thus before the NBL season), but probably did not make it because of the injury. But I could be wrong as this discussion shows. Timmyshin (talk) 17:13, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E: "If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual." This coach from Lavar Ball's fledgling Junior Basketball Association received a blip in news coverage for shoving a player. Aside from that coverage, fails WP:GNG with lack of significant coverage from multiple independent, reliable sources. Bios from his schools are not independent to prove notability. Does not meet WP:NHOOPS.—Bagumba (talk) 06:50, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Bagumba - routine minor league basketball player. SportingFlyer talk 21:13, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no significant independent coverage of him, so WP:GNG is not met. He clearly fails WP:NHOOPS and his only head coaching position was as the Chicago Ballers head coach--and that gig sure didn't last long. Attacking a player does not show notability and is the only thing he's been covered for. Papaursa (talk) 01:32, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He fails WP:GNG, WP:BLP1E, and WP:NHOOPS because he lacks WP:SIGCOV (press about his shoving incident doesn't cut it) demonstrating notability. He might turn his coaching career around at some point, but that's pure WP:CRYSTALBALL and does nothing to prove this articles subject notable now. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:48, 27 September 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 13:17, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abbotsford Virtual School[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP, the article does also read as an advert and have no reliable sources. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 19:58, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:21, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:21, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:21, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete online educational institutions are not default notable and there is not enough sourcing to show notability otherwise.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:44, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Strongly promotional, lacks independent references, no indication of notability. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:49, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I rarely !vote delete for a secondary school, even an online one. This one needs deletion, and had I seen it I would have used speedy G11. It's an advertisement. DGG ( talk ) 23:42, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is purely a mere advertisement and doesn't belong on Wikipedia. It also has serious copywrite concerns, as explained in a notice in the article. Newshunter12 (talk) 04:00, 27 September 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. Nomination withdrawn and WP:HEY also applies. (non-admin closure) DBig Xrayᗙ 11:47, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edna Harker Thomas[edit]

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

A subject that does not meet WP:BASIC. Coverage found in searches for additional independent, reliable sources is limited to name checks and short passing mentions. The sole source in the article is a tertiary source that provides some coverage (link), but not finding much else. Qualification for an article is reliant upon having received significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources, but said coverage in multiple sources does not appear to exist. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:28, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:29, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:29, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:30, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:30, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ to husband's page, United States Senator Elbert D. Thomas, or possibly keep. Obit in the Washington Post, shorter one in the Hartford Courant , presumably from a wire service. The thing that makes me wonder about keeping is that her kept diaries and papers were given to an archive and they have gotten some recent attention because they were involved in Nazi Germany and Holocaust rescue work. E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:50, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to her husband: she did little of note independent of him. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:35, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep she was a top leader of the primary which makes her notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:34, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – There is no default notability for members or leaders of the LDS Primary Association whatsoever, and no guideline page states such. Sorry, but the personal, made-up notability standards stated above are not aligned with actual notability on Wikipedia at all. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:13, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We have significant coverage of her over time. She was in a biographical dictionary of important LDS people and her obituary was printed around the country. She was apparently also the most traveled LDS woman at the time (before 1913). Passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 04:05, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to mention that I added sources to the article. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 04:07, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per sources added by [[User:Megalibrarygirl].E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:28, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:HEY top leader of LDS and Megalibrarygirl greatly improved it. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 14:36, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Improved since nomination. /Julle (talk) 00:34, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn. Struck my nomination atop. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:11, 27 September 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 13:17, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shira Meishar[edit]

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

Non-notable director, media coverage cited by the article is either from film festival listings (not independent), softball interviews for publicity (also not independent). Google searches through English and Hebrew media uncovered much the same, alongside some mere mentions in Haaretz and Mako for screening (but not winning) at Cannes. Does not meet general notability guideline. Meishar has won a "Spotlight Gold Award" from the Spotlight Short Film Festival, but this award does not appear to be notable and thus does not satisfy subject-specific notability guideline for creative professionals. Reportage in the Mako link above (not mentioned by the article) claims that her films have won some awards at Israeli film festivals which also appear to be non-notable. I had previously nominated the article for deletion by PROD but was blocked by the article creator, who then provided additional sources. However, these sources were more of the same sort of coverage in film-festival publicity websites and cannot be considered independent. I pinged the article creator on the talk page requesting better sources, and have not received a response. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:41, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:44, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:44, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:44, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete textbook case of [WP:TOOSOON]] for this filmmaker with credits, but no hits in gNews or in news archive searches. Fails WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:13, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep her films are popular and got good reputation in Israeli location and have valid sources 2405:204:70C7:D0E:393:3771:9D9C:288 (talk) 09:41, 26 September 2018 (UTC) — 2405:204:70C7:D0E:393:3771:9D9C:288 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and this XFD page. [reply]
Delete - her films pass GNG, she does not. LittlePuppers (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:07, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article fails WP:GNG and WP:TOOSOON because she lacks WP:SIGCOV proving notability, but may become a notable director in the future. The sources in the article and found in a search I did are all either WP:ROUTINE coverage or are not independent of the articles subject. The possibility of her becoming a notable director, writer or producer in the future is pure WP:CRYSTALBALL and does nothing to help demonstrate her notability now. Newshunter12 (talk) 04:14, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
keep Her profile passes Wikipedia:Notability(people) creative professionals point 2,3 and 4 2405:204:710D:30A8:7B4C:C9B7:1884:7F95 (talk) 04:30, 27 September 2018 (UTC) — 2405:204:710D:30A8:7B4C:C9B7:1884:7F95 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and this XFD page. [reply]
Delete. Film director that so far only has shorts on her CV, and does not yet meet BASIC/GNG. Sam Sailor 05:50, 27 September 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 13:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Javed Fiyaz[edit]

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

Weak notability, written to promote the subject. Either need to completely rewritten but I failed to find reliable sources. There are some trivial mention in sources but not enough to start an article. Otherwise, he completely fails WP:ANYBIO as he has no achievement or award to his name. Thanks. Pollock's (talk) 18:07, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:48, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:48, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:48, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:48, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP The article has multiple issues including WP:NPOV and given WP:UNDUE weight to some activities, but I think the articles meets notability criteria. So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 17:28, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the sources are almost universally horrible (including youtube, his website, and various hosting services), and while there may be one or two decent articles about him, I don't think this meets GNG. LittlePuppers (talk) 00:21, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article fails WP:GNG because its sources are either invalid (YouTube), self-published (his own website), or are trivial WP:ROUTINE coverage. There is a lack of enough WP:SIGCOV to demonstrate notability. The article is a thinly veiled attempt at promoting this individual despite his lack of notability. Newshunter12 (talk) 04:47, 27 September 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:12, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Karbelt Speed & Custom[edit]

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

Article about a company, not reliably sourced as passing WP:CORP standards of notability. The references here are both directly affiliated primary sources, not notability-supporting media coverage: one is a directory profile on the self-published website of its industry marketing association, while the other is a press release on the self-published website of an organization with which it signed a sponsorship deal. As always, companies are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because primary sources like this technically verify that they exist -- a company has to have media coverage, in reliable sources they are not directly affiliated with, to be considered notable per CORP. Bearcat (talk) 17:55, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:49, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:49, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The best source I could find was [1], which is fairly clearly based on a press release, and thus isn't intellectually independent. Vanamonde (talk) 22:25, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I would argue that being Canada's first speed shop would make it notable, but there are no policies that say that notability is derived from that. I couldn't find any sources sufficient for WP:GNG and a redirect to Bay Street doesn't make sense, given that there's no in-depth history section there, so a deletion is probably the best option. Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 22:32, 27 September 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 13:21, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Diocemy Saint Juste[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NCOLLATH or WP:NGRIDIRON. The extent of his professional football career was a tryout with the Jacksonville Jaguars [2]. In college, he did not win any national awards or attract significant, non-trivial national media coverage as a player.

However, he has been the subject of a profile by the Reporter-Herald in Loveland, Colorado previewing a Colorado State football game, "CSU football faces a throwback runner in Hawaii's Diocemy Saint Juste". The Honolulu Star-Advertiser, the largest newspaper in Hawaii, had a story in 2017, "Saint Juste sets carries record", reporting that Saint Juste broke his college team's single-season rushing attempts record. He also was eighth in all of NCAA D1 FBS in rushing yards per game. However, even those records are not enough for NCOLLATH notability. Arbor to SJ (talk) 17:44, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:48, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:48, 20 September 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:48, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:48, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is long established that WP:NCOLLATH is an inclusionary standard and that college players who satisfy WP:GNG may also be included. Saint Juste was one of the leading rushers in college football's Division I FBS with > 1,500 yards in 2017. He received coverage in multiple reliable sources and thus passes under GNG. Regardless of whether he makes it in the NFL, he has clear notability from his college career. Cbl62 (talk) 18:33, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A search of NewsLibrary.com turns up over 1,000 hits. A tiny sampling of the significant coverage includes: (1) "Saint Juste invited to NFLPA Collegiate Bowl", Honolulu Star Advertiser, 1/3/18; (2) "Saint Juste named 'Bows MVP at Waterhouse Memorial Football Awards Banquet", KHON, 11/26/17; (3) "Saint Juste, Hawaii beat San Jose State, snap 4-game skid", USA Today, 10/15/17; (4) "Saint Juste rises amid Hawaii slide", Hawaii Tribune Herald, 10/13/17; (5) "CSU Rams bracing for Hawaii RB Diocemy Saint Juste", Loveland Reporter-Herald, 9/26/17; (6) "Saint Juste runs for 202 yards, Hawaii tops Western Carolina", Chicago Daily Herald, 9/3/17; (7) "Big finish for Saint Juste" Honolulu Star-Advertiser, 12/25/16; (8) "Saint Juste has a plan for staying on the field to help the Warriors", Honolulu Star-Advertiser, 8/6/16; (9) "UH RB Saint Juste Too Strong for His Body" Honolulu Star-Advertiser, 8/3/16; (10) "Warriors' Saint Juste now up to speed, Everything's coming naturally for running back Diocemy Saint Juste in Hawaii's new but familiar offensive system", Honolulu Star-Advertiser, 8/7/15; (11) "Saint Juste eager to run with it, Honolulu Star-Advertiser, 8/23/14; (12) "Saint Juste on right track", Honolulu Star-Advertiser, 4/13/14; and (13) "Santaluces running back Diocemy Saint Juste verbally commits to Hawaii", Palm Beach Post, 1/15/13. Cbl62 (talk) 19:23, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The stories about his verbal commitment from high school and making the NFLPA Collegiate Bowl are WP:ROUTINE news coverage for many high school/college football players, many of whom do not meet Wikipedia notability standards. Also, being the MVP of a Division I team is not a sign of notability. Some of those stories (like the Western Carolina one) concern the team more than just Saint Juste. Arbor to SJ (talk) 20:46, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that you will find that many of those examples are actually WP:NOTROUTINE. Sure, some are by nature, but others provide more detail than we find for the typical college athlete and far surpasses the standards set in WP:ROUTINE for sports of "sports scores" -- further, WP:ROUTINE references specifically the notability of events and not people.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:57, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While many of the articles of the 1,000+ articles I found are routine (e.g., passing mentions in game coverage or mere transactional announcements), many others represent significant coverage with details of Saint Juste's life and accomplishments. The 13 items selected above are but a few of the examples of significant coverage. The essential truth, I suspect, is that any running back who ranks among the top 10 rushers (among several hundred running backs in Division I FBS) in a given year will be the subject of significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources. There are plenty of border-line cases where notability is doubtful, but this is not one of them. Cbl62 (talk) 21:22, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My concern with the selection of articles above is that the articles which demonstrate WP:SIGCOV are all local sources, the ones that are national sources are routine reporting of upcoming games or AP news reports which are about as "routine sports scores" as they come. WP:NCOLLATH specifies national media attention, and I don't see this at all (the Florida article is because he was local to Florida at the time of writing.) SportingFlyer talk 06:19, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find anything in WP:SIGCOV that disqualifies "local" sources. The word "local" does not even appear on the page.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:07, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking specifically at WP:NCOLLATH and WP:NGRIDIRON. SportingFlyer talk 14:50, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The introductory language of those two sub-guidelines is clear that they are inclusionary and not exclusionary: "Failing to meet the criteria in this guideline means that notability will need to be established in other ways (e.g. the general notability guideline, or other, topic-specific, notability guidelines)." Cbl62 (talk) 16:08, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree, this is a case of a clear pass of WP:GNG. Nice research!--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:35, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cbl. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:34, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NCOLLATH, WP:GRIDIRON. Did not receive non-routine national coverage as a college athlete, the only mentions of him in non-Hawaii newspapers were in regards to previews of upcoming games or AP recap stories. Agree with the WP:ROUTINE reasoning. SportingFlyer talk 05:01, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per argument made by Cbl. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 12:49, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, per Cbl62. Ejgreen77 (talk) 02:02, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep GNG takes precedence over NGRIDIRON and other topic-specific notability guidelines. Lizard (talk) 23:53, 24 September 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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 00:51, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Clawson[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)

