Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 August 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 14 August 16 August >

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:28, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jobstr[edit]

Jobstr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Weak notability, fails WP:NWEB, WP:CORPDEPTH. Störm (talk) 21:39, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:40, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not much there at per coverage. Seemed to have dissapeared. References are run of the mill, fail WP:ORGIND. Usual startup news. No coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creepTalk 00:41, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Philadelphia Police Department#Notable events. Based on my assessment of the discussion, the delete argument hinges on "page was created in a rush" and that it's too early to establish notability, that the topic does not meet various inclusion guidelines (these posted in the opening post), doesn't need its own article and that the keep arguments do not explain how "coverage" establishes notability or how mass shootings are notable (there is also a question about whether this was a mass shooting). The keeps are arguing that there is significant coverage - including brief coverage in national news organizations - that the event is significant, that mass shootings are inherently notable (paraphrasing Rklawton's argument) and finally a however contested request for WP:IAR. Finally, the merge case is that this appears to be a simple police operation that went awry and should thus be discussed on the page of the police force involved, Philadelphia Police Department. Going by headcount there is 5+2 (the deletion nomination plus Inter&anthro's post) delete, 1+1+1 merge (I am counting "or" voters double, +1 is Blaylockjam10's conditional merge argument and the other +1) and 7+1 (+1 is Blaylockjam10's conditional keep argument) keep arguments. I've ignored one sockpuppet and am inclined to consider Blaylockjam10's stance as a merge given that nobody has posted evidence of new gun legislation yet.

On balance, it seems like the discussion is more supportive of getting rid of the article, as the "get rid of it" side is slightly prevailing by headcount and more importantly their arguments about there being no indication of notability is well taken, while most of the keep arguments are mere "significant coverage exists" with little explanation of how this establishes notability (not all coverage makes a topic notable; the claim of international coverage comes closest but as noted by WP:GEOSCOPE it does not automatically imply notability) and some claims of inherent notability that aren't grounded in any policy or guideline.

That leaves the question of how to get rid of the article. The delete camp has for the most part not contested any merge argument, but these are in the numerical minority and some of the merge proponents' arguments appear to be compatible with deletion. I don't particularly like this option has nobody has explicitly suggested it and it thus has a little supervote-ish character, but actually redirecting seems like the best way to satisfy both the "get rid of the article" stance while also leaving the possibility for useful content to be transported over to the police force article. Thus, redirect it is - contestations can be brought at the usual venues like deletion review, my talk page and WP:RFD. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:26, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

August 2019 Philadelphia shooting[edit]

August 2019 Philadelphia shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This seems to have been created in a bit of a rush. As of right now I have serious doubts it passes WP:N(E). Specifically I am looking at WP:EVENTCRIT #4 and WP:LASTING. See also WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENTISM and WP:10YT. - Ad Orientem (talk) 21:36, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Ad Orientem (talk) 21:36, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Ad Orientem (talk) 21:36, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Ad Orientem (talk) 21:36, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ad Orientem (talk) 21:36, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Ad Orientem (talk) 21:36, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I feel that both the article, and this nomination, are too soon to establish if the subject is notable enough for an article here on Wikipedia. The incident ended less than 24 hours ago, and there is still are some reports and information coming out. Yet to be seen what the impact will be. Inter&anthro (talk) 22:59, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If this article is retained, I suggest the title should be changed to 2019 Philadelphia shootout. The volume of gunfire produced by civilian firearms in urban settings is only half of the story. This situation, like the 2015 San Bernardino attack produced a heavy volume of police gunfire. In both situations the percentage of hits per shot fired apparently favored the civilians, although police investigations and press releases have a disincentive to attribute damage to police gunfire. Since every bullet fired hits something, it might be valuable to cover situations encouraging assessment of whether police weapons and procedures adequately consider the probability of collateral damage from over-penetration and ricochets in urban settings. Thewellman (talk) 23:39, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP – Significant event; significant coverage. It irks me that every time a new article is created, someone (both inevitably and immediately) calls for its deletion. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:11, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm getting tired of people rushing to create articles about in progress events when it's not at all clear they will meet our guidelines for encyclopedic notability. I'm guessing you did not bother to read any of the linked guidelines I posted. Significant coverage is not the only criteria for determining the notability of events. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:11, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Encyclopedic relevance is not a particularly high standard, especially with regards to an event of national and international significance. Additionally, this incident hits all the marks of an article that shouldn't be deleted: it's presented neutrally; it's readily verifiable, per every major news organization in the United States; it contains no speculation or unfounded hypotheses; and it's encyclopedic. Frevangelion (talk) 05:48, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Significant coverage is not the only criteria for determining notability of events. If this is the best that can be mustered in response to the linked PAG in my nom then I am becoming increasingly convinced that this page does not pass WP:EVENT. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:11, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Significant event with national coverage. It took up the A1 slot briefly in several national news organizations, including CNN and the New York Times. The War on Drugs is still ongoing, and I consider this particular incident as an instance of the greater international campaign to curb drug trafficking. Frevangelion (talk) 05:38, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If this is a small notable battle in the War on Drugs, that's a good article for a few sentences on this. But a bunch of flesh wounds fade out of history almost as soon as the arraignment, generally. No lasting impact on the wider guns, race or policing issues, either, I predict. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:18, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, sort of thing that happens all the time, of no impact. Hyperbolick (talk) 14:40, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Happens "all the time"? Can you please cite a few other examples? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:40, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    GunViolenceArchive.org shows 80 other Americans (including ten other Philadelphians, five at once) were shot and survived since August 15 (and 24 weren't so lucky). InedibleHulk (talk) 17:54, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    If we're talking shot cops, only three since this case, but one dude was shot at least three times. Chest, leg and groin. His partner took it in the bulletproof vest instead (apparently still a standoff right now). InedibleHulk (talk) 19:02, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    ... and they had eight-hour standoffs, that made national news, also ... correct? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This Missouri showdown is going on five hours, so I can't say yet. Bet somebody dies, though. Everything makes national news online. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:35, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Seven hours now, and an hour ago it made CNN International headlines. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:13, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    We Got Him! James D. Cummings, 31, safe and sound. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:23, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge - Do NOT delete. Keep, or merge parts of the article to Philadelphia_Police_Department#Notable_events. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:44, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually a merge would be an acceptable alternative to deletion and the Philly PD is a good target article. Maybe a paragraph or two at the most. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:07, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Philadelphia_Police_Department#Notable_events. Best, GPL93 (talk) 02:00, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge No need for this shooting to have it's own article...especially since all police officers received minor injuries and were released from the hospital Wednesday night while the standoff was still ongoing. Deathscape (talk) 02:55, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now It sounds like this may lead to new gun legislation in Pennsylvania. If that happens, I think this article would meet WP:LASTING. If it doesn't lead to new legislation, merge to the "Notable events" section of the Philadelphia Police Department article. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 20:53, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
1) WP:CRYSTAL; 2) if it does lead to new gun legislation in Philadelphia, and if that legislation is notable, this would be a worthy bit to include in an article on that legislation, to help explain its origin. But that doesn't support it having its own article. TJRC (talk) 18:34, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this page dont give this person fame only 6 people were slighty injured this is not worthy of an article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaysfan7077 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC) (moved to the proper area by 75.111.23.74 (talk))[reply]
  • Keep per above, this is a significant event and has been covered adequately. Davey2116 (talk) 21:29, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this was just another drug bust, if somewhat more bloody - nothing of historical importance rating an entry in an encyclopedia - by Monday it will be lost in the scramble of other news stories50.111.3.150 (talk) 10:10, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or userfy. - Seriously, this one was rushed. Writing an article about a news story while the event is on-going is rarely justified. We can't begin to evaluate Wikipedia:Notability_(events)#Inclusion_criteria, genreally discussing enduring significance. Moving it to the "Notable events" section of the PPD article is the same problem, different page. - SummerPhDv2.0 05:44, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per above, definitely received significant coverage. Thanks, EDG 543 (talk) 13:54, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, significant coverage is not the sole criteria for WP:EVENTs. I feel like I'm banging my head on a brick wall here. Please review the policies and guidelines in the nominating statement and address them. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:03, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Philadelphia_Police_Department#Notable_events. This is not a mass shooting like the Gilroy Garlic Festival shooting, the 2019 El Paso shooting or the 2019 Dayton shooting. It's a police operation that went bad when the suspect began shooting. I don't think this operation passes the WP:10YEARTEST; it's more in in the nature of news than encyclopedia material. It's certainly pertinent to the merge target, and should be discussed there. TJRC (talk) 18:31, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Given the decades-long debates over gun control and mass shootings in the U.S., I think any article devoted specifically to a single mass shooting, properly sourced, is sufficiently notable. I'm not proposing to define a mass shooting here, but I think six wounded people would likely qualify in whatever definition we choose to adopt. Rklawton (talk) 01:28, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your position appears to be inconsistent with our policies and guidelines. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:31, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They can always claim WP:IAR Зенитная Самоходная Установка (talk) 02:10, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
True. IAR is one of those things that I have always believed should be safe, legal... and rare. IAR is a bit like what is sometimes called an "affirmative defense." In effect you are conceding that PAG is against you, but you are saying we should make an exception owing to some special circumstance. If you are making an IAR argument you should state as much clearly, and why you think an exception to our customary PAG is called for. In this case the argument appears to be less an appeal for a one off exception and more that we should chuck our guidelines entirely where the subject is American mass shootings. I don't see a convincing IAR argument for a limited one time exception given the pedestrian nature of the subject, much less the suggestion that we should elevate American gun violence above our notability guidelines. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:21, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: An article devoted specifically to a single mass shooting, properly sourced, is notable. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:02, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't found automatic notability for mass shootings anywhere in our guidelines. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin This would appear to be a discussion where WP:NOTAVOTE should be born in mind. I would encourage the closing admin to read the comments and weigh the WP:PAG cited by both sides in their arguments. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:24, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:27, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Red Eagle Buses[edit]

Red Eagle Buses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable UK company, fails WP:CORP. Bbarmadillo (talk) 21:13, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:14, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 13:40, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 13:40, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:27, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shantanu Arora[edit]

Shantanu Arora (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reason Lekkala R Reddy (talk) 13:55, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: The Article doesn't meet the notability guidelines of Wikipedia and promoting content. Lekkala R Reddy (talk) 13:55, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic306, I think the nominator didn't make the AfD nomination correctly, and a bot added the AfD tag to the article – see here: [1]. Richard3120 (talk) 21:31, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:34, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:34, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:34, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 17:04, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 20:20, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:32, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Durgai Avenue[edit]

Sri Durgai Avenue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article fails WP:N guidelines. It is about a local residential locality inside Perambur that doesn't found to be significant. So I am suggesting to delete the article. Aadhitharajantalk 16:49, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:07, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:08, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Can't search in Tamil, but I'm not seeing any indication that this is a defined area rather than a generic street; perhaps merge to Perambur. Reywas92Talk 21:11, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 17:14, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 20:20, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:26, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Global Scholars Group[edit]

Global Scholars Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NORG. Tagged from creation (no sources, then notability). Present article is unsourced. In my WP:BEFORE I don't see much. I was able to find a different group - in KU. I was able to find a few sources mentioning speakers at the symposium - however they do not provide detailed coverage of the symposium nor the group.Icewhiz (talk) 16:03, 1 August 2019 (UTC) Icewhiz (talk) 16:03, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:04, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:04, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:04, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:04, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 17:14, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Icewhiz says it best, but on my own search, I have found nothing but minimal coverage. The lack of coverage and notability leads to a failure of the WP:GNG and WP:ORG. AmericanAir88(talk) 20:33, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 20:20, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:24, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

M. Mukherjee[edit]

M. Mukherjee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This cricketer fails to meet WP:GNG. This RfC has already confirmed that SSGs like WP:CRIN do not supersede the GNG. I could only find statistical profile on CricketArchive and Cricinfo which can be regarded as trivial coverage per WP:SPORTBASIC. Dee03 20:20, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reason:

G. Das (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A. Chowdhury (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
P. Chowdhury (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
J. Mehra (Assam cricketer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
J. Mehra (United Provinces cricketer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
R. Tripathi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
N. Singh (cricketer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
S. Kumar (cricketer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
S. Rehman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
P. Rashid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A. Ahmed (cricketer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A. Haque (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Dee03 20:20, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Dee03 20:20, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Dee03 20:20, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dee03 20:20, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - once again I ask, how are you suddenly finding a bunch of articles seemingly completely out of nowhere when they are all in the same place, and randomly deciding that they offend you? Every single article I've created is in the same place on my old archived user page. Seems a shame that the encyclopedia is being hacked down just for fun and selective censorship. Bobo. 20:27, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I had listed these articles on my sandbox back in 2017. I just did not have the time or patience to nominate them until now. These articles do not "offend" me but fail the basic notability criteria. Dee03 20:35, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Basic notability criteria? WP:N? That's about as basic as you can get. GNG or SNG. Fluffy indistinct guidelines like GNG, used purely to bypass N, only exist for the sake of selective censorship. Bobo. 20:44, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
GNG vs SSG has already been discussed in the RfC I have linked above as well as many AfD discussions such as this recent one. Dee03 20:54, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - and please, if you wish to claim that CA and CI coverage is insufficient, tag every article with just these links - or perhaps even none, including all the Test cricket articles I've noted elsewhere, with AfD notices. Bobo. 20:28, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, CA and CI statistical coverage is insufficient to establish notability. I would not nominate Test cricketers' articles without doing a thorough WP:BEFORE check which I have done in this case. Dee03 20:35, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and per consensus established at recent AfDs such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D. Gamit. These are not biographies, they are thinly disguised score cards, and often we don't even have enough information to unambiguously identify the player. This information would be better presented as lists of cricketers. Reyk YO! 07:48, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the outcomes of recent AfDs. These are surnames and initials on scorecards with no other biographical information available. Given this we're unlikely to be able to find further information to do more than verify their existence. In all but two cases they are known to have played only one match which reinforces this view. Mehra and A Chowdrey are the exceptions who played 4 (including two miscellaneous) and 3 matches respectively. If that were rather more and I had more biographical information I might be convinced that there were merits for keeping them. Of course, they can always be re-created if sources do become available. My preference would always be for a redirect to a suitable list (along the lines of List of Bedfordshire County Cricket Club List A players), but those lists don't really exist for Indian cricket yet and recent AfDs convince me that delete is a more likely outcome in these circumstances. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:13, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All. with initial and a last name, there is big problem in with verification and these players fail WP:GNG by a mile. As per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D. Gamit - no such article should merit a page in Wikipedia. CASSIOPEIA(talk)
  • Delete all It is high time we got ride of all these place filler cricketeer articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:45, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In line with the agreed deletion of cricketers where no biographical information, beyond their last name, is avaliable. A shame, as I bet some of these guys from the early days of Indian first-class cricket have interesting stories how they got into teams dominated by British colonial officials. StickyWicket (talk) 22:44, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. -- Harshil want to talk? 04:23, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all articles fail WP:GNG, which trumps WP:NSPORTS of which WP:CRIN forms part. I would have no prejudice against re-creation if new sources come to light. 'Harrias talk 09:50, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per WP:CRIN which states "judge notability by reference to a substantial secondary source that makes clear it is discussing a senior player, team, venue or match in historical rather than statistical terms." All these fail WP:GNG.----Pontificalibus 11:07, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. After two weeks of discussion there seems to be a great deal of ambivalence here. There are no clear comments favoring either keeping or deleting the page beyond that of the OP. I am treating this as a de-facto Prod. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:58, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ion Göttlich[edit]

Ion Göttlich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The topic of this article does not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. --ChristlicheMorgenröte (talk) 09:22, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:05, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:25, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:25, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Have to admit this was a misinformed vote, before properly reading the sources. On the fence at the moment, as it only has one source meeting GNG. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 19:31, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Eurosport does not state anything factual about this subject at all, though. It's only use would be as a source for false information. Uncle G (talk) 19:37, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Quite honestly, it reads like a hoax. Very dubious, to say the least. I'd like to see what other more experienced editors say about this before I commit myself. No Great Shaker (talk) 19:14, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of the 4 sources currently in the article, only 1 is actually factual, the Bicycling one. The others are fiction, fictional stuff about this fictional character. The factual one is not a passing mention, either, but specifically about the creation and reception of this fictional character. To satisfy the PNC, I maintain that multiple such sources are the goal. Uncle G (talk) 19:37, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the sources must discuss it in the context of Göttlich being fiction, and must as such be from an out of universe perspective in order to establish notability. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:48, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 20:19, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:02, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Edmonds[edit]

Jeff Edmonds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Autobiography. Previously deleted. Not my field of expertise but I am not seeing much on Google. Are the publications enough? JamesG5 (talk) 19:57, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes. Sorry for it being an autobiography. I have found that most of my friends at U of Toronto have pages and most at York U do not. Maybe this is because they are better and maybe because no one has been proactive. I thought I would make some for my colleagues at York. I started with Peter Cribb. Then sorry, I leaped and did my own. Sure. Delete it. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeffAEdmonds (talk • contribs) 20:08, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete creating an article on oneself is a total violation of our terms of use and should result in immediate deletion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:15, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:24, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:24, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:25, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete admitted WP:AUTOBIO. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:20, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. Barca (talk) 13:58, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yes, writing one's autobiography on Wikipedia is strongly frowned upon. But the content itself is rather dry and standard — if someone else had written it, we wouldn't regard it as promotionally toned. An h-index of 22 with 2,300+ citations is also a decent argument for WP:PROF#C1. Sure, what counts as "highly cited" varies from field to field, but I can't recall an instance where anyone with an h-index above 20 actually failed WP:PROF#C1 in the final consensus. So, yes, a stern warning to the page's creator, and an admonition to read our Conflict of Interest guideline, but let's not be bitey about it, either. XOR'easter (talk) 16:20, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    There were also two three textbook reviews, both all paywalled [2][3][4]. XOR'easter (talk) 02:43, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, and on his faculty website he has a copy of a news item in the Toronto Star. It doesn't appear to be available on the Star website any longer, but I was able to verify on LexisNexis that it's an accurate copy. XOR'easter (talk) 14:55, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per XOR'easter, I was thinking the same thing. The citation record should be paramount, as the autobiography (frowned upon but not banned) is neutral-toned. Curiocurio (talk) 17:10, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, without prejudice against recreation if somebody without a conflict of interest can do a better job of writing something with some actual substance and citing some actual evidence of reliable (i.e. non-primary) sourcing to support it. University professors don't automatically get Wikipedia articles just because they have faculty profiles on the university's own website; they still need some form of reliable sourcing independent of their own employer. I'm willing to reconsider this if it sees the necessary improvement before this discussion closes, but absent that I favour the blow it up and start over approach. Bearcat (talk) 22:12, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:PROF#C1 based on citations in Google scholar. The page is not promotional. The profile on the university website isn't what qualifies Edmonds for an article, it's the impact of his work (as measured by citations).Thsmi002 (talk) 02:13, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    A Wikipedia article lives or dies on the quality or risibility of its sourcing. There is no notability claim that any person can ever make that is so "inherently" notable that it exempts the person from actually having to have any non-primary sourcing to support it. Bearcat (talk) 03:44, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. GS Citations rather marginal for a very highly cited field. Does not yet meet WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:47, 5 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. Autobiographies aren't prohibited, seems to meet WP:PROF, and be otherwise notable. Stifle (talk) 15:01, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rollidan (talk) 18:27, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - seems to just about pass criteria 1 of the academic notability guidelines, per XorEaster and Thsmi002 ~~ OxonAlex - talk 18:37, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NPROF, although acknowledging the weak sources for biographical information (note XOR'easter's comment about an offline news article). H-index on the low side (especially for PhD in early 90s) but acceptable. Being an autobiography is not a valid criterion for deletion on its own. Polyamorph (talk) 19:12, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Yes, technically one can make a plausible case here for passing WP:PROF#C1 based on citations. However, I am not seeing much else in the record to indicate satisfying WP:PROF (e.g. thinks like journal editorships, awards, being an elected fellow of a scholarly society, giving particularly prestigious lectures/lecture series, etc). Citability is pretty good, but for the kind of computer science and discrete math that the subject is doing, an h-index of 22 is not particularly special. Since notability under WP:PROF appears to be weak-ish, the fact that this is a WP:AUTO case pushes it firmly into the delete column for me. We can't just say that WP:AUTO does not prohibit autobiographies. If WP:AUTO means anything at substantive all, it is that in the absence of strong and clear-cut evidence of notability, autobiographies should be deleted. Nsk92 (talk) 18:40, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 20:17, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nothing in AUTO prevents a perfectly good article already written to remain; AUTO was meant to be preventative, not punitive. It shouldn't have been done, but it was; and since it looks ok now it should remain. StonyBrook (talk) 20:54, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    AUTO isn't a reason for deletion in and of itself, no — but lacking any evidence of reliable sourcing to get the subject over WP:GNG is. Bearcat (talk) 02:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It is notable and properly sourced - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:12, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:19, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Maes[edit]

Dan Maes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable candidate for office. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. All coverage appears to be in the context of the election that he ran in. No WP:LASTING notability is apparent. any important information can be merged to 2010 Colorado gubernatorial election. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:01, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:01, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:01, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:01, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I find WP:LASTING crediable here. - Scarpy (talk) 20:49, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - failing NPOL. It's not egregious enough to trip any of the attack pages, but I think this page was actually created to be negative towards Dan Maes. Everything has that "slightly negative" sense about it, which wouldn't happen if either a supporter or a neutral writer made it. Were it to remain, it would fail NPOV. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:30, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. People do not get articles just for being candidates in elections they did not win; rather, to make him eligible for an article, it would be necessary to demonstrate that he was notable for more than just being a losing candidate, such as having already had preexisting notability for other reasons (e.g. as a person who had already been a member of the state legislature or Congress, or a mayor of one of Colorado's major cities, or a notable actor or writer or athlete) — and since every candidate in every election always gets some campaign coverage in that context, such coverage does not automatically grant candidates a GNG-based exemption from having to pass NPOL. The election-specific content can be addressed in the election article itself — but there's no evidence that he has the lasting significance as an individual that would be needed to warrant his own standalone WP:BLP as a separate topic from the election as a whole. Bearcat (talk) 19:26, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable candidate for public office.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:57, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There isn't any evidence that he has the WP:LASTING significance as an individual that would be needed to warrant his own standalone. --SalmanZ (talk) 22:26, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He is a footnote from a campaign. Not even his book "Running Without Cowboy Boots" is getting any press.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:18, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Just not notable. Bearian (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 keep. (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 03:55, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Extinctive prescription[edit]

Extinctive prescription (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Legal term. WP:DICDEF. Sources are all low-quality. Sandstein 20:00, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:03, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:03, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think the reference to Prescription Act 1832 (barely) saves it from being a mere dicdef. While this stub needs a lot of work, I think it passes notability. TJRC (talk) 21:28, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's the nomination that is low quality. This is not a dictionary article; it's a stub. WP:DICDEF explains the difference and says

    "One perennial source of confusion is that a stub encyclopedia article looks very much like a dictionary entry, and stubs are often poorly written; another is that some paper dictionaries, such as "pocket" dictionaries, lead users to the mistaken belief that dictionary entries are short, and that short article and dictionary entry are therefore equivalent."

Then there's the complaint about sourcing. There are works of hundreds of pages about the topic and here's an accessible example. So, we have misunderstanding of policy and a failure to follow WP:BEFORE. See also WP:IMPERFECT and WP:NOTCLEANUP. Andrew D. (talk) 23:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I gotta speak up for the nominating editor here. It was a pretty poor article, and while I think it should be kept, the nomination here does not look like it was made either in bad faith or incompetently. I found a number of sources, but if I didn't have the Heinonline amd JSTOR access, it would have been very difficult to see that they supported the keep. TJRC (talk) 22:38, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I'm happy to buy that. For several of the sources, the front page abstract didn't really include anything on EP, so even if they did come up, they'd be disregarded. I could only view and grow it because I have JSTOR access. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:46, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there's clearly good enough sourcing, and I've added some more content to make it clearer that DicDef doesn't apply. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:43, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:HEY - anyway, the concept itself is notable. Bearian (talk) 16:45, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:19, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jackie Dallas (actress)[edit]

Jackie Dallas (actress) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Actress with a some roles in lesser known shows, or a minor role in a well-known show, but doesn't meet notability criteria. References given mention her as being in the cast, but none are significant coverage of the actress herself. ... discospinster talk 19:16, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:27, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:27, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is significant coverage on the shows and films in which she's appeared and she is listed as a credited actress on all of her titles. The size of the role doesn't make any difference as to whether she is credible; she has done a significant amount of work that is accompanied by a significant amount of press. The article writing can change but I don't see the need for more credible press as it's already present and there are nearly 30 sources supporting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hannahandos1 (talk • contribs) 20:05, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

She has had notable roles in smaller indie films such as The Pining with Tom Sizemore, which have gone on to receive significant press coverage. I will work on filling the article with coverage from her more significant roles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hannahandos1 (talk • contribs) 22:34, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Deloete when even in a direct-to-video film your role is "waitress" you are just plain not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:05, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:11, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:42, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rachele Royale[edit]

Rachele Royale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not convinced this person meets notability criteria. In the majority of the references she is mentioned, but they are not about her. A few of them are only press releases, and there are some "news"-style anonymous blog postings with no editorial oversight, and radio appearances of the standard PR-campaign type. ... discospinster talk 19:09, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:24, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:24, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:08, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No RS and quick checking just turns up gobs of social media. Agricola44 (talk) 01:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Looks like all keep arguments were by the same user in the form of sockpuppets and haven't convinced anyone else anyhow. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:41, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mashrafe (song)[edit]

Mashrafe (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSONGS & WP:GNG (didn't ranked on national or significant music or sales charts, didn't won any award, have no review from any independent source). I'm from BD & i even never heard of this song. Thing is mashrafe mortaza is very popular, anything related to him gets media attention very easily but it doesn't mean everything notable. this artilces has some news source but the main subject of news is Mashrafee rather than the song. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 18:20, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

note: This article is created by User:Rasi56 who is a sock of Hafiz ansi Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hafiz ansi --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 17:41, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:21, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@আফতাবুজ্জামান: this song was written by Robiul Islam Jibon, he is enough famous,composed by Rumman Chowdhury. If you don’t heard then It's your fault. And yes why not if song about any famous person it also boost the views. And talking about charts maybe you don’t know in bd spotify or online music platform don't use by musicians commonly,so that's why bd artist you can not get any online chart list like uk,usa,au artists. and you know that Youtube is popular in bd. And all bd notable/non-notable release song in youtube. And “Mashrafe is a famous person that's why everything get attention”. Does it make senses?? So for this reason if any book/music use Mashrafe name or dedicated/related to him then it is not notable?? And song is by his name "Mashrafe" then news should be publish on his name first "new song release Mashrafe " Such as bad thinking of your! Look at our neighbours country India's admin they are more focus on create new article about their artists /sportsperson and always protect there article, but bd admin is different sorry to say. Thanks. Rasi56 (talk) 19:05, 15 August 2019 (UTC) - Sock of User:Hafiz ansi (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hafiz ansi) --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 14:51, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Apologies for jumping into this discussion, but the following statement (And the most important thing is writter and the composer of the song is notable enough) is untrue according to Wikipedia:INHERITED. Notability is not inherited, and I would advise instead proving the song has received a significant amount of coverage so it satisfies Wikipedia:GNG. That would make a stronger argument. Aoba47 (talk) 01:06, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47: I just said because above one is commenting just because of song by "Mashrafe" name thats why it gets coverage. I just said writer and composer also famous. And beside this the song is independently got a significant coverage and famous - Rasi56 (talk)
As i said before, Most of sources' subject is Mashrafe Mortaza, not the song. Song have no review, no source claimed it's became famous. Below i tried to analyze all of source:
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.thedailystar.net/sports/bangladeshcricket/bangladesh-captain-mashrafe-mortaza-tribute-song-1388584 No These are basically the written equivalent of sound bytes ? No Nothing substantial mostly an interview type. says "Musical/Musicians tribute to Mashrafe Mortaza" ✘ No
https://archive1.ittefaq.com.bd/print-edition/anondo-binodon/2017/04/20/189999.html No These are basically the written equivalent of sound bytes ? No Nothing substantial about the song. Main subject is siyam who sung the song. ✘ No
https://www.bdcrictime.com/new-song-released-mashrafe/ No n No No n ✘ No
https://www.dhakatribune.com/showtime/2017/04/09/musician-pays-tribute-mashrafe No Interview mixed with a press release masquerading as an article ? No same as first one (daily star) ✘ No
https://dailyasianage.com/news/55804/musical-tribute-to-mashrafe No Interview mixed with a press release masquerading as an article No No same as first one (daily star) ✘ No
https://bangla.bdnews24.com/glitz/article1316595.bdnews No Interview mixed with a press release masquerading as an article ? No same as first one (daily star) ✘ No
https://m.risingbd.com/sports/news/127926/%E0%A6%AE%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%B6%E0%A6%B0%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%AB%E0%A6%BF%E0%A6%95%E0%A7%87-%E0%A6%A8%E0%A6%BF%E0%A7%9F%E0%A7%87-%E0%A6%97%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%A8-%E0%A6%B2%E0%A6%BF%E0%A6%96%E0%A6%9B%E0%A7%87%E0%A6%A8-%E0%A6%9C%E0%A7%80%E0%A6%AC%E0%A6%A8 No No No says lyricist Rabiul Islam jibon writing a song and he posted it in facebook ✘ No
https://www.prothomalo.com/entertainment/article/1140301/ ? Yes No talks about Mashrafee rather than the song. Nothing substantial. ✘ No
http://www.espncricinfo.com/bangladesh/content/story/1089987.html ? ? No completely not related to song ✘ No
http://www.espncricinfo.com/sri-lanka-v-bangladesh-2016-17/content/story/1090642.html ? ? No completely not related to song ✘ No
https://www.rtvonline.com/sports/12482/%e0%a6%ae%e0%a6%be%e0%a6%b6%e0%a6%b0%e0%a6%be%e0%a6%ab%e0%a6%bf%e0%a6%95%e0%a7%87-%e0%a6%a8%e0%a6%bf%e0%a7%9f%e0%a7%87-%e0%a6%97%e0%a6%be%e0%a6%a8 No another press release masquerading as an article ? No talks about Mashrafee rather than the song. Nothing substantial. ✘ No
https://www.jagonews24.com/amp/247636 No press release ? No talks about Mashrafee rather than the song. Nothing substantial. ✘ No
https://www.kalerkantho.com/amp/online/entertainment/2017/04/09/484722 No press release ? No ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

--আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 18:11, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@আফতাবুজ্জামান: the song name is "Mashrafe" by his own name. So It's obvious to mention that "Mashrafe song release", If it was different name then you claim that no his song not release independently. I think you didn’t understand the conflict. And this song got significant coverage there have many " Mashrafe" song if you search on internet you will found. But this song has maximum coverage. If just issue is "Mashrafe" then every song got kinda 15/20 difference in coverage. But when you look at this song compare to "Mashrafe" title other song this one is significant song. Rasi56 (talk) 19:25, 17 August 2019 (UTC) - Sock of User:Hafiz ansi (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hafiz ansi) --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 14:51, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't confuse with person name mashrafe & song name mashrafe. When source says "Musical tribute to Mashrafe" or "song about mashrafe", they mean person name mashrafe. One line in the source ("Mashrafe song release") doesn't make the song notable. And no, i'm not talking about other song, i'm talking about this thing. It's doesn't matter if this song got 10-15 coverage, when all of coverage are trivial, press release and not independent, not significant. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 20:12, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep : I heard this song in 2-3 events in 2018, when I was in UK. I read an entire article about this song in a UK magazine approximately a year ago, "Western daily express" maybe! I can't remember properly. In USA this song is also famous in bengali community. It satisfies Wikipedia:GNG. about WP:NSONGS, heard that online streaming platform is not popular in bd that's why there have rare chartlist online compare to others country where chartlist for a song is normal. Only YouTube platform is widely use in bd. If this song got significant coverage then there is not issue at all. Hafiz ansi (talk) 20:55, 17 August 2019 (UTC) - Sock master of Rasi56 (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hafiz ansi) --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 14:51, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see no source says it famous even in Bangladesh. After song got released, there are couple of press release, promotional type news and not a single one is actually independent/significant coverage. Even no follow up coverage/review. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 21:15, 17 August 2019Thanks Hafiz ansi (talk) 21:39, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but I don't wanna argue with anyone. And I'm american-bengali I know better than you. Don't be so hyper, it will be (keep or delete) soon so don’t give forcefully your opinion on others. Thanks Hafiz ansi (talk) 21:39, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No need for argue. Just provide independent/significant source for your claim. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 23:48, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Hafiz ansi: Deletion discussions are precisely where you should argue and provide evidence to prove your claim. Please take a look at WP:SOURCESEXIST. I have to agree with the nom on this one, you'll need to provide multiple reliable independent sources to prove this song is notable. To @আফতাবুজ্জামান:, "I never heard of it" - this type of comment is exactly what you should avoid in a deletion discussion per WP:IKNOWIT. I hope my above comments makes sense. Masum Reza📞 03:46, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Masumrezarock100 I know & kindly ignore that one line. so far i didn't argue for that. Thanks --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 04:06, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*weak keep there have problem with WP:NSONGS. I think if this song have any online chartlist then there will be no arugue about that, but online Music platform isn’t for south asians country. They are more reliable on youtube, per sources it seems notable -Andy Kearns (talk) 03:38, 18 August 2019 (UTC) - Sock of User:Hafiz ansi (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hafiz ansi) --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 14:51, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Andy Kearns, and welcome to Wikipedia. Could you please provide urls of the sources you think are reliable? Also even if a source is reliable, it doesn't necessarily contribute towards notability. It must be independent and the subject needs to have significant coverage (not passing mentions) in those sources. Masum Reza📞 03:54, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
search on google its look like significant and Wikipedia:GNG per english and bengali script both. I found an entire article about this song on uk news.Andy Kearns (talk) 05:45, 18 August 2019 (UTC) - Sock of User:Hafiz ansi (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hafiz ansi) --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 14:51, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non notable song per WP:NOTINHERITED. did this song break any charts ? no. there are some WP:ILIKEIT keep votes above but fail to provide any independent reliable source that can prove the independent notability of this song. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:33, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note User:Rasi and Andy Kearns have been blocked at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Andy Kearns--DBigXrayᗙ 12:55, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suspected that. But never thought of opening a SPI case. Masum Reza📞 17:46, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In 2015, Risingbd.com echoed what the songwriter posted on Facebook, with no independent analysis. The second week of April 2017, ten media sites published essentially identical announcements, that a lyric video of the song had been posted on YouTube. The ten are not intellectually independent of each other, all being based on the same YouTube posting. They are not arms length from the song because they repeat the songwriter promoting it, without critical analysis. They add no new significant coverage because their only non-promotional content (lyrics and credits) simply recaps what is in the lyric video. The remaining sources, two page on ESPNcricinfo, don't mention the song. Does not meet WP:NSONG or WP:GNG. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:04, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 17:46, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:40, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Bates (ice hockey)[edit]

Jamie Bates (ice hockey) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject fails WP:NHOCKEY. Only played 34 AHL games and at least 200 is needed to pass #2. No preeminent honours earned to pass #3 or #4 as well. Tay87 (talk) 18:16, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 18:16, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 18:16, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 18:16, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 18:16, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Article author and sole keep arguer is a sockpuppet. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:40, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of International Awards received by Mashrafe Mortaza[edit]

List of International Awards received by Mashrafe Mortaza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Listcruft. Just a collection of stats with no real context and/or notability. See also wikiproject cricket discussion & previous AfD.

I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason below:

--আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 17:31, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 17:31, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT. Man of the match awards happen in every match, so this isn't a rare achievement so isn't all that notable as a standalone list. StickyWicket (|talk]] (UTC)

@AssociateAffiliate: man of the match happen in every match but,every player doesn’t get man of the match award in every match. it’s significant for a player and his career I think! If you judge this then hat-trick, 5 wicket hauls,century all are useless. Because if this is all not significant then why this give extra importance in cricket. There have a article about lasith malinga hat-trick so then you say what's the necessary to this article?? delete is not the solution, and people doesn’t get this information easily when they search any sports website,if you search espncricinfo advance option then you get this result. But everyone not aware how to get result of a player century details,hat-trick,man of the match easily. If you merge this article it will be okay or stay as a independent article nothing see any problem. Rasi56 (talk) 04:25, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to their player articles - man of the match awards simply aren't that notable, not even in international cricket. If there are particularly significant performances (e.g. in a World Cup final) then those should be mentioned in prose on the player's page. The consensus has generally been that these articles aren't notable in themselves - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International awards by Sanath Jayasuriya; my comments on that AfD remain valid - a very selective prose merge may be suitable: copying the entire table across isn't and falls foul of NOTSTATS and CRIC:STYLE. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:23, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't think that "List of International Awards received by Mashrafe Mortaza" (and similar for Shakib) is a plausible search term, so a redirect doesn't seem necessary to me. I agree that these lists are not notable; as Blue Square Thing states, notable performances should be described in the prose, and it would not be inappropriate in those cases to note that the player was named as man of the match. Harrias talk 09:40, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non encyclopedic. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:30, 16 August

@Harrias: is it not plausible search term?? I provided link go and verify its espn cricinfo stats. And if anyone interested to know about Players man of the match,hat-trick, 5 wicket hauls its best place to read in wikipedia. Because maximum don't know how to search this on espncricinfo. And I don't understand why it not notable?? Then you need to remove every players who have 5 wicket hauls, hat-trick list,list of centuries. This is significant of a player career and all here said that not significant.

@Blue Square Thing: if this is not notable then why give this??I Think you need to know from any professional commentator or players whats the significant of this. I am a cricket player, and I knew the significant of this awards, centuries,5 wickets etc. You can merge this performance in main article, if needed then convert table info to prose it will suitable. I just give my suggestion, you know better then me. -Rasi56 (talk) 10:59, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've given my reasons above and in the previous AfD which I linked to. I stand by those judgement calls - this is not a suitable topic for Wikipedia. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:03, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:LISTCRUFT with no real context. Any exceptional performances are best covered in prose in the main article. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 11:12, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lugnuts: bro if this list convert into prose then add in the article awards section it will be ok or not?? -Rasi56 (talk) 11:31, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Blue Square Thing: bro table on the main article page,is this okay to add in main article section?? ellyse perry 5 wickets haul see this. Rasi56 (talk) 11:40, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read the style guide about statistics on the cricket project. If you send the table to a main article without clear and obvious context it will be removed. Thanks for pointing out the Perry article - I've removed the cricket tables from there per CRIC:STYLE. You should know that because some articles are crappy isn't an excuse to make other ones as bad. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Blue Square Thing: there have one football table still exist you didn’t remove this. And if I add man of the match awrds in prose/bullet style just like this in Main article awards section -

  • On 14 May 2018, England vs Bd he scored 41*( 2*4, 3*6/2x4,3x6) and he got 2/30.