WP:BIO1E. Non-notable. Sources are GRG, an archived dead link (but the archive link is broken as well), a blocked article of the Chicago Tribune and another dead link. Includes POV trivia She remained mentally sharp until her very last day of life, enjoying talks with her family and friends. » Shadowowl | talk 16:46, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:18, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:19, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:19, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:19, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable for stand alone article, as per WP:BIO; trivial. Kierzek (talk) 17:21, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is not about an event and so WP:BIO1E is irrelevant. The problem with access to sources like the Chicago Tribune is due to the GDPR which is irrelevant too. Coverage in such newspapers is adequate evidence to pass WP:GNG and so we're good. Andrew D. (talk) 21:06, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And there we have the first keepist. She is only notable for 1 thing and should be only mentioned at a list of oldest people. Shadowowl on mobile (talk) 22:45, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO1E because there is only very sparse WP:ROUTINE coverage of her. There is no guideline that "the oldest x" is notable either. The article is also filled with typical longevity trivia (born, married, had kids, worked, and died) which is not needed. The encyclopedic information in this article, her age, life dates, and nationality is already recorded on various lists where it is easier to view, such as List of supercentenarians from the United States. On a side note, this article is pretty much in the same exact condition it was in when it was deleted the first time. Newshunter12 (talk) 21:05, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to appropriate list(s). The question, always, with these routine nothing-special bios of old people is how best to present them, even assuming they're notable. And someone like this is best presented in a list or lists. Most of the article is fluff (names of relatives, heartwarming story of birth certificate, etc.) and what little is left is easily and compactly summarized. E Eng 17:37, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to appropriate list per WP:NOPAGE and WP:PERMASTUB. Take out the original research about how someone was older but now isn't recognised and you're left with the bare basics of born, worked, moved to Canada then the US, had kids and then died. Easily handled on a list. CommanderLinx (talk) 11:32, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of the type of coverage that would be sufficient to meet WP:N. There's nothing here of encyclopedic value that couldn't be reproduced effectively on one of the many longevity-related lists on Wikipedia. Canadian Paul 21:27, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO1E, WP:GNG. Happy for a redirect to the appropriate list, but we should delete the history first. SportingFlyer talk 00:43, 28 September 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 13:23, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dee Dee Witman[edit]

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

I am unconvinced that the subject passes WP:NPOL. She is a mayoral candidate who has not held previous political office, and all press coverage appears to be local. Jmertel23 (talk) 15:25, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:22, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:22, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:22, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Neither being an as yet unelected candidate for mayor nor serving as fundraiser for a gubernatorial candidate is an article-clinching notability claim in its own right, and getting a blip of local WP:BLP1E coverage for the question of whether or not she could hold both roles simultaneously is not, in and of itself, evidence that her notability in either role has somehow nationalized. The notability test on Wikipedia is not just "anybody gets an article the moment they can show any evidence of any media coverage at all" — we evaluate passage of WP:GNG not just on the number of footnotes present, but on factors like their geographic range, their depth, and whether the context of what she's getting that coverage for is of permanent ten-year test-passing national and international interest. And the coverage here doesn't pass the geographic range or 10YT tests. No prejudice against recreation on or after election day if she wins, but nothing here already gets her over the bar today. Bearcat (talk) 19:12, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat; fails WP:NPOL. SportingFlyer talk 06:23, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable campaign operative.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:30, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I abstain but totally understand the arguments made here. I was myself unclear whether she met the guidelines when writing this article. Thank you Bearcat for the very helpful explanation! RIfoodie (talk) 22:03, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being udnerstanding RIfoodie! Around election season (no matter the country), we get a lot of candidates who want to make Wikipedia articles, so we've added extra notability guidelines for politicians. I wish Ms. Whitman the best in her campaign! Bkissin (talk) 17:30, 25 September 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 13:23, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dastaan-E-Mohabbat: Salim Anarkali[edit]

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

Article is for upcoming show that doesn't meet WP:GNG. Minimal references that don't go in depth. This probably should be moved to Draft space for now. Ravensfire (talk) 14:55, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 16:20, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 16:20, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete lacks significant coverage. —usernamekiran(talk) 21:15, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Draft move to draftspace until it has released and garnered more coverage, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 16:36, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify and remind creator about the need for articles to meet the notability criteria. I have just draftified one of their unsourced articles. This is not the first time. Possible CoI editor as has just reinserted some horrible puff stuff at Siddharth Kumar Tewary which I removed. Dom from Paris (talk) 21:10, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as article lacks reliable notability and lacks significant coverage.Lillyput4455 (talk) 11:32, 25 September 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 soft delete. Due to low participation, the article may be undeleted on request at WP:REFUND. Mz7 (talk) 17:41, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rerum Novarum Centre[edit]

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

Looks to fail WP:GNG but it also operates in languages that I do not master. Largely based on related sources and plain listings. The Banner talk 17:29, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:49, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:49, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:49, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:09, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 05:05, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 14:42, 20 September 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 soft delete. Due to low participation, the article may be undeleted on request at WP:REFUND. Mz7 (talk) 17:40, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hembree (band)[edit]

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

Not a notable band. Doing the background music for an Apple commercial does not meet WP:NMUSIC. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:46, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 02:52, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 02:52, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 20:29, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —AE (talk • contributions) 11:23, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 14:37, 20 September 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 13:23, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Siobhan Kelly[edit]

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

Despite good faith search, unable to find sources indicating this actor meets GNG, ANYBIO, or ENT. ^Bongo_matic 14:34, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 14:48, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 14:48, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 14:48, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG (the sources in the article and elsewhere for example do not seem to represent SIGCOV in independent sources. The BelfastVibe source for example seems to relate to another person, and the subject here is only mentioned in passing. And the agency bio piece seems to be of the kind that all represented actors might have). Also doesn't appear to meet WP:NACTOR (roles, as listed in the linked IMDB entry for example, seem to be relatively minor). As per nom, a quick search doesn't return any other material SIGCOV examples. Guliolopez (talk) 15:56, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sourcing might be a small issue, but the TV and film credits - especially the high profile film - conveys notability. Sleeper4000 01:35, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Sleeper4000 (talk · contribs) has been blocked for vandalism. ^Bongo_matic 04:27, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She needs to have multiple prominent roles in notable production per WP:NACTOR, but the actress appear to have only minor roles or appear in minor productions. She needs more significant roles first before she can qualify for an article. Hzh (talk) 23:27, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to have significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Sleeper4000 appears to misunderstand the notability guidelines and requirements. --Bejnar (talk) 04:29, 27 September 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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 00:53, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Great Mistake[edit]

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

Despite good faith media search, I do not find evidence that this film meets the GNG or NF ^Bongo_matic 14:31, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 14:49, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 14:49, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only sources covering this topic are IMDB. —Mythdon 03:56, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete – iMDB is not a reliable source, nor is Vimeo. Appears to have some original research but maybe I didn't check all the sources. Either maintenance work (and lots of it) or delete. Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 23:44, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:N due to lack of WP:RS. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:15, 28 September 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 13:23, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Me or the Dog[edit]

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

Despite good faith media search, I do not find evidence that this film meets the GNG or NF. ^Bongo_matic 14:30, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 14:49, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 14:49, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:26, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sourcing is an issue, but the festival inclusions would seem to convey notability. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:56, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, please review WP:NF and in particular WP:NFO, which infers notability if

The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release.

Inclusion in festivals around the time of initial release is not evidence of notability. Footnote 3 shows that even minor awards from major festivals, or grand prizes from minor festivals is insufficient. ^Bongo_matic 05:01, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not convinced that the film meets WP:GNG. In addition to this, the creator of the article has been blocked indefinitely for promotional editing and socking disruption. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 00:20, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Kind Tennis Fan. Also most Google search results about Me or the Dog are actually about a (different) British television show, further establishing this article's lack of notability. —Mythdon 03:40, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing to have the substantive coverage required by the WP:GNG. --Bejnar (talk) 04:45, 27 September 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. Michig (talk) 08:16, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FoxyTunes[edit]