Can I add this man of the match in this awards I think its significant for player (my opinion). If you tell me then I will add or if you tell me the style of how to write in prose, it will be better. Rasi56 (talk) 16:16, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:52, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per WP:LISTCRUFT. I came to this AfD following WP:CRICKET. I agree with other members of the Wikiproject Cricket above that these articles are not needed. A few notable mentions can be made in the Subjects Bio, and that should be all that is needed here.--DBigXrayᗙ 12:21, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per WP:NOTSTATS WP:LISTCRUFT. We don't need intricate details of every 'man of the match' performance in international matches. Ajf773 (talk) 10:16, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:38, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

UIU Electrical & Electronics Club[edit]

UIU Electrical & Electronics Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant coverage. Fails WP:ORG & WP:GNG. This is a club, not even a faculty, have no achievement. All of sources are just some passing mention & self reference. Also, information already there in United_International_University#UIU_Electrical_&_Electronics_Club_(UIUEEC) আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 17:25, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 17:25, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 17:25, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:35, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Harald Seiz[edit]

Harald Seiz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Little evidence of en:wp notability, puffed-up references - and this is the toned-down edit. WP:BEFORE shows that most coverage of the subject is cryptocurrency sites and goldbug blogs, which aren't usable as demonstrations of notability. This appears to be a direct port of de:Harald Seiz, which is similarly bad for sourcing. Contested PROD. David Gerard (talk) 17:07, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 17:07, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 17:08, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete dubious sourcing: blogs, PR-pieces, short book reviews, all appearing rather primary. Lacking substantial editorial coverage. The honorary title is poorly sourced (looks like PR) and has questionable relevance - something bestowed by a minor lobby group. The honorary doctorate is not sourced at all as far as I can see. Definite promo slant. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 18:29, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this may be wrong since everything I'm looking at is in German, but my review of the sources matches what both David Gerard and Jake Brockman have said in their delete !votes. SportingFlyer T·C 23:49, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:00, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely delete this page [Redacted BLP violation]— Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.13.104.49 (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:34, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Olivier Ripley[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Olivier Ripley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lack of notability, and a lack of verifiable information with no reliable sources of information on Olivier Ripley online. Theblindmo (talk) 16:39, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:42, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:42, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:00, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:00, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The only sources there is IMDb (unreliable) and the actors website that’s shut down, imo fails WP:GNG. 1989 (talk) 17:11, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:33, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as only three known roles that are minor in nature or in a short film that does not seem notable, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 21:24, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete he isn’t professional Andy Kearns (talk) 05:48, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Striking !vote by sock puppet, now blocked GirthSummit (blether) 13:00, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:18, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Messiah ben Joseph (LDS Church)[edit]

Messiah ben Joseph (LDS Church) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This sprawling article is full of WP:NPOV and WP:OR. Author admits on talk page that "To date, no ... peer-reviewed published studies or article or book treatments — regarding Ben Joseph have been carried out by scholars within the 'wider' Latter-day Saint movement." Bensci54 (talk) 16:09, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please specify your NPOV concerns, as all others thus far have done, as, so far, they have all been adequately answered. As such, the discussion thus far should not have warranted in any sense your posting of a deletion proposal. You say "full of WP:NPOV and WP:OR" – please specify exactly what your concerns might be. That is, please be specific about what you personally are perceiving that is not in accord with Wikipedia standards.
To be clear, this is an article about a higher educational study-area to which several respected LDS scholars have contributed; it presents their collective views as these relate to a comparative study area that is very similar, for instance, to the comparative research done by Jewish scholars on this identical subject of 'Messiah ben Joseph,' but from the scholarly perspective of educators within the LDS Church Educational System (CES) in their comparative application of Ben Joseph research to a historical American religious figure, Joseph Smith. Based on this fact, there appears to be in your suggestion an element of religious bias, if you are disputing a group's right (such as that enjoyed by the various schools of rabbinical study) to contribute to such a scholarly inquiry or to a corpus of published research (both Christian and Jewish) such as this — but as such relates, in this case, specifically to the LDS Church. Otherwise, please be specific in your concerns, and each will be answered in good faith.
Your partial restatement of my comment that no other articles to date exist within the wider LDS movement certainly does not constitute grounds for an article's deletion. That 'wider' field is of no concern to this article. If I must define by what is meant (or what the questioner meant) by 'wider' field, this applies to any individual break-off groups from the original 'Latter Day Saint movement,' the body of Saints led by Brigham Young (which is today known as the LDS Church). Those other groups simply have not contributed to date any published materials to this area of LDS study. Nothing is necessarily defective or wrong with that state of affairs, as seems to be implied by connotation in your remark. The phrasing of your concern indicates that something is somehow 'wrong' with this lack of interest, or whatever the true reasons for it may be. If this isn't what was intended by your remark, please clarify. If so, this should be of no concern to anyone, as there is certainly not an absence of scholarly contribution to the Ben Joseph idea within the LDS Church — which body of published work is the focus of this article (I feel as if I am repeating myself here, and so, my apologies to anyone who already understands the presented basis and validation for this article); this article, moreover, first presents a general background of Jewish sources which may be beneficial, too, for any other faith inquiring for the first time into Ben Joseph scholarship, which finds a basis in an entire corpus of respected Jewish legends and writings.
There is nothing wrong with any other faith (especially within the wider 'Latter Day Saint movement') not having yet contributed published materials to this study area. Perhaps students affiliated with those faiths haven't a publishing venue, as yet, or an institution of higher learning by which their interest in the topic has found an outlet for publication and dissemination; or perhaps they simply haven't the interest or opportunity to contribute to the study area. But their reasons for this, whatever they may be, do not concern this article — nor should they hold concern for anyone. The subject at hand is one that specifically concerns published scholarship as carried out within the LDS Church. This article's sole sect-based focus, to reiterate, is about research and scholarship carried out within the LDS Church; it does not concern any other sectarian group's research in this area, as this is a synthesis of comparative Ben Joseph studies by LDS Church scholars.
The statement I made (given, by the way, simply in answer to another's question) about possible 'wider' religious contribution in the larger Latter Day Saint movement — these being concerns which do not apply to this LDS Church-affiliated article — have no place in a discussion about this sect-specific assessment of the Ben Joseph idea in history. It certainly hasn't a place if it is being asserted to be the basis for a discussion of an article's proposed deletion. Again, please be specific about your individual concerns, and I will be happy to respectfully address them. Chauvelin2000 (talk) 20:33, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is certainly an impressive article, and some may assume like I did that with 136 references, it would be possible to fix any issues the article might have. I was wrong. 136 references, and not one of them is a reliable source for the subject of the article. Essentially, all of the sources used either A) Have nothing to do with the LDS version of this concept; or B) are not reliable, secondary sources. It's OR because there appears to be a lot of interpretation of primary sources here. It's inherently incapable of being NPOV because without any reliable sources cited, it is impossible to know what the neutral point of view is. The author of the article admits above that there is no proper academic treatment of this concept, which is not a good sign for the topic's viability on Wikipedia. If there is a way to write an article about this, it would start with deleting what is already present. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:27, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV fork from Messiah ben Joseph.Slatersteven (talk) 14:50, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think the topic is valid, but as it currently stands is a POV fork. It should be wrapped up into House of Joseph (LDS Church). The topic can be adequately summarized in two to three paragraphs. Epachamo (talk) 21:48, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The biggest problem with this article is that most of the sources it used that are Latter-day Saint related are not using this term at all. Joseph Fielding McConkie's arguments would better fit in an article Latter-day Saint understand of profecies of Joseph Smith or something like that. He does not invoke this term. Actually for very good reason, very few Latter-day Saints would invoke this term. In Latter-day Saint teaching "Messiah"="Jesus". I have been around enough to know that Daniel Rona is willing to invoke this term, but one fireside circuit speaker is just not enough to justify an article. This is fringe language to the religion, if not exactly fringe views.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:06, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - NPOV, terrible sourcing. I worry about a merge because of the possibility that problematic material will just be moved. Doug Weller talk 10:26, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:23, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:34, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Linda A. Malcor[edit]

Linda A. Malcor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable "scholar". Fails WP:GNG and WP:ACADEMIC. References are mainly from Cambridge Who's Who which according to its WP page is a vanity publisher and are not independent of the subject. Article was largely written by the subject herself. WP:NOTRESUME Catfish Jim and the soapdish 15:58, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 15:58, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 15:58, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:24, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:24, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete To reprise the nom, the current sources are 3 copies of vanity press, 2 versions of a Mercedes Lackey fan site (with really horrible formatting), and IMDB. None of those sounds independent or reliable. I didn't even look to see if they were significant. Rockphed (talk) 17:07, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, basically per nom and Rockphed above. Nothing here to indicate passing either WP:PROF or WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. One minor correction to the nom's comment. The article was created (and extensively edited) by User:Malcor, who self-identifies, at his user-page, as the subject's ex-husband (rather than as the subject herself). Still, this is certainly a WP:COI case. Nsk92 (talk) 18:00, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails GNG. Barca (talk) 22:39, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have found 7 reviews of the book From Scythia to Camelot: A Radical Reassessment of the Legends of King Arthur, the Knights of the Round Table and the Holy Grail, but so far, no reviews of her fiction. That would suggest that the book is notable per WP:NBOOK, and this author could be redirected to the book - if someone wants to write an article about it. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:21, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That could be a sensible option. I have the following... what other reviews do you have?
  • Kennedy, Beverly (1995), "Review: From Scythia to Camelot: A Radical Reassessment of the Legends of King Arthur, the Knights of the Round Table, and the Holy Grail. Garland Reference Library of the Humanities, vol. 1795 by C. SCOTT LITTLETON, LINDA A. MALCOR", Arthuriana, vol. 5, pp. 127–130
  • Lacy, Norris J. (1995), "Review: From Scythia to Camelot: A Radical Reassessment of the Legends of King Arthur, the Knights of the Round Table, and the Holy Grail. by C. Scott Littleton, Linda A. Malcor", Speculum, vol. 70, pp. 930–931
  • Wood, Charles T. (1995), "Review: From Scythia to Camelot: A Radical Reassessment of the Legends of King Arthur, the Knights of the Round Table, and the Holy Grail. Garland Reference Library of the Humanities, vol. 1795 by C. SCOTT LITTLETON, LINDA A. MALCOR", Arthuriana, vol. 5, pp. 124–127
  • Amend-Söchting, Anne (1997), "Review: From Scythia to Camelot: A Radical Reassessment of the Legends of King Arthur, the Knights of the Round Table, and the Holy Grail. by C. Scott Littleton, Linda A. Malcor", Mediaevistik, vol. 10, pp. 369–372
  • Bowden, Betsy (1996), "Medieval Folklore: Oxymoron No More. Review: From Scythia to Camelot: A Radical Reassessment of the Legends of King Arthur, the Knights of the round Table, and the Holy Grail by C. Scott Littleton, Linda A. Malcor; Oral Tradition in the Middle Ages by W. F. H. Nicolaisen; The Formation of the Medieval West: Studies in the Oral Culture of the Barbarians by Michael Richter", JOurnal of Folklore Research, vol. 33, pp. 165–172
  • Melia, Daniel Frederick (1996), "Review: From Scythia to Camelot: A Radical Reassessment of the Legends of King Arthur, the Knights of the Round Table, and the Holy Grail. by C. Scott Littleton, Linda A. Malcor", Western Folklore, vol. 55, pp. 166–167
Catfish Jim and the soapdish 15:43, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Catfish Jim, the other one I found is this (in Ebsco as a bibliographic record only, not full text:
  • Mair, Victor H.; Dickinson, G. Lowes (July 1998), "From Scythia to Camelot: A Radical Reassessment of the Legends of King Arthur, the Knights of the Round Table, and the Holy Grail. by C. Scott Littleton, Linda A. Malcor", Religion, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 294–300, ISSN 0048-721X
RebeccaGreen (talk) 23:36, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've just noticed another, catalogued in Worldcat, in Choice Reviews Online, v32 n05. RebeccaGreen (talk) 23:50, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. BLP from early days of WP written by a short-lived SPA (evidently husband, as noted above), whose first edit was to dreate this article. Scythia book cited around 100 times, but there's essentially nothing else going to notability. No real RS either (also, as noted above). Agricola44 (talk) 13:50, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we need to delete all articles created by family members.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:32, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The Melia review [5], in particular, makes clear how WP:FRINGEy her Arthurian theories are, much more so than our article does. In any case nothing in the article is adequately sourced or presents even a plausible case for notability. The reviews of the book make it potentially notable, and if an article on the book existed then we could redirect the author's name to it per BIO1E, but do we really need an article on a book of badly-argued fringe Arthuriana theories? —David Eppstein (talk) 07:06, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Do we need it?" may be unanswerable, although it is in 338 libraries, according to Worldcat, so some readers might look for more information about it or its authors. And it did influence King Arthur (2004 film) (which apparently has many historical inaccuracies apart from any about Arthur). If anyone wrote an article, objectively representing what the reviews say about the book, then we could certainly keep it per WP:NBOOK - but it's certainly not at the top of my to-do list (actually, it's not on it at all). RebeccaGreen (talk) 23:50, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. No credible claim of significance, and clearly promotional. – bradv🍁 05:27, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Erin Mendenhall[edit]

Erin Mendenhall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an unfortunate bother. The subject of this article is a candidate for political office. She clearly does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. Yet, Danithew and RichAlger, who I am suspecting are the same person, created this article, only for Discospinster to appropriately move it to draft space, only for them to recreate it in article space. I nominated it for PROD but PROD was removed without reasoning. At best, this is WP:TOOSOON. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:36, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:36, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:36, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:25, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Comment moved from Talk:Erin Mendenhall) The subject is indeed a candidate for political office. I went looking for an online biography of the candidate and felt what I was finding online was lacking detail. There are two other potential candidates for mayor of Salt Lake City - the votes are still being counted to determine which of them will be up against Erin Mendenhall. Their names are Jim Dabakis and Luz Escamilla and they both have wikipedia pages with detailed information about their lives and what they have done. I begin this page in the hope that we can learn more about the confirmed candidate who has so far earned the most votes from the electorate. It has been a very long time since I created or edited anything on wikipedia, and yes I failed to include a citation. RichAlger and I are not the same person. I had posted on Facebook about the lack of a wikipedia entry for Erin Mendenhall, and RichAlger suggested I could create a page and then he saw what I had posted and added a citation. He clearly understands better how wikipedia works than I do. So I was grateful that he came in and added additional citations and information. This entry should be taken out of the draft space and made public so that others can add pertinent information. People in Salt Lake City will need sources of information about every candidate in the upcoming election. Danithew (talk) 16:04, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Danithew:, indeed, Dabakis and Escamilla have pages, and Mendenhall did not. Dabakis and Escamilla both serve in the Utah Senate, and that grants them the presumption of notability per WP:NPOL ("Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or sub-national (e.g., province- or state-wide) office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels."). Mendenhall is a city councilor, and does not meet NPOL. Mendenhall is not entitled to a page just because she's a candidate, even though she finished in first in the first round of the election. Wikipedia is not a web host. She has to win the election before you can make an assertion that she meets NPOL as mayor-elect. The poor sourcing you presented when creating this article demonstrates why a Salt Lake City councilor would not be presumed to be notable. There would have to be a lot more sourcing to meet GNG. And when a user moves the page to draft space, where it can be fleshed out, you (or RichAlger) should not take that as a sign to recreate it in article space. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they have not won — the notability test for politicians is holding a notable office, not merely running for one. For her to already be eligible for a Wikipedia article today, rather, what would have to be demonstrated is that she already had preexisting notability for other reasons which would already have gotten her an article anyway — but there's no content or sourcing here which suggests that she does. Obviously no prejudice against recreation after election day if she wins, but nothing here is a reason why she would already qualify for an article right now. We're not the media, and it's not our job to provide "equal time" to every candidate in every election: our job is to create and maintain articles about holders of notable political offices, not to help candidates for notable offices publicize their campaigns. Bearcat (talk) 16:41, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • SPEEDY DELETE this atrocity for A7 and G11. Trillfendi (talk) 16:47, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above discussions. WP:NPOL is not passed, and neither is WP:GNG. Rollidan (talk) 16:54, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bearcat....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:04, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per above. Clearly made as a PR push. – Broccoli & Coffee (Oh hai) 18:12, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as above - G11, A7. Fails WP:NBIO and WP:NPOL. Jmertel23 (talk) 21:33, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify with a stern face for recreating it. I'm new to the process but figured I'd spruce up the article while pondering who will get my vote in November. Kjtobo (talk) 22:35, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It appears to be TOOSOON. More coverage will likely come if she win the election. If someone draftifies the article, please salt it to make sure it goes through AFC. Masum Reza📞 22:55, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The weight of WP:PAG based argument comes down heavily against retaining this page. There was one suggestion buried in a delete comment that a merge might be possible but I'm not seeing any other support for it. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:09, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Biological determinism of human gender roles[edit]

Biological determinism of human gender roles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It may have been made in good faith, but this is an unnecessary content fork that is inherently prone to POV issues. The same subjects are covered much better in other articles.

It presents a very one-sided view of nature vs. nurture that is slanted in favor of nurture way more than the scientific community is. Consider its discussions of sexual orientation and the book Not in Our Genes and compare them to our articles on those topics as just two examples. Other editors have complained about it as seen on its talk page and in its tags. It is inherently POV since "biological determinism" is usually an accusation against some researchers made by other researchers who heavily favor "nurture." -Crossroads- (talk) 02:15, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 02:15, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 02:15, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 02:15, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 02:15, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 02:15, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article was created procedurally to remove a coatrack from the main article, which certainly didn't need it. The material here is indeed unbalanced and should be deleted. For the record, labels like "inherently" and "usually" are emotive and unreliable: opinions and attitudes on such matters are contextually (medicine, philosophy, sociology, and genetics are four disparate contexts, for example) and historically dependent, and terms like biological determinism have had varied connotations. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:05, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is an important article, and has plenty of references. It is not unbalanced - as well as talking about biological determinism, it talks about the book by Rose, Lewontin and Kamin called Not In Our Genes, which criticies genetic determinism. Vorbee (talk) 06:17, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 11:25, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep First of all the fact that a topic is controversial and "is inherently prone to POV issues" as User:Crossroads1 states above is not a valid reason to delete the article. If it were a lot of very important articles such as Creationism and Vaccine hesitancy should be deleted which I doubt anyone would think is a good idea. I agree that this article needs a lot of work. IMO it currently has too much emphasis of the viewpoint from people such as Gould and Lewontin and not enough from people such as Stephen Pinker, E.O. Wilson, and Richard Dawkins. But that's an argument to improve the article not delete it. I could possibly see a justification for merging this into Biological determinism. However, when I looked at Biological determinism it already has several sections that point to articles on specific sub-topics. So I think this article should be kept (and improved) and also that there should be a link to it added in the Biological determinism article. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 17:00, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be an argument admitting the article is bad, but saying we should keep it because someday someone else will put in the work to fix it. Regardless, the problem is not that it tends toward controversy, but it is inherently POV. We already have NPOV titled articles like gender roles and sex differences. We do not have one-sided fork articles titled social constructionism and human gender roles or divine creation accounts of the origin of life or evolutionist accounts of the origin of life. -Crossroads- (talk) 20:13, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"This seems to be an argument admitting the article is bad, but saying we should keep it because someday someone else will put in the work to fix it" Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying. If you look at the policy on reasons for deletion the fact that an article is not good is not one of the reasons. Nor is the fact that an article is inherently controversial. Those other articles you mention don't cover the same topic. There is just some basic undeniable science that biology plays a major role in whether or not people have a penis or have a vagina and breasts. If you have 2 X chromosomes you get a vagina and breasts. If you have an X and a Y you get a penis. If you have some unusual (I'm just saying unusual in a statistical sense not in any judgemental sense) combination such as XXY you are likely a transgender person. This is a real topic and it's very wp:notable I would be in favor of changing the title of this article because I agree "Biological Determinism" is a loaded term and it's not a term that most competent biologists would use. There are always environmental factors, such as epigenetic effects that interact with your genome and influence if and when a certain gene (including genes that do things such as tell a body to start puberty) gets turned on or off (but note that these environmental effects are also under the science of biology). The renaming was done with Vaccine denialism. The current article is titled Vaccine hesitancy but there are also redirects for more loaded terms like Vaccine denial. If someone wanted to do the same with this article and rename it to something less loaded but retain a redirect I would support that. But I think the article itself should clearly be kept --MadScientistX11 (talk) 14:52, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
By now you've admitted that the article needs material from the other viewpoint added as well as the title being bad. Once I make it discuss this topic from NPOV and give it a neutral title, how is it anything other than a redundant content fork of gender roles or sex differences in psychology? Albeit one that would be of low quality since it would still be a hodgepodge of info on intersex conditions, sexual orientation, Lewontin et al's book, etc. Per WP:CFORK, "Content forks that are created unintentionally result in redundant or conflicting articles and are to be avoided." That is why this needs to be deleted. I need to emphasize that my nominating is not just because it 'needs work' nor just because it is controversial. However, I do agree with the essay WP:Delete the junk regarding not keeping bad articles on the basis that someone else will fix it. -Crossroads- (talk) 06:09, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep ("intro" Note: I may be new to this, but there is a first time for everything [plus, anyway, this might already be my nth time -- to "not" vote ["!vote"] -- for some other "small" value of n [other than "n=1"] ... so, ... here goes.) I understand that this topic is one that, at least in the minds of some persons, is controversial. This topic may have a lot of baggage for some of us (perhaps partly emotional, perhaps other kinds). Perhaps partly because someone (let's call that person "P3", 'just for now'; that might help to avoid using pronouns ... which might be "even more" of a good idea, for this particular "!vote", than ... for some ordinary "common or garden-variety" AfD discussions) has -- let's imagine, for a minute -- a different "take" on things, than your ordinary "randomly chosen" ("Plano vanilla") reader or editor of Wikipedia.
For example, [P3 might be] a "n00b" to "!vote"). P3 might have had [e.g.] some very memorable experience in the past, ... perhaps something involving a "[potentially trans]" friend or relative (maybe not P3.self) ... who was [considering] having some kind of "gender assignment" consultation [maybe even surgery]; ... and perhaps the fact that things went well (*or* ... maybe, things did "not" go so well) was one reason why the episode made a lasting impression on the mind of P3. Another possibility: even if P3 has not had that close of an "encounter" with the issues relevant to the topic of this article, P3 might have read some material, (e.g. at the library, or on the internet) ...or somewhere else ... which made it clear that there are some "experts" who seem to disagree about some of this stuff, ... big time. Especially if an "expert" (let's call him "X3" ... we are already using "P3" for something else, and the first character of "X3" reminds us that X3 is considered -- at least by X3! -- to be an "eXpert") has a biased POV, or otherwise 'might' have some motivation to cherry-pick the data, or otherwise to [try to] skew "how things sound" to readers like P3, ... caution is necessary. But -- IMHO -- "caution" does not "necessarily" mean that we have to delete the article! It might mean, that we have to keep in mind, that there may well be some persons in this world, who have a motivation to [try to] be kinda bossy about what other persons think, say, and do.
PS: Thanks for your patience, since ... this is (it turned out to be) so long. --Mike Schwartz (talk) 19:34, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. A perfectly valid subject. Perhaps it could be merged somewhere, however without a clear target for merging this is definitely a "keep". My very best wishes (talk) 01:27, 5 August 2019 (UTC). Yes, arguably a content fork, merge to Gender role. My very best wishes (talk) 14:59, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I would like to point out that our keep votes all have poor rationales; whereas I believe my rationale for deletion, endorsed above by the article's own creator, is much stronger. To reiterate: This article violates WP:CFORK, as in its present form it is a (good faith) WP:POVFORK, and even if improved, would be a WP:REDUNDANTFORK of gender roles and sex differences in psychology. The 4 keep votes do not refute this and cite no policy that justifies a keep. The 1st keep asserts with no proof that this article is "important," whatever that means, states it has "plenty of references," which is irrelevant, and claims it is not unbalanced because it talks about the book Not in Our Genes, even though I specifically mentioned this as an example of how it is unbalanced. The 2nd keep agrees it is POV, but never explains how, once renamed and fixed, it is distinct and not redundant from our other articles. The 3rd keep is frankly nigh-incomprehensible, but seems to just be saying that having POV problems does not mean we should delete it, which does not address the central problem. The 4th keep simply states that the subject is "perfectly valid," whatever that means, which again does not address the issue. Please see WP:ILIKEIT and WP:VALUABLE. There is nothing in the article worth saving or merging. It is an unfocused essay that meanders through intersex conditions, homosexuality, what Not in Our Genes says about gender, a random paper by Rossiter from 1980, and intersex conditions (again!). (The first sentence does not even define the topic correctly.) The article is redundant junk. -Crossroads- (talk) 03:50, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Crossroads1 has the stronger arguments, which should be taken into account with regard to what WP:Consensus states. Anything worth keeping and that isn't redundant can be merged with one or more articles. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:57, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article isn't about "biological determinism of human gender roles" at all. This is evidenced by the first sentence which asserts that gender roles are about "human sexuality" which totally misconstrues the topic - gender roles are rather "a social role encompassing a range of behaviors and attitudes" (according to gender roles). It may be appropriate to create an article with this title should there be a section within another article actually discussing this topic and where WP:SIZESPLIT is satisfied. Meanwhile "gender assignment", "homosexuality", and "social construction of gender" are different topics, and if these sections are removed we'd be left with nothing. For an actual section related to this title see Gender#Biological_factors_and_views. ----Pontificalibus 13:08, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I had trouble formulating my convoluted assessment and thus put off commenting here, but I find that Crossroads1 has essentially done the job for me. In summary, this was created in good faith and could be shifted in a variety of different directions, but I can't see any likely outcome that does not involve a high degree of redundancy. This is not needed, and housekeeping considerations suggest it should be removed. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:13, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: At this point, the "delete" !votes appear to have the stronger arguments (I have difficulty to unearth anything policy-based from Mike Schwartz' overly long !vote). Perhaps the suggestion for a merge with Gender role deserves some more attention. Relisting one more time to obtain clearer (policy-based) consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:35, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I actually originally thought that this article was a keep and was just poorly rewritten, but the arguements above have changed my opinion on that. I disagree with the arguments for delete based on heavily unbalanced content-- that can be changed. Indeed, the article in its original form has a more neutral format. Take a look at https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-gender/#BioDet for how this article doesn't have to be written with such biased language. But I do agree that the article is present in many forms all over wikipedia, and its size doesn't merit a content fork, especially because a lot of the language in this is "fluff." I would merge to Sex differences in psychology#Psychological traits as this seems to cover what the title is referring to (while not covering some of the content). For those that are still not convinced, take a look at it this way: 2 of the 3 sections in the article are merely summaries of main articles, and if this article is supposed to be justified as a content fork, then how can it in turn point to subjects (the third category, anyway just seems to be a summary of gender discrimination)? The content fork justification was the original justification for creating this, and seems to be the only justification, but at the same time, can't be true as there is no original content on this page. Unless someone wants to add new content to this (which is already extensively covered in my proposed redirect), this is a delete for me. Sam-2727 (talk) 03:21, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Per the GNG claims; as noted there is no such thing as an "inherently non-notable topic". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:33, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MarJon Beauchamp[edit]

MarJon Beauchamp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Highschool basketball player, doesn't meet the criteria at WP:NHOOPS GirthSummit (blether) 21:39, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit (blether) 21:39, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit (blether) 21:39, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit (blether) 21:39, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't gone through all these to see how reliable or significant all these sources are, but a Google search seems to show an awful lot of coverage that would suggest a good chance he meets GNG. Rlendog (talk) 15:47, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's true Rlendog - there are a lot of articles written around his announcement that he'll skip college to prepare for the NBA draft, but my thinking was that WP:BLP1E would apply - and it's not ever really an event that's happened yet, it's an announcement (WP:BLP1A?) that he's planning to do something. I'm sure he's likely to do well in the draft and become notable soon, but it seems to be jumping the gun to carry articles about promising high school players.GirthSummit (blether) 00:38, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have expanded the article so that it should meet notability guidelines. Sportzeditz (talk) 15:22, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:32, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete high school basketball players inherently are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:06, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment high school basketball players or not, if they pass WP:GNG they are notable. -- Dammit_steve (talk) 08:09, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Sportzeditz it seems pretty clear that the subject does not pass WP:NHOOPS, but I agree that, if they pass WP:GNG then they would be notable. You've added a lot of sources to the article now, so I wanted to look over to see whether they would meet GNG - I clicked on 3 at random, and found one didn't mention the subject at all, one gave him a passing mention, and one was a profile at a recruitment agency which obviously isn't independent. Rather than read through all of the rest of them closely, I'd like to ask whether would you be willing to suggest the THREE best refs, in terms of reliability and significance of coverage, which demonstrate his notability. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 23:42, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:28, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sources are more than enough to meet WP:GNG. Contrary to another user's completely absurd assertions, neither high school athletes nor any other category of people are "inherently non-notable" and this shows a gross misunderstanding of policy. Smartyllama (talk) 18:26, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:32, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Judgeship of Rayagada[edit]