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

Receives only passing mentions in reliable sources. Previously declined PROD for the reason that it does contain mentions in sources, but those are insignificant/unreliable. wumbolo ^^^ 14:14, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 14:50, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 14:50, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 14:50, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Given the little controversy at ANI I'm not gonna !vote here, but I did find a great source about Foxytunes: [3]. There's also [4] but the Haaretz article actually goes into significant detail. However, these are both about Yahoo acquiring Foxytunes so there needs to be coverage of other events to fulfill WP:SUSTAINED. The other sources I could dig up on Foxytunes were a few short Lifehacker articles and short reviews. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 21:26, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep was ~~Comment~~(~~leaning towards maybe delete~~, consider this a keep if stronger sources are found) Initial looking found a few passing mentions in books ( mostly among list of suggested extensions to install to firefox ). As noted by FenixFeather, there are a few articles on the Yahoo Acquisition and termination of FoxyTunes: TechCrunch on rumors purchase by Yahoo [5], Softpedia on Yahoo dropping FoxyTunes[6], Gizmodo related acquisition to Yahoo's music service termination[7], and some such as this AP article (link is version syndicated into Business Insider) talking about a wave Israeli startups being acquired along with Waze by Google[8]. I've also seen the lifehacker articles as also mentioned above only other thing I saw in my search of news archives was a blog but on owned by ZDNet, Mashable talking about launching of a feature[9]. Ars Technica had a brief mention of it in relation to Yahoo and Rhapsody working together.[10]. Haven't seen anything really that talked about FoxyTunes as FoxyTunes. PaleAqua (talk) 22:05, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also support redirecting (maybe merging) to Yahoo!, ideally to a section that talks about acquisitions. PaleAqua (talk) 22:12, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Switching to keep as per additional sources and improvements to the article. PaleAqua (talk) 02:16, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep~~Comment~~ My understanding is FoxyTunes had a contested PROD on 2 January 2018 for reasons given by nom, it was declined PROD on 19 September 2018 as it had already had a contested PROD.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:45, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Due to controversies on a set of articles of which this is one can I respectively suggest admins only close this and a full 168 hours is allowed before relist and non-admins carefully consider before re-listing. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In my book I thought FoxyTunes was heading for an expired PROD on 19 September and I was actually not really bothered but the cunning article escaped. I have found a PCW Review from May 2007.Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:13, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am beginning to wonder if this should be a keep? Significant enough to be acquired by Yahoo then run as a brand for 4 or 5 years ... Has international versions. On the opposing side I personally cannot remember nothing about it.Djm-leighpark (talk) 03:06, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update: now moving to keep. I have improved the article to give the body a little more content and substance. A little more could yet be added from the existing references. On balance I am also minded this had some form of impact over a wide geographical area over a few years. I believe there are sufficent references for the notability requirement. There are some useful wikilinks to other parts of the encylopedia including web browser, toolbox and media player (software). As far as I am aware value would be lost in any plausible merge that I am aware of so I would now be reluctant to compromise to that option. So I am moved to keep.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:40, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As there is some possibility this is one of a number of articles where a non-admin closure might be regarded as controversial can I respectfully request non-admins closure. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:19, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sources have been found so now two or three RS so exceeds WP:GNG ~~Merge and redirect~~ to Yahoo or a sub article of. It may be notable/borderline N in itself and the source [11] claims it was one of Firefox's most popular add-ons. ... 8 million users... , but latterly the notability came from Yahoo. Certainly notability does not stop even when discontinued per WP:NTEMP. Widefox; talk 00:16, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Widefox: which "sources" are you referring to? The MacWorld review is literally a capsule review, which we can't use to demonstrate notability. wumbolo ^^^ 13:03, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Improved there's two assertions of notability - 1. software that's been used worldwide by over 8 million people (on all platforms) 2. Yahoo! topic (the fact that it's now dead software is irrelevant for notability per WP:NOTTEMPORARY). Even if WP:N wasn't satisfied, considering it brutally as a product of Yahoo! it would be merge/redirected into Yahoo! not deleted. Doing that would lose the whole backstory, more so that merging the internal only Google Toolbar into Google. For readers it may be best to consider as WP:SPINOUT to keep Yahoo! from having WP:UNDUE while keeping the usefulness of the info in the article. 2. may not need to meet separate N per SPINOUT/that essay I quoted in one of your other AfDs. So 1. - does it meet WP:GNG anyway? yes, it's had significant, worldwide, sustained coverage, including sole articles on it in Haaretz, Ynet, Ghacks, Softonic, Softpedia, combined with significant superlatives or listings in general reading top tier sources like The Daily Telegraph through Wired to lots of computer industry ones etc etc - per the article today. There's enough sources for BLP aspects, and it can make Class C easily so it's not a WP:PERMASTUB. I wouldn't classify being mentioned in an article called "The Best Free Software (2007)", "Review: Top 10 Mozilla Firefox Extensions", "Firefox 3: Top ten extensions" as a passing mention either, no, it counts for notability due to many of them. I was wrong - there is abundant coverage and yet more exist WP:NEXIST. Per 2., as Yahoo! topic, products which aren't notable themselves they would get merged anyhow, not deleted. We have more OK sources to build an article here than there are in the magazine sources etc we use. Seems solid to me on all fronts for a proper topic with history, good work User:Djm-leighpark and User:PaleAqua may want to check the found sources. Widefox; talk 16:58, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  "significant superlatives or listings in general reading top tier sources" has nothing to do with GNG, and plenty of sources you were referring to are routine press release announcements. "may not need to meet separate N" is not true at all, see WP:NOTINHERITED. wumbolo ^^^ 17:03, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've answered which 3 full articles in RS are enough by themselves, passes GNG. Some of the other 17 currently in the article add to more than those 3. I'm sorry we don't agree but I'm sure other's would like to evaluate them, and any others they may find, so we'll have to agree to differ. (see WP:NOTINHERITED - it not as black and white as asserted, some articles are allowed, not that my view is based on that, it passes GNG) Widefox; talk 17:23, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am minded I would also add Rankin. In my opinion WP:NOTINHERITED's a mess ... surely designed to obfusticate my head within the totality of its situation in its article and diversions to elsewhere: but I seemed to have come away with some sort of takeaway that parent to child ... not always and child to parent ... rarely ... and life is better spent simply doing content and citing. From my viewpoint which its not always universal FoxyTunes operated as an independent brand entity and any merge to parent can end in torment in those circumstances. We are also talking about the software not the organisation. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:45, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes my main point is there's enough sources for GNG. There also seems to be an over strict and incorrect interpretation of GNG/RS at these AfDs that sources must be large and exclusively about the topic. I quote GNG but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. It may be a quick rule-of-thumb for editors to consider the threshold for GNG is about finding 2 (or more) main topic articles. Here 2.5 sources are evaluated by an editor "There is no such thing as 0.5 sources. It's either 0 or 1 (and every publication is limited to 1)." In terms of number of sources yes, in terms of amount of coverage absolutely not per policy, it's perfectly fine to consider smaller sources as being fractional coverage as that fits with policy. Sources can't just be dismissed as 0 as they're half as useful in coverage per policy. It's not binary. That's wrong, period. We have an overwhelming abundance of reliable sources by any normal standard here which per GNG do count. That means that we have unambiguously significant coverage in this AfD (Minor point is things aren't as black and white and there's alternatives WP:ATD, SPINOUT for the benefit of readers. WP:DOM essay seems appropriate considering this/these AfDs.) I think it would help if Wumbolo spelled out which sources they are excluding, and why, and how that compares to other AfDs/articles.Widefox; talk 18:48, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Vastly improved since article was nominated for AfD with 25 sources added, I am more than happy to say this now passes WP:GNG. Govvy (talk) 16:29, 27 September 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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 00:54, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hearthis.at[edit]

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

Does not appear to be sufficient in-depth coverage of the subject at this time. Searches return thousands of hits, but they all appear to be the most passing possible of mentions of their url, like here, and truckloads of hits for the Dallas Observer, but only because they've embedded files in hundreds of pages.

The source currently in the article is more along the lines of what we're looking for, but even that described the site as "minuscule", noting that nine plays on one of the news station's playlist reached the top ten in the genre.

Overall looks like WP:TOOSOON, and the absence of a de.wiki article for a German founded website doesn't bode well either. GMG ^talk 14:11, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 14:50, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 14:50, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 14:50, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with assessment as WP:TOOSOON. It does look like an up and coming competitor to Soundcloud, but results are just "Top X alternatives to Soundcloud" type articles, that usually mention that this service is "little known" and has few users at the moment. When more dedicated coverage turns up, I think this article will be worth creating. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 20:58, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. SportingFlyer talk 00:44, 28 September 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 13:23, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of games with Vulkan support[edit]

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

Same reason List of games with DirectX 12 support was deleted along with all the other DirectX support lists. It's an WP:INDISCRIMINATE list. Better suited for categories. See the previous discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of games with DirectX 12 support. TarkusAB^talk 14:06, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 14:51, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 14:51, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the topic isn't notable, and the 'pedia isn't here to be a directory. Weakly supporting making the list into a category. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 15:37, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nom that this is better off as a category – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 18:15, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTCATALOGUE and WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. Ajf773 (talk) 20:14, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reason as the other article -- WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:CROSSCAT. This is arbitrary inclusion criteria, regardless if there's a source for each. Having a category instead sounds perfectly fine. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 09:44, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CROSSCAT, WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 06:03, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per List of games with DirectX 12 support. Also note, there already is a category for this: Category:Video games that support Vulkan. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:25, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. WP:SNOW should apply now. AmericanAir88^(talk) 10:55, 26 September 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 13:24, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ankita Shrivastav[edit]

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

Promotional artcile, fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Edwardx (talk) 12:24, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:15, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:15, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:16, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:16, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —AE (talk • contributions) 12:54, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:35, 24 September 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 13:24, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sugapuff[edit]

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

Promotional. Does not meet GNG. Sources include a deadlink, coverage from an outlet that employed him, and an interview on BBC Asian. BEFORE mainly brings up items from his YouTube channel. Icewhiz (talk) 13:33, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:33, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:33, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:27, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:27, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —AE (talk • contributions) 12:54, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet WP:GNG. The first source may or may not count, as it has only one paragraph about him in an article about three people (although it may be mentioning him for something notable; I'm not entirely sure), the second is a primary source, and the third is an audio clip which is not available. Searching elsewhere finds little that is not primary or extremely minor. LittlePuppers (talk) 00:30, 27 September 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 Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) GMG ^talk 20:04, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gardners Books[edit]

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

Open to be proven wrong on this one. There are certainly sources available, but basically all of them as far as I can tell are passing mentions or routine announcements. I'm just not really seeing a good argument for WP:CORPDEPTH. Best I'm seeing is something like this, which is really no better than a press release, and this, which ain't bad, but it seems like it was copy/pasted from somewhere else given the egregious formatting errors. Although I couldn't tell you from where. GMG ^talk 12:46, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:02, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:02, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:02, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies GNG due to coverage in GNews, GBooks etc. Largest book wholesaler in the United Kingdom, therefore exceptionally notable. Seems to have published books that have received quite a lot of citations, judging from GScholar. James500 (talk) 06:39, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not trying to be nit picky, but...what coverage? What sources are there with any depth to write an article with? GMG ^talk 10:40, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As this is a book wholesaler, I took a quick look on Publisher's Weekly and found a few articles on it. I also found a bunch of articles on the UK's Bookseller site. I also learned that they launched other products/companies such as the hive.co.uk and ebook products such as Blio. Auldhouse (talk) 16:42, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP. --Doncram (talk) 20:43, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can someone link to one of these sources? I'm happy to withdraw, but I really didn't find jack in like 20 minutes. Maybe I'm just bad at searching. GMG^talk 23:56, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is one of several in first page of Google news search link. Browse also the ones there about 100 new jobs in Eastbourne, and about the Gardners Hive, say. --Doncram (talk) 19:24, 24 September 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 13:24, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Evans Kariuki[edit]

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

Non-notable preacher not meeting WP:GNG or WP:BIO. The organizations he leads likewise don't meet the notabililty guidelines, receiving no applicable coverage under WP:GNG. Largoplazo (talk) 12:45, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:04, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:04, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:04, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails to have significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The article currently has only two references One cites a local article that does not mention him, just his wife, and does not support the inline text. The other is a non-independt reference, being a citation to the homepage of his own Firebrand School of Ministry website. Most of his hits on Google are not independent (Facebook, Youtube, Instgram, Amazon, his church, etc.), or press releases. I did find two news stories centered on him. One appeared in the Nairobi News, basically a police report on him being "attacked by youths after he visited a voter registration centre" in the Mathare slums of Nairobi. I should note that notability is not inherited, and being the son of a former member of parliament (Bishop Margaret Wanjiru) does not confer notability. The second was a 2017 story about him entitled "Inspiration Friday" published in 2017 on ghafla, a Kenyan news site, here. But a single substantive story does not create notability. --Bejnar (talk) 05:38, 27 September 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 13:25, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Enzen Global Solutions Private Limited[edit]

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

I do not see any significant coverage about the company, that manages to make it pass WP:NORG but somehow, I am not confident enough about my search.Trivial mentions are located. ∯WBG^converse 08:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:34, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:34, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It meets primary criteria for WP:NORG and passes WP:GNG. I believe it's from your search, in addition to this it has also won some recognized award. A search here brings out several results and also here. ShunDream (talk) 08:44, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
ShunDream, news-pieces, please. ∯WBG^converse 09:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notable that ShunDream has not provided and references. The number of Google Hits is also not a reliable indicator of notability and not an acceptable argument for a Keep !vote. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:56, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Most references are based on company announcements and fail WP:ORGIND. The awards also are awarded to hundreds of companies across various categories each year and fail the criteria for establishing notability. Fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:48, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 12:44, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP; significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:44, 27 September 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 13:25, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Boniface Ramsey[edit]

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

Boniface Ramsey is not notable, aside from the fact that he sent a number of letters to Catholic bishops warning them about the predations of Theodore McCarrick. Ramsey's involvement in this saga is documented in detail in the Theodore Edgar McCarrick article, and also appears in the articles Gabriel Montalvo Higuera, Leonardo Sandri, Seán Patrick O'Malley. Ramsey's role in the McCarrick saga is notable, and has been adequately documented in these articles. But Ramsey is not notable otherwise, and therefore having his own article is unnecessary. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 06:53, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:30, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:30, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:30, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-Although the nominator has, along with a handful of others, made extremely valuable contributions to Wikipedia regarding the abuse scandal in the Church, I respectfully disagree with the belief that this article should be deleted. Individuals can be discussed widely in other articles, but if their importance rises to a certain level, then it can still become necessary for them to have their own articles. In Ramsey's case, I think it does. He has been the single most important figure in blowing the whistle on McCarrick in the Church for over two decades. While his activities in reporting McCarrick are discussed elsewhere, especially the McCarrick article, they could be covered in greater detail here than that article may allow. It would also be helpful to include personal background information so that the reader can better understand who he is and why he took on such a role. Trying to do that at any of the articles would go beyond their scope. The article should be expanded, and I feel that this is a better course than deleting it. I might be able to help with expansion should the article be kept, but I'll have to see how my schedule looks. Display name 99 (talk) 02:18, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 12:44, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. This article could certainly use fixing too. 192.139.232.230 (talk) 23:21, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
redirect back to section in McCarrick article. This is not a biography; it's just a one sentence identification followed by a partial narration of the larger train of events. Mangoe (talk) 16:33, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has enough coverage to justify a stand-alone article Atlantic306 (talk) 14:59, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, there isn't, and his role in the scandal is not a biography. At present what we have is a name and a position, and that's pretty much it. Mangoe (talk) 02:14, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep His role in the developing scandal is very important. Considering the New York Times Magazine had the story on McCarrick sexually assaulting and abusing seminarians in 2012 and killed the story for political and cultural reasons, there is a lot more to what is going on her than has been well reported.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:47, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:GNG, and I'm not entirely sure what "is not a biography" means when it comes to specific Wikipedia policy. There are plenty of stubs on Wikipedia that refer to why a person is notable and do not include a myriad of other details; the lack of sheer quantity of content in an entry isn't a reason for deletion. Isingness (talk) 22:44, 24 September 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:04, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Molesworth[edit]

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

A CV of a working cinematographer, with much namedropping about awards but none actually credited to the subject. The closest thing to a reliable source is a New York Times wedding announcement to the now-deleted Donna Bertaccini. Calton | Talk 03:02, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:50, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:50, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:50, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Just a reminder: the creator of this article, Missvangie, has a declared conflict of interest. --Calton | Talk 03:58, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As mentioned above, the wedding announcement is really the only the reliable, in-depth reference. The others either do not mention the subject or do so only in passing. For example, this website used as a reference mentions nothing about Molesworth. Perhaps it lends itself to notability of the film, but certainly not to the person. And notability is not inherited. Overall, fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:CREATIVE. Jmertel23 (talk) 12:20, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hi everyone! On the article's Talk Page I argued for Molesworth's notability due to his awards, but I had trouble sourcing them since the award websites were down. I found an alternative reference and added his awards on the main space. That should be sufficient to keep his page. Also, as an aside, I found several pages of cinematographers on Wikipedia that are similar to Molesworth's. (extensive careers but no indicted awards or notability) I was wondering why those were permitted to exist without notability or other flags. I kept them at the article's talk page as well. Missvangie (talk) 13:33, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I found several pages of cinematographers on Wikipedia that are similar to Molesworth's. (extensive careers but no indicted awards or notability) I was wondering why those were permitted to exist without notability or other flags

Because they're irrelevant to this article.

I argued for Molesworth's notability due to his awards

What awards? All the name-dropping of awards you did were not for Molesworth, but for shows he worked on -- see Notability is not inherited -- not to mention they were all journalism-related, not regarding technical achievements.

I added his awards on the main space

You mean the bit about a "Cine Golden Eagle" and an "International Monitor Award", neither of which you explain who awarded them nor why they are in any way significant. Which is not surprising, since all you did was cut and paste from the website of a manufacturer of camera equipment [12], using the "interview" to sell their merchandise. --Calton | Talk 14:05, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly you don't want to have that conversation about the other cinematographer entries I've referenced because they point to a cross section of cinematographers who have wiki entries with far, far less reputable sourcing, and/or bodies of work, than I have easily supplied in Molesworth's entry which demonstrates, fact sources, Molesworth's clear and unequivocal notability. You may not want to have that conversation, you may want to shut down the significance of that conversation, but I will continue to point that out as an issue. It is not an "irrelevant" one. Quite the contrary. Especially when you make comments that suggest just because you don't want to acknowledge my valid and troubling points of a double or triple standard by you and/or wikipedia, you refuse to address a serious issue that all wiki editors should be concerned about. Wikipedia must strive to have fairness and accountability, otherwise, it's difficult to validate its legitimacy. After all, wikipedia is based on a democratic process not a dictatorial one. Others have in fact been included for cinematographer entries with far less sourced notability across the board, than I have proven with Molesworth.

Regarding your comments on inherited notability: I agree. No, notability is not inherited. There's been no attempt to suggest that as such other than from you. Emmy awards and the like for best film are given for the quality and accomplishments across the board for a film. You have no best picture award for a film journalistically or otherwise with third rate cinematography. It just does not happen. Full stop. If you think it does, please provide sources for a case in point. You demonstrate a basic lack of understanding for the film and television industry by making such a comment. I've included the films that have won awards solely to prove Molesworth is a highly sought after, notable cinematographer to consistently be hired for the outstanding quality of his photography for filmmakers, producers, directors, and broadcasters the world-over. The award winning documentaries he has helmed prove that notability. --Missvangie | Talk 03:42, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly you don't want to have that conversation about the other cinematographer entries I've referenced because they point to a cross section of cinematographers who have wiki entries with far, far less reputable sourcing, and/or bodies of work

Clearly you didn't bother reading the link I provided: this is a discussion about Mark Molesworth, and talking about other cinematographers is irrelevant to this article. So no, I'm not going to bother engaging on that.

All right, I was curious and looked. Dear God, you put TAK FUJIMOTO on your list? Cinematographer for Silence of the Lambs and The Sixth Sense, among many, many others? Winner of a Primetime Emmy for Cinematography for John Adams? The article with the great big National Society of Film Critics Award for Best Cinematography template listing his win for Devil in a Blue Dress? Just how desperate ARE you save this article? --Calton | Talk 04:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

...reputable sourcing, and/or bodies of work, than I have easily supplied in Molesworth's entry which demonstrates, fact sources, Molesworth's clear and unequivocal notability

"Reputable" "Unequivocal"? YouTube and Vimeo links to his work? WorldCat catalog pages? Award pages which don't even use his name? A camera-equipment manufacturer using an "interview" as an endorsement of their products? A standard, unbylined wedding announcement, which are submitted by the wedding party? You have provided, near as I can tell, NO reliable sources whatsoever nor anything that actually argues for Molesworth's notability.

The award winning documentaries he has helmed prove that notability.

He did not "helm" them, he was the camera operator. And not only is notability not inherited, the awards -- including the Emmys you namedrop -- are JOURNALISM awards, and imply NOTHING about technical achievement. --Calton | Talk 03:54, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You made it all the way to #9 with no debatable response to my argument? Wow. That's telling.Take away the Tak Fujimoto link. No problem. What's left? Now let's address all 12 of the other/remaining DoP entries. My point remains the same. You base your whole argument in response to me on one of the 13 that I listed? Seriously? Talk about desperate. I've removed him. There are 12 remaining. Have at it. Because if even one of those entries ends up remaining, the argument about equal standards and justice for all here on Wiki remains. Minor point worth noting, the Tak Fujimoto page mentions no awards, neither does it have proper sourcing. According to wikipedia standards, that article should have several flags.

Vimeo links? Youtube links? There aren't any of those sources on the current edited entry. You are mistaken. Are you seriously suggesting a library source such as WorldCat is not a legitimate source to prove either authorship or notable involvement in a documentary film or television series? Because now that is rich. (Just don't supply WorldCat sourcing on Wikipedia. Their editors don't recognize library sourcing.) Good lord, Wikipedia would be laughed out of any research University. More to the point, I've never based this entry wholly on his award winning ability *for himself*. You keep attempting to bring it back to that argument. I've been supplying proof of his notability as a cinematographer for other legitimate reasons, that you choose to ignore or attempt to conflate, but that hold his notability. Clearly he is a world-renowned DoP. The sourcing I provide shows the depth and breadth of his work for filmmakers and broadcasters the world over. He is notable, because he has a reputation internationally as a Director of Photography helming, yes helming, award winning documentary films, and for his extraordinary body of work. Additionally, If you are the only DoP/cameraman listed on a documentary film you *are* the Director of Photography even if a credit may say "camera" for the cinematographer. It's equivalent to saying "I'm a dentist". Does that not make you a doctor? Hardly. In the documentary filmmaking industry the credit can say photography / camera / cinematographer / Director of Photography. That's a fact of the industry. Similarly, if you are the only photographer noted on the credits of a documentary film, he/she shot the whole film. You are the Director of Photography. You are the one solely responsible for directing the ultimate camera shots and lighting set ups across the board especially when there is no designed lighting designer. You also conveniently ignore all the reputable and yes unequivocal sourcing supplied such as BBC, PBS, BFI, The NY Times articles links, The New York Press Club. Missvangie | Talk 2:07, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

You made it all the way to #9 with no debatable response to my argument?

No, I scanned your list and your desperately bogus and ill-informed choice leapt out at me. Something I was expecting, by the way, which is why I did it. And as for your "argument": for the THIRD time, because it is completely and utterly irrelevant to THIS article. There is NOTHING to address, because there IS no argument to adddress.

He is notable, because he has a reputation internationally as a Director of Photography helming, yes helming, award winning documentary films

A "reputation" for which you've provided NO PROOF or even indication, not to mention your telling of straight-up falsehoods even within your framing: "helming" means DIRECTING. He's not a film or video director, he's the guy who operates the damned camera under the supervision of the ACTUAL director of each film/video.