Judgeship of Rayagada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable list of people who have been judges in a district-level court in India. Judges are appointed by the committees which in-directly can be said to be from Supreme Court. The positions are not filled by public voting and do not qualify with the logic of lets say WP:NPOL. All references are self-published and topic does not pass WP:GNG. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:05, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:05, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating similar articles:

District Court, Rayagada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
E-Courts Project in the Judgeship of Rayagada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rayagada Bar Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rayagada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

§§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:22, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Judgeship of Rayagada relates to a judicial infrastructure and its notability need not be decided from the list of Judges but from the fact that it is an important wing of Judicial Administration relating to Indian Courts. Topics like educational institutions are there in wikipedia. I do not say that educational institutions are not notable, but judicial institutions are notable owing to their becoming one of the four pillars of democracy. That's why Bankshall Court, West Bengal Judicial Academy have been there in Wikipedia. I feel sorry to say that when it is a matter relating to institutions in a backward state like Odisha, its apparent notability is being questioned. I do strongly appeal for reconsideration.Hpsatapathy (talk) 07:14, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would thank that the matter has been kept open for more views. In this regard I would like to place one more point that the List_of_district_courts_in_India contain red links which are meant to help Wikipedia grow. Certainly the creation of red links prevents new pages from being orphaned from the start.[1] So when such a red link is developed, it is certainly in consonance with the policy of wikipedia and the purpose is only to enrich Wikipedia with more relevant topics.Hpsatapathy (talk) 10:23, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-01-31/Orphans
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Neither of the (apparent) "keep" !votes appears to be policy-based. Relisting to get more views.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:22, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:35, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How are the courts in Rayagada any different from those in other nearly 700 places in India? I have not questioned notability of these articles because they fall in Odisha. I would do same with Maharashtrian courts. Not all entries in any list are supposed to have an individual article. We haven't applied that logic on List of songs by Lata Mangeshkar. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:33, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus that no valid rationale for deletion is offered (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 18:39, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List_of_largest_book_publishers_of_the_United_Kingdom[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List_of_largest_book_publishers_of_the_United_Kingdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Very outdated information with no recent sources available Stephbook (talk) 11:25, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 12:33, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 12:33, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is a list that serves a useful purpose. If, as the nominator suggests, the list is outdated, the solution would be to update the article, not delete it. Vorbee (talk) 14:54, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep No valid reason given for deletion. Dream Focus 20:11, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep AfD is not cleanup, no rationale given that falls within policy.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 22:02, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete for WP:G12 copyright violation. — CactusWriter (talk) 18:22, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bhachar[edit]

Bhachar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to be a recreation of the previously PROD'ed article. Aside from the unreliable H. A. Rose, there is little coverage of this community. Sitush (talk) 11:20, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Sitush (talk) 11:20, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete A7. Recreated article with no sourcing, bad format, and no notability shown. AmericanAir88(talk) 16:19, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source, although not cited, is H A Rose and the newpakhistorian website operated by someone who used to contribute to en-WP and who left in a huff when consensus emerged that their preference for using Rose and other amateur ethnologists of the British Raj era across a wide range of Indo-Pakistani castes and tribes was inappropriate. I have no idea if the current version is a close copy of the previously PROD'd version but CSD A7 is not going to work well in this situation. - Sitush (talk) 09:44, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:32, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep per WP:SNOW. The discussion has virtually no chance to result in a consensus for deletion. El_C 03:12, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ignacio Anaya[edit]

Ignacio Anaya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Should be a redirect to the nachos article, IP's continue to insist on separate article. Classic case of WP:BIO1E. Onel5969 TT me 11:14, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 11:14, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 11:50, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 11:50, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep According to WP:BIO1E "However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified." The Google Doodle clearly constitutes media coverage and while creation of the Nacho is the main event, reference to his son, his career, and so on indicate that there is more to Ignacio's life than just this one event, and while this is the obvious notable event his ownership of a restaurant implies that there are more things that could be added.170.173.8.110 (talk) 16:11, 15 August 2019 (UTC) — 170.173.8.110 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • STFU and pass the nachos! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.95.216.222 (talk) 14:38, 15 August 2019 (UTC) [reply]
    • Neutral comment Vote! struck as not a vote. Nate • (chatter) 00:41, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree that that article lacks content unrelated to nachos, but there is a wealth of sources that can be used to improve that. 98.179.184.17 (talk) 12:21, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well where are they? Powers T 13:27, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep After receiving a Google Doodle in his honor, it would be hard to argue that this article ought not to exist. Plus it contains essential biographical information that stands apart from nachos, the dish. Danmurphy2406 (talk) 12:22, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep clearly notable, and does not meet the standards of WP:BIO1E.. We have TFA's for people who are notable solely for inventing a food product. I don't even like nachos, and am semi-retired from Wikipedia, but feel strongly enough to speak out on this. --T1980 (talk) 12:28, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He's the subject of the 8/15/2019 Google Doodle. This article will expand as people visit it, and will be noteworthy on an ongoing basis. --Hmcnally (talk) 12:44, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per the above. I think it's a decent guess that this article will expand thanks to the Google Doodle.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:20, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's virtually no sourced content here, and what's here isn't encyclopedic. Tone is bad. I don't see much salvageable. Powers T 13:27, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but copyedit for grammar since the Google Doodle is generating a lot of traffic to the article, including myself. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 13:36, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - Google considers him worth a Doodle. That's plenty notable in my book. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 13:38, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. (Inflammatory and irrelevant; removed. Uncle G (talk) 16:50, 15 August 2019 (UTC)) — 2600:1700:C3D1:28A0:14BB:4BE3:5B01:E431 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 13:48, 15 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep - I see room for opportunity and improvement, so I hope we can fix this page if more sources can be found. In addition, we can also take info from the other languages, then translate and put it on this page. (Reply to inflammatory remarks; removed. Uncle G (talk) 16:50, 15 August 2019 (UTC)) Davidng913 (talk) 13:58, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Nachos per WP:BIO1E. I have yet to find any RS discussing anything more about him than the nacho invention which is notable but best discussed in the context of the article on the food. Compare Cobb salad and Robert Cobb. 24.151.50.175 (talk) 15:04, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see nothing objectionable, the article provides information and is cited, and, as noted in other comments, its being the subject of a Google doodle is likely to improve the article's depth.Frannymae64 (talk) 15:10, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nothing objectionable. And it seems kind of wrong to pull it, what with a Google Doodle citing it as a source." Mfidelman (talk) 15:25, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - an and obvious one at that. Plenty of sources to satisfy GNG and needs to be expanded, not deleted or redirected. ♟♙ (talk) 16:52, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undecided - but Google's actions by themselves should not dictate a decision on this issue.Javaerb (talk) 17:19, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - but delete everything else in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.75.217.26 (talk) 17:27, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Unless there is something that says other wise, a Google Doodle, pointing to the article would seem to be evidence of notability. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 17:55, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There is nothing which says that having a google doodle is automatic notability.Onel5969 TT me 18:08, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Yes, but a huge amount of GNG has been generated from strong RS as a result of him being a Google Doodle per my comments below). That gives him adequate RS to meet WP:GNG alone; the additional books and other historical references, also support his GNG. Britishfinance (talk) 00:59, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - The article is in much better shape, with plenty of sourcing. -Falcorian (talk) 20:43, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Why in the world would an article with WP:NOTA standards be deleted? This article should NOT be deleted. Tornadosurvivor2011 21:38, 15 August 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tornadosurvivor2011 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment. I have restored the AfD. It should not have been closed by a non-administrator given the circumstances. Because of the amount of disruption by IPs, I have semi-protected the AfD for one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:50, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge/redirect to the nacho article. This fails the BLP1E easily as he is not notable for anything else, but the supposed invention, and it's not even verified that he is the one who invented the nacho in the first place.Valeince (talk) 00:15, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. WP:BIO1E does not exclude a subject from being a BLP; it sets the conditions under which a BIO1E can be a BLP, and in this case that On the other hand, if an event is of sufficient importance, even relatively minor participants may require their own articles. Inventing nachos is significant (as noted by Google). Britishfinance (talk) 01:02, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is clearly a lot of GNG from strong WP:RS re this subject, not just from his being the subject of a Google Doodle (The Independent [9], USA Today [10], Fortune (magazine) [11], Time (magazine) [12]; there are lots more), but even before that, he has been given a section in several notable books on food as the creator of the nachos (I added a reference from the Oxford Companion to American Food and Drink (he gets two pages), and another notable book on US food by a notable author, Josh Chetwynd; again, I could have added several more books), and other RS, such as Huffington Post from 2012 [13], that pre-date his appearing on Google Doodle. WP:BIO1E does not exclude a subject from being a BLP; it sets the conditions under which a BIO1E can be a BLP, and says: On the other hand, if an event is of sufficient importance, even relatively minor participants may require their own articles. Inventing Nachos is notable (even Google recognise it), and he is the recognised inventor. Britishfinance (talk) 00:56, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Nachos and redirect - Classic BLP1E, totally non-notable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:12, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. He is notable as the inventor of a very famous dish *and also* as the subject of considerable international media attention. As noted by several above, article does not fail notability by WP:BIO1E. I know we should assume the best about editor intentions, but the timing of the deletion request--exactly when he is growing in media notability--seems intentionally malicious, calculated to make visitors question his notability with a conspicuous deletion request precisely when the Google doodle is driving more traffic to the article. Let's put this completely unnecessary deletion attempt to rest.--Wikibojopayne (talk) 03:32, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 11:29, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for reasons well-argued by Britishfinance. Moreover, the article has well-sourced biographical information about Anaya that would fit poorly in an article about nachos themselves, so merging would be contra-indicated. XOR'easter (talk) 14:47, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per improvements after nom. Per Wp:GNG. Per sourcing.BabbaQ (talk) 16:29, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - In Texas we say, Ignacio is nacho typical restaurateur. Atsme Talk 📧 03:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. (G5) — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:19, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mayhem (April Parker)[edit]

Mayhem (April Parker) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Should be a redirect, but some editors insist on recreating the article. No real world notability. Onel5969 TT me 11:05, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 11:05, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merger to Mayhem (comics), similar to Wraith (Marvel Comics) and Gorr (comics). Penguin7812(Talk Page) 11:19, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:31, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Beuker[edit]

Dean Beuker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject fails WP:NHOCKEY as he never played in a top tier-league, instead spending three seasons in the 2nd Bundesliga. He was Rookie of the Year and Most Valuable Player in the CIS, but CIS/U Sports does not count towards criteria #4, or in the very least it is not listed. There are only two references as well so subject seemingly fails WP:GNG as well. Tay87 (talk) 10:10, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 10:10, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 10:10, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 10:10, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of .NET libraries and frameworks. There is a solid consensus against retaining this as a stand alone page. Unfortunately that is where the consensus ends. In such cases I generally go with the least disruptive option that had a reasonable level of support in the discussion per WP:ATD. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:23, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DataObjects.NET[edit]

AfDs for this article:
DataObjects.NET (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page has the following problems:

  • It may be not notable(not sure about this after searching, but it was deleted because of notability last time it was sent to AFD)
  • It was never sourced well.
  • There seems to be no interest in maintaining this article.
  • It is currently structured like an instruction manual. Lurking shadow (talk) 09:05, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:11, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect to List of .NET libraries and frameworks where it is already listed. Not to say it isn't notable but I cannot find extensive third-party sources providing significant coverage indicating notability. The maintenance concern in the nom is not particular relevant for AfD but WP:NOTHOWTO is relevant here. Polyamorph (talk) 14:39, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of .NET libraries and frameworks with minimal merging. This AfD seems to be well-thought. My attempt to find anything about this subject was fruitless. I found a book on Amazon, but it was a copy of the Wikipedia article. So far, the only other option to deletion is giving it away to some other website that specializes in this material. Flowing dreams (talk) 07:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. In addition to the points cited by the OP and the comment supporting deletion I would note the article is for all practical purposes unsourced. The single cited reference is not RS. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:26, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Enmity (band)[edit]

Enmity (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable band. There is also a MUCH more notorious Enmity form Arizona who play brutal death metal (and that one is usually the one people are talking about in general discussion when reffeirng to a band named "Enmity"). Im not sure why this much more obscure band with the same name have a article with virtually no sources. Second Skin (talk) 07:57, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:44, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:44, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - does not meet any of the criteria of WP:BAND; therefore, delete - (the article has been edited by a user who refers to "my band, Enmity" in an edit summary, so there may be a conflict of interest WP:COI) - Epinoia (talk) 21:59, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Deleted per G11, G12. by Rhaworth. (non-admin closure) –Dave | Davey2010Talk 00:53, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The International School La Serena[edit]

The International School La Serena (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NORG a before search threw up no in depth coverage. Dom from Paris (talk) 06:36, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 06:36, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 06:36, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 06:36, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 06:36, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 06:46, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Farid Elhami[edit]

Farid Elhami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject seems to fail WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Promotional article, exclusively sourced to YouTube videos. Searching for better sources, I found nothing better than passing mentions. Persian-language sources may exist, but I'm not well-placed to search for them, and we can't have a BLP with just YouTube as a source. GirthSummit (blether) 04:43, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit (blether) 04:43, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit (blether) 04:43, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit (blether) 04:43, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit (blether) 04:43, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not even close to being a notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:58, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He played tanbour alongside Shahram Nazeri but he is not a notable musician. Nothing in Persian sources as you can see here:
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Farhikht (talk) 17:20, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Tone 06:46, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Farid Elhami[edit]