You also conveniently ignore all the reputable and yes unequivocal sourcing

"Unequivocal" appears to be yet another word you like to misuse. In fact, not only is almost every single one of those sources mere listings of credits, many don't even mention Molesworth at all. And the New York Times "article" is a wedding announcement: it's not an article in any way, shape, or form, it's a reader-submitted announcement of an upcoming wedding, written by the someone in the wedding party. --Calton | Talk 12:04, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be careful about cavalierly denigrating the work of a highly published and regarded film critic's body of work. Sean Malin is an American freelance journalist, who is widely known for his insightful and compelling reviews. He is an accredited journalist at all the major U.S. film festivals every year and as a result of the foregoing, is well known in the film and television community, as an accomplished and discerning film critic. He has published film reviews and interviews with both domestic and international filmmakers and as such makes CineMalin a go to film site for the film and television community. Simply because you may only be learning of CineMalin or Sean Malin, it does not mean he and CineMalin are not highly reputable and highly regarded, and his writing very well known. You've made comments that are not truthful and simply ignorant. Sean Malin is based in Los Angeles and has a significant and serious body of published work if you bothered to actually do the research for the journalist you are talking about. He is a graduate of the prestigious University of Texas at Austin's Masters of Arts program in Media Studies for Film, Television, and Radio and has written often for The Austin Chronicle, Independent Film Project, and Paste, as just a few examples. His significant body of published work is very easy to source. -- Missvangie (talk) 16:32, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Malin...is widely known...

No he isn't. And the blog -- and a Blogspot blog, from the look of the design -- shows no evidence that the "film and television community" even knows he exists, based on his massive Twitter numbers, all 553 followers. Care to provide some evidence of this regard? --Calton | Talk 17:18, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure most definitely I'll comment. You clearly didn't even bother to source Malin's body of work at even just the Austin Chronicle: https://www.austinchronicle.com/authors/sean-l-malin/. This took no time to source. This alone puts your ridiculous comments to rest. I've only sourced one of the many publications he has written for and continues to write for. I won't waste more time disproving your false statements above given that they stem from your disparaging imagination and are not based in fact. Missvangie (talk) 03:52, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In response to the statement "Are you seriously suggesting a library source such as WorldCat is not a legitimate source to prove either authorship or notable involvement in a documentary film or television series?" - Yes, WorldCat is a legitimate source to prove authorship or involvement. However, simply being able to verify a statement does not indicate notability, and the discussion here is about notability. I don't think anyone is doubting the veracity of the information you've included in the article; the topic of discussion here is to whether that information meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. As I stated above, I do not believe that it does. I understand that can feel frustrating, especially as you are being paid to write the article. However, that is simply not enough. Jmertel23 (talk) 13:30, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've added two new sources (a Connecticut news source and a NY Press Club profile) detailing Molesworth's awards. Those should account for his notability, under WP:ANYBIO. I hope you can read it again, with new citations and all, and let me know about suggestions to improve it. Thanks. Missvangie (talk) 17:46, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 12:43, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looking at the references, it can slide by WP:GNG. 192.139.232.230 (talk) 23:26, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So, did you actually LOOK at said references?

One could say the same to you, Calton. The one who clearly does not LOOK carefully at said references is you, because you deleted a perfectly valid reference for Molesworth's award-winning photography. Missvangie (talk) 03:52, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A news publication is running a feature piece on Mark Molesworth and his cinematography that will run within 72 hours. I will post that as soon as it is live. I've been informed that there will be others as he has been interviewed over the past few weeks by a variety of journalists as a result of the Brooklyn Museum's Basquiat premiere screening he attended. There's also a recent New York Press Club article about him, which I linked in the article. -- Missvangie (talk) 16:32, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So he was hard at work schmoozing the attendees, trying to place stories, eh? Interviews are not really going to help prove notability, especially when their purpose is so transparent. --Calton | Talk 17:18, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a fantasy scenario of yours. It has no basis in truth. The Basquiat film's U.S. premiere at the Brooklyn Museum was on August 30th. Molesworth was in fact approached by a number of journalists for interviews that night, and since based on his cinematography for the film. Why is that problematic for you? I'll tell you why. It's because it doesn't fit in to your personal narrative or agenda that you've crafted out of thin air in your head. You spread falsehoods to disparage and denigrate. It is also worth noting that it is not acceptable professional behavior to troll people off of Wikipedia on their Twitter feed merely because you don't like their work being cited here. That is bordering on harassment. You clearly created a Twitter account precisely to do just that to Mr. Malin. (It is obvious because you have zero followers on Twitter.) It has been noted that you publicly accused Malin; yes, a well known, highly regarded, well-published journalist, of being paid to write his Molesworth interview. That simply is not true and did not happen. It is also an improper move on your part. It's really off base. You are behaving out of bounds on this, and that should be of note and concern for all Wiki editors. Missvangie (talk) 03:52, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly didn't even bother to source Malin's body of work at even just the Austin Chronicle

The Austin Chronicle is a local alt-weekly that he's contributed some reviews and arts round-ups, a far cry from your claim of "well known in the film and television community". And how about that massive Twitter following one expects from anyone someone "well known in the film and television community", all 553 of them?

Molesworth was in fact approached by a number of journalists for interviews that night

Really. And you know this HOW? And you can document this HOW?

It's because it doesn't fit in to your personal narrative or agenda that you've crafted out of thin air in your head. You spread falsehoods to disparage and denigrate.

You should look up "psychological projection" when you get the chance. If anyone here is spreading falsehoods, it would be you, with your inflated claims and your passing off of bad sources -- a wedding announcement? a manufacturer's promotional website? random credit pages which often don't even use his name? All this so you and Molesworth can make a buck off of the hard-won reputation of this online encyclopedia: THAT should be of note and concern for all Wiki editors. --Calton | Talk 14:26, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - all this may be true, but if it can't be reliably sourced, then it can't be in Wikipedia. Bearian (talk) 03:03, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

I'm not sure you've taken the time to look at the most recent sources I've provided. If not, please do so.

The two links that Calton refers to immediately above are no longer up there on the current article. This article is an ongoing work in progress as am I as a Wiki editor. Having said that, the ones Calton objected to are no longer in the entry, as Calton removed them, and understandably so. I have, however, replaced them both with reliable sources. The NY Times wedding announcement is only in Molesworth's personal section and that is standard for Wikipedia entries.

One new citation I've included is a piece from WestportNow, an online news outlet in the state of Connecticut in the United States. The second is a profile from The New York Press Club and was written by an Emmy award winning anchor/journalist. The third source cites Molesworth's first place award one year for Feature Photography. It is a direct link to the Society of Professional Journalists and its awards page. As such those three are certainly reliable wikipedia sources. Please do read the entire entry carefully with all its current citations. There are many reliable sources cited including BBC, PBS, BFI, The NY Times, etcetera, all listing Molesworth's cinematography credits clearly despite Calton's ascertains to the contrary. Let the FACTS speak for themselves. I'd be very appreciative of your feedback as to edits you might suggest to strengthen the entry. I am not intending to inherit notability of the films he has worked on. What I've been trying to do with his entry is to show that this particular cinematographer has had a prolific career in the domestic and international broadcast film and television arenas for several decades now. He has an industry record decades long of having been a Director of Photography on many award winning films. His body of work is the empirical evidence and is easily sourced online by many reputable cites other than Wikipedia. He is also an award winning DoP and still photographer himself as previously discussed.

We previously used a vendor source who conducted an interview with Molesworth on their website. (https://www.mytworks.com/2017/01/13/interview-molesworth-myt-camera-slider/) The materials I've sourced from it are ones relevant to Molesworth's career. WP: RELIABILITY indicates circumstances when one can cite a vendor source, I was wondering if our case falls in the category. Your feedback and assistance would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.Missvangie (talk) 17:22, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unambiguous WP:PROMO, only reinforced by a paid editor completely disregarding WP:PAYTALK: "Paid editors must respect the volunteer nature of the project and keep discussions concise." Bakazaka (talk) 18:33, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a WP:PROMO and WP:GNG concerns. SportingFlyer talk 00:45, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:PROMO overstuffed with marginal sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:11, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not seeing notability in the sourcing, and a Google search turns up little else. Fails WP:GNG. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:06, 28 September 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 13:29, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Somatic dysfunction[edit]

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

A dictionary definition of a fictional concept. There are no WP:MEDRS for this because it doesn't exist. Guy (Help!) 11:25, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:44, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This term is a synonym for the "osteopathic lesion" proposed by A.T. Still, as we already explain in our Osteopathic manipulation article. It is a bogus concept[13] and not discussed outside the fringe/in-universe world of osteopathic publication, or recognized in legitimate medicine. Any mention of this topic (for example from the linked Snyder piece) would be better incorporated into Osteopathic manipulation per WP:NOPAGE. Having a stand-alone article in its current state is a failure of NPOV as it legitimizises a pseudoscience. Alexbrn (talk) 15:10, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG: 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. Neither the requirement for significant coverage, nor the requirement for secondary sources are met. The bulk of the article comprises unsourced or questionably sourced text, which if removed, would leave nothing of any encyclopedic value. --RexxS (talk) 16:56, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is a glossary entry, not an encyclopedia article. Bearian (talk) 03:05, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete per above 3 editors rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:31, 23 September 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 13:27, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propertini[edit]

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

No in depth independant coverage as for WP:NCORP. Crunchbase is routine listing, coverage in relation to Benford's law merely quote the company or mention it - they do not have any depth. Unable to find any indepth coverage; only mentions, routine announcements, and press releases Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:42, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:42, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:42, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom – I was unable to find significant reliable coverage of this company. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 16:55, 20 September 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 Tiling window manager. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:12, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wmii[edit]

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

The previous discussion noted three reliable sources which are currently mentioned in the "Further reading" section. The Linux Format source is the only reliable and independent significant coverage of this window manager. The article in Linux Magazine, issue 64, was written by Nico Golde, who is affiliated with suckless.org, which is the former host of wmii. So Golde is not independent here. The other Linux Magazine article, from issue 54, covers WMI, the predecessor of wmii, so it can't be used to demonstrate notability of its successor wmii. wumbolo ^^^ 21:06, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:30, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:30, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – passes WP:GNG per previous AfD. Linux Magazine has editorial control, so it is still a reliable source despite the author's alleged affiliation with the software. Brad v 23:58, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sources are usually considered unreliable (especially for notability) when the author is personally related to the subject and has a conflict of interest. wumbolo ^^^ 08:43, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect (or very weak keep) to ~~Comparison of X window managers~~ Tiling window manager nom is correct it's non-independent. Crying wolf with all these bad noms, given up looking for sources. Widefox; talk 19:31, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Comparison of X window managers per Widefox. Started looking at this a few days ago and haven't found independent sources. Closest I found is forum mentions and the like. I see that there is a mention in "Mac OS X For Unix Geeks, 4th Edition" ISBN 978-0-596-52062-5 but doesn't appear enough to be notable. My subscription at safaribooksonline is limited, so can't check out in full details, but the search result implies it's just talking about dot files related to wmii. PaleAqua (talk) 20:00, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would also be fine with merging or redirecting to Tiling window manager#List of tiling window managers for X as suggested below. PaleAqua (talk) 02:35, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Few online resources assisting notability with Golde excluded. Antonis is OK and Saunders might be available in an archive somewhere. The WMI predessor is valid provided it is identified as a direct ancestor ... I've seen one statement on a GitHub or something to that but not a lot really. Seems like a weak link compared to other major tiling X window managers. Would possibly do nicely to merge to an article on 'tiling X window managers' if such an article existed ... I dont htink it does. It *might* just be viable to a minimal merge into a near relative, not sure it would merge well into 'Comparison of X window managers' but I'll support it if people feel they can do it. I'd support a draftify if someone thought they were going to work in it, otherwise if none of these delete. Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:15, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (unless reason to keep) as one/two liner to Tiling window manager#List of tiling window managers for X (Found article does exist from by where my comment above said it didn't) Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:11, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, better target as the comparison article wouldn't have an article so would fail inclusion. Widefox; talk 13:48, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 09:36, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Due to controversies on a set of articles of which this is one can I respectively suggest admins only close this and a full 168 hours is allowed before relist and non-admins carefully consider before re-listing. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:34, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Tiling window manager#List of tiling window managers for X. Seems too much like a user manual, and there's not much meat. Hunting through 6 pages of Google results only brings up this weak item.[[14]] TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:01, 28 September 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 $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:20, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

EKOSPOL[edit]

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

This article was written originally as a heavily promotional piece by an editor who appears to have a close connection with the company. It has been somewhat scrubbed of the obviously promotional writing.

A review of the references (in Google Translate since they're all written in Czech) appears to show that they are all mostly published by the company (press releases and the such), affiliated with the company in some way (fifth reference especially), or trivial coverage (non-notable awards, sponsorship initiatives, and basic company information) as defined in WP:NCORP.

An online search did not turn up any clear, reliable secondary coverage. Therefore, my reasoning for deletion is twofold: the article's subject fails NCORP, and its publication was motivated by promotional soapboxing. EclipseDude (talk) 08:48, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:06, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:06, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article is still promotional, so WP:NOTPROMO and WP:DEL14 applies, and there doesn't appear to be any indepth coverage for WP:CORPDEPTH, per nom Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:21, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the refs don't establish notability and the article sniffs nn. I haven't googled them as I don't speak the language. Szzuk (talk) 13:24, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NCORP and violates WP:PROMO. Potentially WP:G11. Kirbanzo (talk) 17:31, 28 September 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 13:27, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arokah[edit]

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

NO independent reliable coverage. All of the sources are review blogs, unreliable Editor General of Wiki (talk) 07:59, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 10:29, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - All listed sources are user reviews, blogs, press releases, or simply links to purchase the product. My Google search has not turned up anything else. Although it looks like it could be a fun game, it simply doesn't meet WP:GNG. Jmertel23 (talk) 14:59, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. —Mythdon 01:25, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A review of the sources referenced confirms Jmertel23's findings, and Wikipedia:Notability (software) or the general notability guideline is not met. Sam Sailor 09:18, 27 September 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 13:27, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Harpas[edit]

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

Poorly sourced article with two unreliable sourced and little else. Fails the general notability guidelines very badly. I will be removing the unreliable sources when this AfD is online. Addicted4517 (talk) 04:05, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:45, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:45, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:45, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.139.232.230 (talk) 23:29, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Too soon for what? The guy wrestled in the 1970s. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 00:21, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Harpas (and other Australian wrestlers of his era) may have received mainstream media coverage in his native country but someone familiar with the history of wrestling in Australia would need to prove the point with reliable sourcing. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 00:21, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources have not been found to make subject meet WP:GNG/WP:BASIC, and subject does not meet WP:ENTERTAINER either. Sam Sailor 08:32, 27 September 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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:26, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joe DiRosa[edit]

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

Not apparently notable apart from his company, which may not be notable either. Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:15, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete. Page was created by a single-use account, and most of the substantive additions to the page have been from single-use IPs or from User:Joedirosa himself: taken together these edits suggest this is a vanity page. None of the footnotes suggest that Mr. DiRosa meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines aside from the fact that he runs the New York Artist Series, and that company already has its own article. So this page should either be deleted or should become a redirect to the company page. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 04:32, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way, User:Artistseries, User:CertainlyHandsome, User:68.39.54.3, User:173.62.148.77, User:98.237.92.50, and User:2601:988:8200:810:F060:4963:26B7:BFC0 all appear to be single-purpose accounts whose sole contributions have been to the Joe DiRosa and New York Artist Series articles. Since many of their contributions have been unsourced data that only a person connected to the subjects would know (e.g., [15]), it's not unreasonable to suppose they are all the same person as User:Joedirosa. (To be fair, the User:Joedirosa account is not single-purpose.) — Lawrence King ^(talk) 04:45, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:47, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:47, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:47, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the pages for New York Artist Series and Joe DiRosa and the only history of me making and edits to those pre-existing pages was while I was trying to clean up the presentation.. The New York Artist Series page has been around since 2009 and none of the edits or page creation had anything to do with me. The Joe DiRosa page has been around since before that I believe but apparently from the records someone recreated it back in 2016.. I'm not sure what happened there .. The changes i made were cosmetic in nature and since this is my public image you have posted on here I don't see the problems since the pages were not done up to today's wiki standards.. Now perhaps I should have had a friend make the edits but FunPlusSmart seems to be trying to be vindictive which is definitely against wiki policy.

Oh 3rd thing is I went to go look at the draft for Onox, Inc. and saw a Create Page button instead of the submit article button.. I thought wiki upgraded my account to be able to edit so i made the page and removed the draft.. Once it was pointed out to me that the page shouldnt have been made I returned to the draft version so it could be authorized by whoever does that in the wiki community. For some reason I seem to be under attack.. For some reason this guy has this conspiracy theory which the history of these articles he is attacking proves isnt true. Joedirosa (talk) 09:23, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Plus I read this comments on the other page and they are ludicrous.. You think i created an account that was called CertainlyHandsome .. Come on.. there have been edits on these pages over 10 years .. I have had people remove all sorts of references, change the contents and I haven't paid attention. Now I go in and just try and clean up the mess its become and you guys are having a heart attack. I didnt even add information I just cleaned up the structure. I'll get someone to post a whole new set of references, links, and information. Just the other day someone removed an article that was originally published on Yahoo as a reference since the company shut down that part of it's editorial. Just because an article was removed from the web after 10 years doesn't mean it wasnt published. Some how this became a witch hunt. Joedirosa (talk) 09:28, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Since I don't have access to IP information for registered accounts, I withdraw my accusation that these different accounts represent the same individual editor. I still think that the page is not notable enough, but as I said I'm glad to have it become a redirect, which would mean people would still be able to learn about you and your company if they looked you up by name on Wikipedia. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 20:15, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to the subject's company as before, he fails WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 09:50, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the coverage cited by the article covers the subject's company, and only makes passing mention of the subject himself. Per WP:NOTINHERITED, notability is not always inheritable.--SamHolt6 (talk) 14:41, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I had quite an ugly experience with Joedirosa on the COI noticeboard btw. funplussmart (talk) 22:01, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete There are certainly other references which can be added to justify notability but I have to find someone else to do them. I'm not getting involved with the page myself. Joedirosa (talk) 22:31, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:Meat puppetry before doing that! Theroadislong (talk) 22:41, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Theroadislong: Wrong link! This is the correct one: WP:MEAT.

For the purposes of this discussion you don't need to add them to the article, just list them here. Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:10, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete neither the person in this article or the company he owns (New York Artist Series) appear notable by WP standards.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:07, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Do Not Delete~~

http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/gossip/celebs-toss-paunch-lines-flab-wars-article-1.559629 https://www.youtube.com/user/NewYorkArtistSeries/videos ( Shot over 100 Fashion Week Videos, Shot videos feat. Artist David Girabaldi w/ 300k+ views, Video of the Miracle on the Hudson Crash 100k+ Views) https://bbook.com/tag/joe-dirosa/ ( 2 Articles Blackbook Magazine) http://www.grubstreet.com/2008/10/limelight_still_for_rent.html https://wikibionetworth.org/Joe_DiRosa_net_worth http://berksluxury.com/?s=Joe+DiRosa (Publisher, Editor BerksLuxury.com) https://www.villagevoice.com/2008/08/26/limelight-club-to-re-enter-the-limelight/ https://www.law360.com/articles/521135/artist-series-offers-350m-cash-for-fuse-tv https://www.bloomberg.com/.../artist-series-makes-35o-million-cash-offer-for-fuse-tv https://www.rbr.com/artist-series-makes-350m-offer-for-fuse-tv/ https://www.pressreader.com/uae/the-national-news-business/20140324/281702612667228 https://observer.com/2009/02/holy-headache-finding-limelights-next-act/ https://observer.com/2008/10/former-limelight-now-priced-up-to-60-m/ http://fashionweekvideos.com/joe_dirosa/2007/new_york/september/new_york_fashion_week_september_2007.htm https://ny.eater.com/2008/8/26/6787543/eaterwire-the-lafrieda-black-label-dohings-the-future-of-limelight

Plus If i go into archive.org I can get you 3,000+ pieces of content I posted. Interviews with: Fashion Interviews Helena Fredriksson House of Diehl

Music Interviews Bebe Buell Interview Emily Lazar Paul Holmes DJ Jackie Christie Sofi Bonde DJ Christopher Lawrence Interview DJ Tiesto Interview Markus Schulz

Film & TV Interviews Laurence Kaldor Jayce Bartok Larry Turman Jaclyn DeSantis Robert Ackerman Tom Fontana

Artist Interviews Ernest Rosenberg Jasun Martz Keith Green

Plus I can probably find the 2 articles which were written on Yahoo which were deleted when they shut down their Voices section which i copied to a wix page so I wouldnt lose them. Probably a bunch more stuff too i can find. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joedirosa (talk • contribs) 06:52, 21 September 2018 (UTC) Joedirosa (talk) 07:08, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NONE of these sources are in-depth coverage, most are passing mentions at best, Youtube can't be used, Wikia sites can't be used, inyterviews are no good and press releases are not suitable either. Theroadislong (talk) 09:11, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are no press releases cited in those links. Many of the articles are more than a mention, as a matter of fact most are centered on or quote me. There was one wiki goof page cited. I've gone through the articles you guys have created and many of them aren't as relevant as any of these. The Artist Series websites were published for over 12 years with close to 20 million total visitors. They have been deactivated due to the financial strain of publishing when it wasn't a core business. I still own them all and many you don't see. Constructive comments are appreciated. Joedirosa (talk) 10:02, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to go through a long list like that in hopes that one of those turns out to be a usable source. If you'd like to prune that back to just the ones that meet the criteria in WP:GNG, I'll take a look at them. Kendall-K1 (talk) 11:48, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I hit a couple of them, and they are really minor: Village voice: "Well, now Steve Lewis—who was deported Limelight owner Peter Gatien’s right-eye man—interviews someone named Joe Dirosa, who states that he has partnered with Ashkenazy to exclusively lease out the joint—but not as a club!". Observer: DiRosa not mentioned at all. Berksluxury: a real estate and luxury products site with an article on mortgages by DiRosa. Eater: a sentence, almost: "Steve Lewis reports that the space that held the club Limelight (and The Avalon) will finally be in use again, but not as a club. Joe Dirosa will now be renting it out:". All in all, a junkpile of non-RS sources and passing mentions.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:33, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Do Not Delete~~ The NY Post NY Daily News, Village Voice, Black Book Magazine, Observer (You didnt read either article cause I am mentioned in both), The National News, Law360, Bloomberg, Grub Street and Eater are not reliable sources. This guy is on a witch hunt. His comments are unreliable for this topic. BerksLuxury.com is a Luxury Lifestyle online magazine which pushes no products for sale with over 10 articles written by me on luxury lifestyle items, restaurants, and real estate. How is this an unbiased opinion?Joedirosa (talk) 20:06, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's nice, except for the fact that the registered owner of berksluxury.com is Joe DiRosa.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:33, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Do Not Delete~~ I also noticed that not one person decided to take any of these articles and add them to the page. So essentially none of you are being unbiased at all. Joedirosa (talk) 20:08, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that BerksLuxury.com a Luxury Lifestyle online magazine with over 10 articles written by you is an independent source??? Theroadislong (talk) 20:13, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See Whois above. Joe DiRosa is the owner of Berksluxury.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:26, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Joe DiRosa, you can only !vote once. I have struck your second, third and fourth !votes above. Also, here is a tip for you. It very rarely works when the article subject badgers the volunteer editors of Wikipedia to keep an article. Clear arguments in moderation are fine, but multiple !votes, suggesting that you will use meatpuppetry to fix things, claiming you are really famous and the like are not. I'm not sure who added the section headers to the AFD, but I removed them for clarity. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:49, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My search produced no evidence of notabilty and the sources listed above are clearly insufficient. The subject of the article really ought to step aside, and let uninvolved editors evaluate the situation. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:35, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources are few and lack intellectual independence. Guy (Help!) 08:28, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is a good example of why we discourage WP:autobiography – it's probably unpleasant for Mr. DiRosa to be told that he does not appear to meet our notability requirements, but I can find no evidence that he does. All the hits on GBooks seem to be for the New Orleans politician of the same name. In the normal way, I'd suggest redirecting this to his company, New York Artist Series, but it seems unlikely that that can be shown to be notable either. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:58, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment https://web.archive.org/web/20140324064810/http://voices.yahoo.com/the-future-fuse-why-become-artist-12329843.html?cat=3 alternative reference to additional facts which everyone was so eager to delete. Joedirosa (talk) 02:17, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Joedirosa: it has been semi-referred to above, but let me link WP:PRIMARY and Wikipedia:Independent. To demonstrate the notability of a subject, a source must be reliable and indepandant of the subject in question. For this reason, the article linked above (written by you about a company you founded) is not independent by any metric.--SamHolt6 (talk) 03:12, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wasnt trying to demonstrate notability. There were a specific line of events which were mentioned and they deleted reference to the article. Then proceeded to delete the reference to the facts saying there was no reference. Joedirosa (talk) 03:26, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable enough. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:06, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:35, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Subtract the article subect's keep !vote and you have almost have snow delete:10 deletes and one redirect.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:19, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