Farid Elhami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject seems to fail WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Promotional article, exclusively sourced to YouTube videos. Searching for better sources, I found nothing better than passing mentions. Persian-language sources may exist, but I'm not well-placed to search for them, and we can't have a BLP with just YouTube as a source. GirthSummit (blether) 04:43, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit (blether) 04:43, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit (blether) 04:43, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit (blether) 04:43, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit (blether) 04:43, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not even close to being a notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:58, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He played tanbour alongside Shahram Nazeri but he is not a notable musician. Nothing in Persian sources as you can see here:
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Farhikht (talk) 17:20, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Fresh Kid Ice. WP:PAG based arguments clearly come down against retention. Per WP:ATD and WP:CHEAP I'm going with a redirect here. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:31, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Freaky Chinese[edit]

Freaky Chinese (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NALBUM. No indication in the article that it charted, and I can't find any sources about it other than passing mentions in articles about the artist, and entries in lists and on vendors' websites. GirthSummit (blether) 04:19, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit (blether) 04:19, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit (blether) 04:19, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

oppose/keep The album was original 2 Live Crew member Fresh Kid Ice (Christopher Wong Won's) final studio album. The album did not chart, but it was popular regionally in Miami, represented a collaboration with the Insane Clown Posse on 2 tracks, and is representative of the Miami bass sound, of which Wong Won was a pioneer (and is relatively recently deceased, July 13, 2017). Sundevilesq (talk) 04:56, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An assertion that it was popular regionally in Miami does nothing to demonstrate notability in terms of WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM, and it doesn't matter who produced the album since notability is not inherited. What is needed here are sources - if Filmman3000 can find and add some independent reliable sources that give significant coverage to this album (not just stuff about the artist with a passing reference to the album, which is all I could find), then I'd be happy to withdraw the nomination. GirthSummit (blether) 05:35, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Will add sources in coming days.Filmman3000 (talk) 05:21, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Added cited ref from reputable news source re: rapper Flo Rida who appears on 4 of the tracks of the album as a member of the Groundhoggz. Sundevilesq (talk) 21:25, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sundevilesq, I don't want to sound patronising, but please do take a look at WP:SIGCOV. That source includes only a single, brief passing mention of the album. It doesn't matter if we find a hundred sources like that, they don't contribute to notability - we need sources that actually discuss the album itself in significant depth. GirthSummit (blether) 09:31, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
AND this is why I took a break from Wikipedia from adding/editing pages. You DO come across as patronizing and I read WP:SIGCOV before I added the ref. The album is significant for the reasons stated, but at this point, do whatever you want. Hopefully, Filmman3000 can come up with more refs. In the meantime, be sure to edit and delete everything else I've contributed over the past 2 weeks. I'm done. Sundevilesq (talk) 21:20, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm truly sorry you feel like that Sundevilesq - I am not meaning to antagonise you, or to attack you or your contributions. I volunteer at NPP, and part of that process is for us to assess the notability of the subject of any new article against the relevant criteria, and to scrutinise the sources being used to support that notability. Since, in my view at least, that source clearly falls short of the criteria at SIGCOV, I thought you might not have read it; I apologise for making that assumption, and for coming across as patronising. GirthSummit (blether) 21:58, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit (blether) 05:38, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There used to be way more sources on this album. Mostly because it was the first appearance of Flo Rida on an official release.Filmman3000 (talk) 19:47, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Andy Kearns - we can't keep it and redirect it - do you mean redirect to Fresh Kid Ice, as Broccoli and Coffee has suggested? Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 08:43, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Girth Summit: redirect it to the Fresh Kid Ice. Andy Kearns (talk) 09:02, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
striking comments by sock puppet, now blocked GirthSummit (blether) 12:57, 18 August 2019 (UTC) [reply]
  • Redirect to Fresh Kid Ice - the album itself is not notable - has not been "the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works" as required by WP:NALBUM - does not meet other criteria, no awards, not on a national chart, not certified gold, etc. - fails to meet notability guidelines, therefore, redirect - Epinoia (talk) 21:39, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The album is notable for being rapper's Flo Rida first appearance on an album.Filmman3000 (talk) 22:41, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 06:47, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Jenkins[edit]

Alex Jenkins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Meets neither WP:GNG or WP:NGRIDIRON. Was deleted through prod, then restored. Onel5969 TT me 03:05, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 03:05, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The sources in the article aren't enough in my eyes to get him over WP:GNG. The Bath Chronicle is a small-town local paper doing a 'local boy done good' type story; the BBC article is very short, just a few sentences announcing that he'd been signed by the NY Giants, and the Giants website is an even briefer mention saying that they'd cut him. He doesn't appear ever to have played a game for them, so fails WP:NGRIDIRON too. GirthSummit (blether) 04:29, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable athlete.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:42, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. It looks like most of the editors who initially favored retention have withdrawn their support for the page. Consensus is now clearly against retention. There's not really much to merge. But if someone wants to add a couple sentences with appropriate RS citation to Asian Academy of Film & Television, go for it. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:53, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AAFT University of Media and Arts[edit]

AAFT University of Media and Arts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails ORG, GNG, CORPDEPTH and appears to be WP:TOOSOON because it is very recently established or may not exist just yet - it's hard to tell. No independent reliable sources cover this topic. Notability is not inherited (from a popular film and media personality as is the Chancellor of this school). Steve Quinn (talk) 05:32, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please post the significant independent reliable sources that have been discovered - here or in the article. As far as I can tell, there is no independent reliable sourcing on the internet for this topic. The main coverage seems to be published by this organization about itself - this is not independent third-party sourcing. Sorry. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:41, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:02, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:02, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:02, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the Gazette source now added makes it clear that the institution exists, though its website is absurdly promotional and makes unlikely claims. But as a verifiable higher education institution, it is notable. PamD 20:07, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@PamD: you said it yourself. The website is absurdly promotional, and makes illogical claims. The subject fails WP:ORG, as well as WP:GNG. Kindly see WP:NSCHOOL regarding that. Also, after the RfC, WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES clearly states "an institute is not notable only because it exists." —usernamekiran(talk) 23:11, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Pam: Hi. I am not trying to hound/single out, bludgeon or attack you; but I still couldn't find any evidence of that university going operational. Like Muhandes said in a combined reply to us below: i dont think a private, for profit university should have an article on enwiki when it is only approved for operation, but is not operational yet.
I apologise for the follow ups, and pings —usernamekiran(talk) 18:32, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On third thoughts, back to Merge to Asian Academy of Film & Television. This new body has been approved by the UGC, and it gets a link from the parent body's website, though doesn't seem to be mentioned in any text there. I think a sentence about it could usefully be added to that article, and this title redirected there. PamD 21:40, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I would have gone for a redirect too; but it is a private, for profit organisation that we cant even be sure exists. It fails all the criteria mentioned by the nominator. I cant see any reason for keeping the article or the redirect. —usernamekiran(talk) 05:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • update to original rationale: after the discussion here, and my searches; i believe the "university" fails WP:GNG, as it lacks significant coverage. As discussed, and concluded below; it is clear that the parent organisation of the university got permission to go operational. But we have no verifiable proofs in reliable sources of the university going operational. This further fails the "coverage" part (there is no coverage stating "university has gone operational" or "university will go operational" or "university is shelved"). This shows lack of coverage, and lack of noatability. As long as it cant be verified through RS that the university is not operational, it fails the bedrock policy of wikipedia: verifiability. As long as its operational status is not verified, WP:GNG applies, and the subject fails it. So its still a delete from me. —usernamekiran(talk) 08:12, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The UGC "State-wise List of Private Universities as on 12.11.2018", currently ref 1, is an independent verification that something of this name was "notified", whatever that means, on 17 April 2018. PamD 08:21, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@PamD: Hi. I have been getting a "server timed out" error for that pdf file. But from your comment, I am guessing the college's application for starting the "business" was approved by the UGC. But it wouldn't mean that the subject has gone operational or came into existence. Or it might even have been notified of something, due which the application was put on hold. —usernamekiran(talk) 12:54, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@PamD and Usernamekiran: In India, a university cannot operate until a legislative assembly passes an Act, which is notified in the Gazette.[1] Once this happens, the UGC recognises the institute and adds it to its lists.[2] In my opinion there is no question of official recognition and legitimacy, although there is a question whether operation has started. --Muhandes (talk) 15:17, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I am the creator of this stub so I may not be impartial. It has been customary to start articles for education institutes in India once two requirements were met. The first is UGC recognition,[2] which in itself follows an Act of a legislative assembly.[1] This requirement has been met. The second is some media presence showing that the institute had opened or is about to open. At the time, I thought having a campus[3] along with a claim for being awarded "Best Media Arts Institute in India" by ASSOCHAM[4] and a claim for being rated "Top University of India" in the Media and Arts sector by Competition Success Review[5] (both of which are notable organizations) is sufficient. Since the actual sources for these images are primary I did not add them to the article, but I still think the general notion holds, and the institute is upcoming, if not already operational. The fact that no independent sources exists is a hindrance for sure, so I would accept that this might still be WP:TOOSOON. If this occurs, it can surely be merged into Asian Academy of Film & Television almost in its entirety. --Muhandes (talk) 15:10, 9 August 2019 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Muhandes (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
It does seem a little strange that an entity which hasn't started to operate yet can be rated "top university of India". Similary the statistics it quotes on its website seem curious for a place which can't yet have any graduates let alone a "17,000 alumni network" and "10th in world ranking". PamD 15:31, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would say the institute is self promotional, and we shouldnt keep articles of such organisations, especially if it would confuse our readers. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:40, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you both that this is most likely false advertising, or at the very least misleading, but my conclusion is the opposite. Our best course of action in this case is to counter the false advertising with an impartial and well sourced article. There aren't many independent sources at this time, so the article only states what is clear - that this is an upcoming institute, which was approved by the government, and is yet to operate. The only question is notability, which I agree is borderline, but tends towards positive. --Muhandes (talk) 10:37, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b "The Chhattisgarh Private Universities (Establishment and Operation) (Amendment) Act, 2018" (PDF). Chhattisgarh Gazette. Government of Chhattisgarh. Retrieved 9 August 2019.
  2. ^ a b "State-wise List of Private Universities as on 12.11.2018" (PDF). www.ugc.ac.in. University Grants Commission. 12 November 2018. Retrieved 8 December 2018.
  3. ^ "Campus Tour". AAFT University. Retrieved 9 August 2019.
  4. ^ "Best Media Arts Institute in India". Retrieved 9 August 2019.
  5. ^ "Top University of India". Retrieved 9 August 2019.
  • Comment None of the above sources demonstrate notability according to Wikipedia's criteria. The Gazette is not is not significant coverage and does not appear to be a reliable source according to Wikipedia's standards. And, a poster-like webpage claiming "Best Media & Arts Institute" on the AAFT.EDu website is a primary source published by the University and not independent significant coverage - in fact it is a slide (like Microsoft Powerpoint) - look at the URL.
Next, a statewide list of universities is merely passing mention and is not significant, in-depth, independent coverage. Then, a campus tour via this University's website is a primary source, produced by this University. Finally, a Power Point slide residing on this University's URL, claiming to be rated "top University" is a primary source, and not a reliable secondary or third-hand source, independent of the subject. Also, there is nothing in this discussion that has clearly shown that University even exists right now. It seems to have been a back forth between participants. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:46, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: When commenting be pithy. Be concise. Cite policies or guidelines if possible. Confine your comments to what is germane to the discussion and be brief. Above all, be brief!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:48, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - does not meet WP:NSCHOOL, WP:ORG or WP:GNG - has not "been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources" - not notable, therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 02:47, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 02:55, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Monastic HSEB, Janakpur[edit]

Monastic HSEB, Janakpur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable school. ~SS49~ {talk} 02:41, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:48, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:48, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:48, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 06:34, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning Delete: Verified from HSEB link that it's a real higher secondary school. May deserve keeping, as an education institution that's big enough to substantially impact the lives of the community it services. However, being a for-profit institution, it needs to meet WP:ORG guidelines which it doesn't. No independent RS that I could find except for the HSEB member listing (which is enough to verify it's not a hoax, but doesn't aid notability in any way). Edusanjal lists it, but still am not clear what the status of Edusanjal is, on reliability/credibility. Usedtobecool ✉ ✨ 08:50, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: When commenting be pithy. Be concise. Cite policies or guidelines if possible. Confine your comments to what is germane to the discussion and be brief. Above all, be brief!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - does not meet WP:NSCHOOL, WP:ORG or WP:GNG - has not "been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources" - not notable, therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 02:43, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 06:51, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alakkuu[edit]