True, except that three of the "delete" votes (mine, Theroadislong, and Justlettersandnumbers) were actually "delete or redirect". — Lawrence King ^(talk) 21:42, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Joedirosa and his socks have been indefed by a CheckUser. funplussmart (talk) 00:56, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to being a notable person. Wikipedia is not a place for self promotion, but sadly is being misused as such by some.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:44, 24 September 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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:25, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Boudreau[edit]

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

I can't find good sources for this article with one source. GNG Fail. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:54, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:54, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:54, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:54, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails GNG. The one source in the article has no link, but is cited as refuge.com. That is the website of a spa, and there is nothing on the site about art exhibitions. The ref is thus likely either not RS or entirely faked. SpinningSpark 03:31, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A Google search turned up zero sources. The only thing relating to the subject is a GoFundMe page to cover the cost of the subject's cremation and memorial service. Straightforward fail of WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 04:04, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The artist was mentioned and quoted on ABC 7 Eyewitness News, Gallery showcases work of recovering addicts, 4 February 2008, by Harry Porterfield. The artist is also mentioned and discussed on The Chicago Reader, Arts & Culture, Art Therapy, 6 March 2008, by Deanna Isaacs. And on his gallery website, Thomas Masters Gallery. So, to say "a Google search turned up zero sources" is not only imprecise, but simply erroneous. I found these reliable sources in a one minute search on Google, and will continue searching for a few more minutes. Coldcreation (talk) 06:05, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The artists is also mentioned on Chicago Artist Resource, Career Moves: Mieke Zuiderweg - Gallery Media Director, 26 October 2012 by Alicia Car. Coldcreation (talk) 06:14, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioned too on Chicago Art Magazine, Joe Boudreau’s Crazy F----- Maps. 19 October 2009, by Erik Wennermark. Coldcreation (talk) 06:23, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And Apartment Therapy, A Designer's Modern Mix in a Sophisticated Chicago Loft, 31 March 2017, Aimée Mazzenga. Coldcreation (talk) 06:27, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And Modern Luxury, Interiors. And Windy City Media Group in 2009. And a brief mention in Chicago Architect, Best Interior Designers Chicago. And (not sure how reliable this one is) Ranker, Famous Neo-expressionism Artists. And Crain's Chicago Business, 1 May 2009.Coldcreation (talk) 06:30, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Therefore, the article appears to pass the WP:GNG test. Coldcreation (talk) 07:32, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Coldcreation, GNG is not passed with a bunch of passing mentions which is what you seem to have there. Do you have anything with substantial coverage? SpinningSpark 08:02, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Chicago Art Magazine one is not a passing mention. I haven't decided on whether the sources are sufficient, but at least look at them properly first. Hzh (talk) 23:53, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is no evidence that any of his work is in any major art collection. Bearian (talk) 03:08, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - my analysis of the sources presented:
- ABC7 - passing mention
- Chicago Reader - passing mention
- Thomas Masters Gallery - directory listing
- chicagoartistsresource - bare mention
- chicagoartmagazine - in-depth coverage
- apartmenttherapy - bare mention
- modernluxury - passing mention
- Windy City Media - bare mention
- chicagoarchitect.org - passing mention
- ranker - not reliable
- chicagobusiness.com - passing mention

So it appears we one, and one only, good source, by which it fails WP:GNG. Does not otherwise appear to pass NARTIST. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:32, 28 September 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 Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Strikerforce^Talk 16:45, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Eggleton[edit]

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

Your results may vary, but my search turned up only interviews and passing mentions of his legendary greatness. Obviously established in the sci-fi/horror art illustration scene, but article has three sources and I cannot find more. GNG Fail. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:51, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:51, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:51, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:51, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep won the Hugo Award for Best Professional Artist multiple times. Passes WP:ARTIST. Vexations (talk) 02:55, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - if we can get some citations for them, the Hugo Award and Chesley Award are pretty significant. Also, he's got an asteroid named after him; how cool is that? ;) BOZ (talk) 13:03, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hugo Award for Best Professional Artist article notes his 8 wins, and has all the citations we could need. BOZ (talk) 13:07, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn OK, I'll stay away from Sci-fi articles in future. I had looked at the Hugo Award, but when I saw the Wordpress site and the web design, I gauged it for less notability than my esteemed colleagues above do. Article still only has three sources. Anyway, my mistake, apologies and withdrawn. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 13:48, 20 September 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 13:28, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Jenson[edit]

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

Without notability. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:30, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:30, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:30, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:30, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:30, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable artist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:40, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Current official website is at https://www.ivanjenson.com/ Jenson is an author as well, but I can't find sources to reference that would make this meet BASIC/GNG, and NARTIST is not met either. Sam Sailor 08:12, 27 September 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. Michig (talk) 06:15, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Gifted (Thai TV series)[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet notability guidelines, mostly unsourced. -- Alex^TW 02:09, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88^(talk) 02:18, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88^(talk) 02:18, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: We really need Thai speaker/readers to help assess this one – it's really hard to appraise the quality of the sources already used in the article without having somebody who reads Thai... In the absence of that, I'm leaning in the direction of "keep", as this one seems to meet WP:TVSHOW pretty easily, and has three sources which would seem to indicate that it's gotten independent coverage as per WP:GNG. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:59, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am torn here. Does it really deserve an English Wikipedia article if all that can be found are foreign sources, does it make it notable in that regard? It does seem to meet WP:GNG if I ignore what I just said. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:25, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The WP:GNG explicitly states, "Sources do not have to be available online or written in English." See the final sentence under the third main bullet. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:07, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - User:Jovanmilic97 The reason such topics deserve English wikipedia articles is the little-known (in the west) fact that English is the lingua franca in Asia. The Far East is incredibly diverse in terms of languages and writing systems, but it has a strong history of cross-cultural TV exchanges which has increased in recent years due to fansubbing. For this particular show, many Chinese fans are also watching it online (see here) despite not knowing a word of Thai. A Chinese person may not speak much English but he/she will be able to read far more English than Thai, and there are far more Thai-speaking fans who are able to write about the show and its cultural context in English than in Chinese. Therefore the translation process is commonly Thai -> English -> Chinese (or another language). (Another reason is that Google Translate fails with almost all Asian languages, if you don't believe me try the th.wiki article in Google Translate. However, it does a pretty good job translating from English to an Asian language. I believe it's because European languages are much more precise and unambiguous.) Timmyshin (talk) 07:16, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep News coverage is good. Here is Google News search results [16]. Note that both sanook.com and SpringNews are recognized as news source by the Google News search earlier, hence should be considered as reliable (Sanook is Thailand's top portal, SpringNews is one of a few news TV channels, Sudsapda is a weekly entertainment magazine by one of Thai top publisher). --Lerdsuwa (talk) 10:43, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NTV, nationally broadcast TV shows are likely to be notable, and sources provided are enough to show that it is in fact notable. Hzh (talk) 10:51, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[E/C] Comment: Lots of coverage in Thai, including in Kom Chad Luek,[17] Sanook[18] & Spring News.[19] While TV series routinely generate a lot of media coverage, not all of which is original and in-depth, there's some here that's more than rehashings of press releases. This Sudsapda article goes a bit into its production background.[20] Sanook reports it generating the highest ratings so far this year among teen series.[21] --Paul_012 (talk) 11:07, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per Lerdsuwa and Paul 012 – I suspected that this TV series was notable, and they have convinced me with the evidence provided. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:22, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Paul 012. English sources are preferred is they are of equal or better quality than sources in other languages – that is our only preference. Of course we have to use sources in other languages to write about phenomena in countries that speak other languages, just like basically any other encyclopedia with the ambition to cover the world has done. /Julle (talk) 00:40, 27 September 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 13:28, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aadara Hasuna[edit]

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

~~No indication this person meets GNG, can't find any sources outside of imdb and hasn't been sourced since 2009! CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:29, 6 September 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

My apologies, I put the wrong reasoning in this AFD, but fails WP:NFILM. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:51, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, at worst redirect to H. D. Premaratne. First, it's not even a person, it's a film. Looking for "Adara Hasuna" or "ආදර හසුන" gives further sources, but I'm not able to adequately search for Sri Lankan movie titles to definitely say that this is a notable film. It certainly gets enough mentions, and has been shown in film festivals around the world, but 1986 is too old to easily find many traces of this. Fram (talk) 13:35, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "NFILM"; it has "The film features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career.", which this film clearly does. A full length film is a major part of the career of any notable film maker (well, excluding some extremely rapid film makers like porn directors and the like). The Sri Lanka Daily Mirror considers the movie notable enough to give it some attention in April 2017 here. Fram (talk) 14:05, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:44, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:44, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:54, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:17, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Major director, major lead actor. Sources are almost certain to exist offline (if not online in sources that are in Sinhalese and therefore unintelligible to me). Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:31, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to WP:V? Sources could exist for any number of subjects but if no one can provide them, how can we possibly judge them? Saying that "they must exist offline" is absolutely ridiculous. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:23, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although I do agree with User:Chrissymad that it is wrong to simply assume notability without any sources. But With these two English sources [22][23] that call him this directors notable works and this movie as a visual poetry, I am inclined to keep. The local language is Sinhalese and Tamil, yet we have English sources that provide positive (minor) coverage, so User:Fram's assumption that Sinhalese media will have SIGCOV is not unfounded. --DBig Xrayᗙ 11:34, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Redirect to the director, I'm undecided which, either way it isn't delete. Szzuk (talk) 11:42, 27 September 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. Michig (talk) 06:11, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bihar Dalit Development Organization[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, promo, largely based on the own website and related sources The Banner talk 12:30, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:46, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:46, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even without going into Hindi and Bhojpuri coverage ,it is a notable organisation in Bihar in a area of caste conflict.It is also known as Bihar Dalit vikas samiti.Several Google Books hits even without considering Hindi and Bhojpuri sources.

^[1] ^[2] ^[3] ^[4] ^[5] ^[6] ^[7] ^[8] ^[9]^[10]

Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:23, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Yes, I have been searching on the Hindi name. But passing mentions convey no notability. The Banner talk 07:59, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on above sources. At least one source (#1) is self-published by the organization. About half of the sources above are very minor mentions of. sentence or less. I tend to agree that the org looks notable, but would note that the list above makes it look a lot more notable than sources actually make it.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:51, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
ThatMontrealIP, the book is typical Dalit-promo-BS but can you clarify upon your claim of self-published.Thanks! ∯WBG^converse 07:09, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, got the clue:-) ∯WBG^converse 07:12, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-Borderline stuff (weakly skewed towards keep) but will be commenting in some detail.∯WBG^converse 07:15, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Book (#1) was written by Prof A .K Lal of Govind Ballabh Pant Social Science Institute in 1997 Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:33, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:20, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:17, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. The organization looks notable enough. MaeseLeon (talk) 07:54, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has decent coverage in books. Much greater coverage is expected in Hindi and Bhojpuri sources as they are the local language of the region. per WP:BIAS--DBig Xrayᗙ 11:09, 22 September 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 13:28, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Priven Reddy[edit]

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

Highly promotional WP:BIO article full of WP:PUFF. Of 7 refs, 2 are specific. 3 are companies he started including websites.1 a promotional picture, in a auto mag. Non notable.Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep (talk) 01:11, 20 September 2018 (UTC) scope_creep (talk) 01:11, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:23, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:23, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The subject is covered in reputable south african sources, and is a billionaire in his country. Dijnonlips (talk) 16:15, 25 September 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Dijnonlips (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

Delete, pending evidence of non-trivial coverage from reliable publications, as required by WP:BLP policy. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 21:41, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails BASIC/GNG, sources are mainly WP:PRIMARYNEWS. Sam Sailor 06:06, 27 September 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) 06:07, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proud Refuge[edit]

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

Semi-advertorialized WP:AUTOBIO (compare creator's username to subject's birth name) of a musician who has no credible claim to passing WP:NMUSIC and no strong reliable source coverage to carry it. The notability claims here are a "hit" single whose status on any IFPI-certified pop chart is completely unspecified and unreferenced for the purposes of passing NMUSIC #2, and winning a minor local music award that does not pass NMUSIC #8 -- and the referencing is cutting no ice either, as it's referenced entirely to blogs and primary sources and the results page of a Google search rather than any evidence of reliable source coverage in even one GNG-eligible media outlet. As always, musicians are not entitled to use Wikipedia as a promotional venue -- but this shows no evidence of passing any of the required notability standards. Bearcat (talk) 00:53, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:14, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:14, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:15, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:15, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:15, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:16, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:17, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough evidence of significant notability. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 01:27, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a promotional autobiography that is a case of WP:PROMO, didn't notice it was an autobio when I deprodded it, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 15:43, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO, fails WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:57, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oevo[edit]

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

Asserts the 6 months old WP:NCORP policy. scope_creep (talk) 00:42, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:18, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:18, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:18, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is so clearly promotional. No way does it warrent any Wikipedia article. 70.27.95.244 (talk) 22:48, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the whole app isn't notable. And it does actually seem to be written in a non-neutral tone. Let me know otherwise and I could change my vote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:A99F:FB3F:F994:8E6E:C475:1748 (talk) 00:44, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Delete~~ now Delete as there are non-primary sources available, but many are mere mentions and others are very biased in ways. Certainly not enough coverage to pass notability. Handoto (talk) 17:08, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my vote to delete as looking through the page edit history, the app founder has been making his own edits to this article. Along with the fact that there is very limited and not enough coverage to deem this notable, the whole article's neutrality is now at risk here. Handoto (talk) 17:27, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as reasoning above. Promotional like crazy. Not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.139.232.234 (talk) 15:01, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete has some sources, but I believe not enough. They said above that the article is promotional, which I agree with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.47.183.114 (talk) 20:54, 25 September 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 13:28, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AO-31[edit]

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

Non-notable firearm. Searches turned up no reliable sources and little in-depth coverage even in unreliable sources. Created by a sock of User:Ctway. ansh 666 00:31, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 00:32, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 00:32, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:19, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or possibly redirect to AG-043. Lack of SIGCOV - I'm having trouble finding sources for this.Icewhiz (talk) 08:57, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete...No RS to speak of, may or may not exist. At best, just another dead end Russian prototype. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RAF910 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now, no RS found when searching for "AO-31" Автомат Опытный, hard to tell if this is a misunderstanding or prototype, but notable it is not. Sam Sailor 06:51, 27 September 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 13:28, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AB-3[edit]

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

Non-notable firearm, no reliable sources could be found, and what unreliable sources exist seem to be mostly WP mirrors. Links in the article (which are dead) point to alternathistory.org.ua, which could indicate that it's made up. ansh 666 00:27, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 00:27, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 00:27, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:21, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - failing WP:V at the moment (alternathistory - deadlink but seems like a RS fail) - let along WP:GNG.Icewhiz (talk) 08:51, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete...Alternathistory refs are NOT RS --RAF910 (talk) 18:40, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hard to tell if this rifle actually existed. Sam Sailor 06:41, 27 September 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 Henry Selick. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:26, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Shadow King[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject is an unfinished and unreleased film. Per WP:NFF canceled/unreleased films should not have their own article. A search comes up with press releases from 2013 and talk about maybe restarting it in 2016, but nothing current. Jip Orlando (talk) 20:06, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:21, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It looks like the last AfD ended with the consensus it should be merged, but I don't see where that ever happened. Barring any major progress on the film since 2015, I would say that this should be merged and redirected to the director's article. So far it looks like the only true news was that it's still being shopped around so a lot of this could be summarized into a few lines of text or a paragraph in the director's article. ReaderofthePack (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:56, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would of course recommend against stating definitively that any of the voice talent is signed for the film, as a lot has happened between 2013 and today. Some of the voice talent may have changed their mind or whatever studio picks this up (if it gets picked up again) may not want some of the actors in the cast. For example, some companies may see Jeffrey Tambor as box office poison. ReaderofthePack (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:59, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:52, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:35, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. NFF, try the merge again. Szzuk (talk) 21:53, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Target is Henry Selick. Szzuk (talk) 21:55, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:25, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge again and redirect to director article Henry Selick as a categorized {{R from film}}, fails the notability guideline for films. Sam Sailor 06:30, 27 September 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) Szzuk (talk) 11:33, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Count Maximilian von Götzen-Iturbide[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Maximilian von Götzen-Iturbide (2nd nomination)

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

Not notable. Article appears to contain no reliable secondary sources. Similar article was deleted in Jan 17 for lack of notability. Recommend merging into House of Iturbide, which was the decision last time. Flyte35 (talk) 17:35, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:51, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:51, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:51, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as standalone article - head of a Royal House and covered in various independent news sources, Excélsior, Milenio, Noticieros Televisa and books Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels and The Imperial House of Mexico: The House of Iturbide -dwc lr (talk) 12:46, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If we confine the article to the information covered in independent news sources Excélsior, Milenio, and Noticieros Televisa, it appears that would leave us with about two lines about this subject. That could easily be merged into House of Iturbide. That's why we merged the article the last time this came up. Flyte35 (talk) 14:05, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I seem to recall a consensus that heads of defunct monarchies are presumed notable. Bearian (talk) 00:48, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall any such discussion. This seems to fail basic notability guidelines for people, since the subject hasn't received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Notability is not inherited, but if there was some prior discussion about this, that would be interesting to see.Flyte35 (talk) 13:57, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I fail to see the argument, that a person first in line for a defunct throne shouldn't be notable per se. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 16:26, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:50, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 00:16, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Having read the keep !votes above and the responses thereto, I concur in that consensus: heads of deposed dynasties are notable ipso facto in real life as reflected in coverage of their claims and/or doings, and a list of coverage having been provided in earlier discussion means that sources are available for an article distinct from general inclusion in House of Iturbide. There has been discussion of coverage of royalty, reigning and deposed, in the past, for e.g. here, that I think is more compelling and useful than the blanket Notability is not inherited essay (not a guideline), because it recognizes and accepts what people do find notable, rather than attempting to restrict Wikipedia articles to what we are told we ought to consider notable. FactStraight (talk) 02:13, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that's relevant. The discussion you're citing has to do with the decision to retain an article about someone whose father actually was the shah of Iran from 1941 to 1979. Richard von Götzen seems to be the great-great-great grandson of someone who ruled Mexico for 11 months in the 1820s; it's hardly equivalent. The discussion you cite also pertains to a woman with at least 10 articles from reliable secondary sources about her. She is notable. This person is much more obscure. The fact that the decision in that case was to keep the article doesn't mean being a member of a family with some claim to any throne is notable and worthy of an article. It's the lack of secondary sources here that are a problem. Flyte35 (talk) 17:58, 21 September 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) gidonb (talk) 06:13, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maliz E. Beams[edit]

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

I could not find the coverage to demonstrate notability. Boleyn (talk) 13:49, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:44, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 05:04, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 00:16, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, i note that (nearly) all the other counsellors have individual wikiarticles (i know that being in this position does not automatically make the person wikinotable but does reflect the notableness of such people), also that the article presently has 8 references, is there anything wrong with them (need more depth, not reliable?)?, here are some more that editors may want to have a look at: from The Boston Globe - "From retirement planning to lifelong planning" - interview with Beams about the implications for retirement investors post GFC growth (subcription required), American Banker - "The 25 Most Powerful Women in Finance" - Beames is no. 8, Puget Sound Business Journal - "Ex-Voya CEO joins Bellevue-based cannabis investor group's advisory board" (subscription required. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:55, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:00, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:00, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, also appears in Marquis Who's Who - "Maliz E. Beams Edition/Format: Encyclopedia article Encyclopedia article: English", is that an okay source? Coolabahapple (talk) 13:12, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article underwent a major overhaul since nomination that unambiguously demonstrates notability. MarginalCost (talk) 14:04, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. She seems to have been an instrumental cog in the machinery to destroy the American Empire, so when history is written she shall be noted. Bearian (talk) 03:00, 23 September 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 13:29, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Heidi Katrina[edit]

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

Non-notable professional wrestler, fails WP:GNG Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 11:57, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:47, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:47, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:48, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:48, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AmericanAir88^(talk) 01:43, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Coverage is insufficient to meet WP:GNG and I see nothing to convince me that WP:ENTERTAINER is met. Papaursa (talk) 18:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 00:16, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable entertainer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:39, 24 September 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.

[1] Dalits in Action: An Evaluation of Bihar Dalit Vikas Samiti

[2] Mapping Bihar: From Medieval to Modern Times

[3] Social Exclusion: Essays in Honour of Dr. Bindeshwar Pathak Volume 1 Pg 87-88

[4] Dalits and Human Rights: Dalits: the broken future pg 140

[5] Community Warriors: State, Peasants and Caste Armies in Bihar pg 147

[6] Broken People: Caste Violence Against India's "untouchables".By Smita Narula, Human Rights Watch Pg 147

[7] Beyond the priestly call Bihar Times

[8] The Journal of Social Transformation, Volume 10 Pg 21-22

[9] Journal of Social and Economic Development, Volume Institute for Social and Economic Change, 2007 - Economic development pg 69-70

[10] IASSI Quarterly, Volume 23 pg 91

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]