Alakkuu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. The only source in the article that might help to establish notability is the Forbes piece, which I don't think meets WP:INDEPENDENT since it's an interview with the subject of the article. Outside the sources in the article, I was only able to find this from OnlineMarketplaces.com, which appears to plagiarize the Forbes article. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 03:29, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:45, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:45, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:44, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 06:35, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: When commenting be pithy. Be concise. Cite policies or guidelines if possible. Confine your comments to what is germane to the discussion and be brief. Above all, be brief!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:44, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The only source that counts toward notability is from Forbes, which is a brief bio and then all interview, so is worth little. He gave a TEDx talk but this is not notable in the way a TED Talk is notable. I searched but cannot find any other suitable sources, not even unsuitable sources apart from the very unsuitable onlinemarketplaces.com that copy and pasts the Forbes article. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. WP:TOOSOON. All this article says is that he cofounded a company, wrote a book of poetry, and was interviewed by Forbes. I think that given all the inline external links, and references, to Amazon this article had, that I removed, it was likely written so as to draw potentially profitable traffic to him. This impression is further confirmed by the article's author making similar claims about the book and about Amazon here at this AfD. -Lopifalko (talk) 07:04, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for removing any links that may potentially result in profit towards the subject. Per WP:PRODBLP all biographies of living people have to have at least one reliable source - the Forbes article meets this requirement. I provided references of notability regarding a US tour the subject did with Boonaa Mohammed who is also deemed a notable Poet by this community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yortay (talk • contribs) 16:12, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks LB - Boonaa Mohammed has 1 of 3 references of notability; one of which is a TedX talk. Why isn't Alakkuu's TedX talk given the same weight in notability? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yortay (talk • contribs) 15:32, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Understandable that the award from CBC was considered, but Alakkuu is a best selling African poet, and I don't see why that isn't being considered. Also, an accepted article pertaining to [Boonaa Mohammed]] (https://web.archive.org/web/20110823202903/http://oromiatimes.multiply.com/journal/item/1237/Oromo_-_Canadian_Poet_Boonaa_Mohammed_Celebrates_African_Legacy) was very similar to the Forbes article of Alakkuu, but from a much less notable source (bio and answers from the subject himself). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yortay (talk • contribs) 19:04, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Noticed that references produced by the subject him/herself are accepted , e.g. Nayyirah Waheed wrote https://www.vibe.com/featured/afeni-shakur-mothers-day-poem and this was used as a viable reference on this subject's page. Due to this, I'd like to bring into the discussion an article written by the subject that was published on a notable African News platform - https://www.hiiraan.com/comments2-op-2010-jan-light_skin_vs_dark_skin.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yortay (talk • contribs) 19:21, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 05:45, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dykedolls[edit]

Dykedolls (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This company does not appear to meet WP:ORGCRIT as it was not ' the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.' The company seems to have lasted a few years and attracted attention mostly on collector and fan sites. The NYT reference in the article is the most solid sourcing; most of the other coverage does not look satisfactory in order to meet our notability criteria. Mccapra (talk) 11:39, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 11:39, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 11:39, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 11:39, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In addition, based on this twitter handle, the creator of the article appears to have been the founder and owner of the company. Mccapra (talk) 11:42, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: When commenting be pithy. Be concise. Cite policies or guidelines if possible. Confine your comments to what is germane to the discussion and be brief. Above all, be brief!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:18, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There are a few mentions of the company in reliable sources, such as the NYT article currently used in the article, but they are all very brief. None of them are the substantial coverage needed to demonstrate notability. And, as the company seems to be now defunct, it seems unlikely that there will be any further in-depth coverage of it at this point. Rorshacma (talk) 01:01, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:07, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 12:51, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Jodhpur State. Tone 06:48, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rao Sheoji[edit]

Rao Sheoji (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ANYBIO, borderline speedy deletable Collaboratio (talk) 12:59, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:02, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:02, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:02, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Probably should be Rao Siha (Rao Sheoji seems to be a different spelling variant, less used, of the same) - the found of Marwar State who would pass notability per my very brief BEFORE - so I disagree with the nom regarding ANYBIO. However given the article is nearly empty, lacking sources, there may be merit for TNT (e.g. perhaps a redirect to Jodhpur State). Icewhiz (talk) 13:08, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • REdirect for the moment to the list article which is at Jodhpur State, without prejudice to this being returned to being a full article if it can be expanded from this terse stub. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:39, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This discussion got me sidetracked into adding the rulers of Jodhpur State into existing articles like List of state leaders in 1801. My main take away from trying to do this is that such lists, at least pre-1900, are overly Euro-centric. I have dabbled in trying to add adequate coverage of rulers in Asia and Africa to these lists for over a decade, and I still feel like almost no progress has been made. A close look shows that I am almost the only editor who has made additions of new rulers to these lists during that time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:27, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment an example of what we could have for the 18th-century is to be found with List of state leaders in 1759 although even that article is probably short of some potential inclusions. I know Wayne State University and probalby other univeristies have books that are a list of rulers in Africa, but sadly Wayne State wont let that book be checked out. One day if I have time I will go to Wayne State and try to include material from that book.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:31, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: When commenting be pithy. Be concise. Cite policies or guidelines if possible. Confine your comments to what is germane to the discussion and be brief. Above all, be brief!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:17, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Jodhpur State at this time. No prejudice to developing a more detailed article on the founder of Marwar State if more sources are found/developed. If that is done, the more common English transliteration appears to be Rao Siha, as noted above but a redirect from this alternative spelling is not unreasonable. 24.151.50.175 (talk) 14:54, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Walking through the line of "children" of the subject there are references to "Maheca Rathaurom ka mula itihasa: Ravala Mallinatha ke vamsaja - Maheca, Baramera, Pokarana, Kotariya aura Khavariya Rathaurom ka sodhapurna itihasa" by Dr. Hukam Singh Bhati. Publisher: Ratan Prakashan, Jodhpur (1990) translated as "Mula History of Mahesa Rathores: Descendants of Rawal Mallinatha - A research history of Mahesa, Barmer, Pokaran, Kotaria and Khawaria Rathors." --Enos733 (talk) 04:09, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - One sentence does not an article make WP:1 SENTENCE - no information, no references, doesn't even provide dates of his reign - cannot redirect to Jodhpur State because Rao Sheoji does not appear in that article - this article could be a WP:HOAX - unless, as pointed out above, Rao Sheoji is a variant spelling of Rao Siha, in which case this article should be deleted and a new redirect created from Rao Siha to Jodhpur State - as it stands, this article catastrophically fails WP:GNG which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources" - lacking that significant coverage the article cannot be left to stand and should be deleted - Epinoia (talk) 02:01, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. The nominator has stuck their own deletion rationale. De facto withdrawal (non-admin closure) Dom from Paris (talk) 00:09, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Ireland Ombudsman[edit]

Northern Ireland Ombudsman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

doesn't seem to be particularly notable in its own right. Just researching online doesn't seem to draw up any so fails WP:ORGDEPTH Sam-2727 (talk) 02:09, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Although the scholar search doesn't persuade me (the articles I can access seem to be no more than trivial references), the news search does provide more information than my quick internet search did, thus I am changing my opinion on this. Sam-2727 (talk) 02:30, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 03:15, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 03:15, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a Scholar search produces numerous books and papers (leaving aside the primary sources that come up there). Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:02, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a news search (on both the subject's official and common name) would seem to return what enough significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. Guliolopez (talk) 10:28, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- produces numerous books and papers. seems enough significant coverage to meet WP:GNG.--SalmanZ (talk) 20:58, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. czar 02:53, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of medieval great powers[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of medieval great powers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The concept of the "medieval great power" barely exists and it certainly is not used in scholarship (or anywhere) to describe just about any of the states listed on this page. The page cannot be rescued because sources do not exist. Srnec (talk) 02:09, 15 August 2019 (UTC) I suppose the page could be rescued, but it would be much reduced. Also, unlike the modern great powers, there is no consensus concerning what were "great powers" in the Middle Ages. Srnec (talk) 13:16, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because it suffers from the same problem. A bare list of states that some modern scholar has labelled a "great power" is possible, but seems useless to me. Unlike the medieval page, this one might be salvageable.

List of ancient great powers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Srnec (talk) 02:15, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 03:16, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 03:16, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 03:16, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep In fact scholars for decades have used the term: 1) 1972 in "In Eastern Europe peace periods were created in Hungary, Bohemia and Poland because of the collapse of medieval great powers" [Peace Research Vol. 4, No. 3 (March 1972), pp. 17-20] (2) The SAGE Encyclopedia of War (2016) p 1185 "Military power secured the vital interests of ancient and medieval great powers. Some early states practiced..." (3) Civilizations, Empires, and Wars (1992) p 113 "Medieval Great Powers included China throughout, Persia...." [gives a list] (4) Toynbee (1965) "In other words, there was no relation between medieval “nations and medieval “Great Powers'," (5) Great Powers and Geopolitical Change (2008) - Page 231 has a list of medieval great powers. Rjensen (talk) 03:40, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such list on p. 231. Or p. 213. Do you have the right book? Srnec (talk) 13:16, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is easy to find substantial sources which talk in these terms: Great Powers and Geopolitical Change uses the Republic of Venice as a case study and they appear in the medieval list; while Balance: The Economics of Great Powers from Ancient Rome to Modern America starts with Ancient Rome – an archetypal great power. Andrew D. (talk) 09:47, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In light of the above comments, I encourage editors to do their own Google Book and Scholar searches and decide for themselves if my use of "barely" was unjustified. Srnec (talk) 13:16, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both. I notice that the AFD for List of ancient great powers links to this page. Anyway, as I said in the previous AFD for this: All of these are referred to by historians as great powers.  That is a proper term for it.  Webster dictionary even has a definition for great power [14], saying its the same as "superpowers", that term used today.  Listing what countries were considered great powers in their day, all having a significant effect on history, is very encyclopedic. Seriously, just click on the link to Great power and read the clear definition used. Dream Focus 17:14, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a very common term in international relations. Great power and superpower are in no way the same thing; they're generally tied to unipolar/bipolar/multipolar systems. For example, in WW1 you had a bunch of great powers fighting. Cold war, two superpowers (three, counting GB before the Suez Crisis). Now, one superpower. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:25, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rjensen's argument and citations. Dimadick (talk) 10:05, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- If this were a category, I would have to object that its scope was a subjective matter, but I do not see that as a major problem with a list article, which is all this is. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:08, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. I am singularly unimpressed with the quality of the arguments on both sides of this issue which only occasionally seem to invoke WP:PAG and more often tended to veer all over the place making the discussion extremely unwieldy and difficult to follow. If there is an inclination to renominate this page I would strongly advise that a very clear and concise rational based on our policies and guidelines be laid out at the first. Ad Orientem (talk) 05:36, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Salvatore Aranzulla[edit]

Salvatore Aranzulla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

[Prior to everything I apologise for possible errors in English language, which is not my mother tongue]. The article is about an Internet phenomenon who is not either an established entrepreneur, nor an IT expert (he's basically someone that reads on behalf of you the user manual of an electronic device) and also lacks of notability outside his narrow niche of followers. He's only "Famous for being famous"; or better, "notorious for being notorious". Of course I am aware that every chapter has their own rules and guidelines, often radically different one another, but even the community in Italian language, which should be the most impacted by the phenomen, had expressed their perplexity about the relevance of the biographed person, so much that the article were deleted by consensus. I am just proposing that the community in English language evaluates the encyclopedical relevance of the subject. SERGIO aka the Black Cat 16:56, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:38, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:38, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:39, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In my opinion, the main issues with this article is that several of the "key" facts that maybe could support notability are not indipendently verified. Especially, it is claimed that S.A. at young age discovered and/or exploited significant web vulnerabilities on websites such as Poste Italiane. None of this is corroborated by any evidence outside of his own website, later copy-pasted in a short bio inside an interview-style book.
Also, there is a non-negligible chance that the article was, at least in part, written or supported by S.A. himself or his employees, and we know for a fact that Wikipedia does not support vanity articles. This already happened on the Italian Wikipedia in 2006, when the page was deleted 12 times over a period of 10 days for this reason and then 10 years later.
Currently, the main argument for the existence of the articles seems to be that he is popular. Guidelines clarify that "Notable in the sense of being famous or popular—although not irrelevant—is secondary." --TheLazza (talk) 10:54, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
there is a non-negligible chance that the article was, at least in part, written or supported by S.A. himself or his employees no there is not :D. I was not going to comment here but this is actually quite fun. Plus it should be said is totally untrue. You could have pinged me asked me, if you really wanted to know, but you just drop it there, while you can check who I am and see I had nothing to do with him, just met him at an event in April 2018 and said I could have written this article in English since there was plenty of sources. This occurred few weeks after a discussion with quite a few wikipedians in March in Florence who considered the deletion on itwikipedia excessive (I don't think I even started such discussion). I simply found useful to describe something people still look for. And he is not in my field, more importantly I don't even like him (or in any case, I dont' fully get him) :D I knew him like everybody else, but never used his tutorials because if I need, I google basic questions in English, but I am not a snob.
Also, you got an answer in the talk page, I can find you at least two national newspapers that define him what he is, the most known personality in his field, the "expert" of this "basic problem solving" for the Italian audience, and I guess you can find even more sources. But as Italian you know that, he has this "role". In the end, adding more sources about that is no big deal, but if people want that, they don't start a deletion immediately or they don't make allusion in the deletion procedures. So, go on. it could be actually more interesting to link this discussion to everyone asking about this story and the obsession of it-N wikipedians with Aranzulla (see the incorrectly inserted deletion requests or tags over the months). BTW, besides being the most known in his "field", he is notable by enwiki standard also for the fuzz generated by the deletion procedure. A part that I think you even improved in the article. Thank you for the laugh. Also, don't forget lawiki article. That was written by I think a former member of the Board of Director of Wikimedia Italy, who has a blog on the topic of web communication and/or wiki stuff, and he is a sysop on itwikipedia, you can doubt about him too. --Alexmar983 (talk) 22:10, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
“while you can check who I am” — Technically speaking, I cannot. I have no power to do a Check User operation, your profile does not specify your real name (totally fine, it is of course not required) and in any case this deletion discussion is not personally about you, but just about the article.
“you got an answer in the talk page” — Thank you, I responded more precisely over there. I'd just like to repeat a point here: currently it seems we do not have evidence he hacked / found vulnerabilities in companies such as Google, Microsoft or Poste Italiane. If sufficient evidence of this can be found, I will strongly consider strucking my previous "delete" and suggest to keep the article.
“it could be actually more interesting to link this discussion to everyone asking about this story” — In my opinion, that's not a good idea and it could alter consensus. I remember the "call to action" S.A. did when his article was about to be deleted from it-Wikipedia, on social media and then (after the fact) on newspapers. It did not turn out wonderfully.
--TheLazza (talk) 17:38, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you can check who I am, it's all on the internet. As an expert guy who can look inside guideline of a platform you almost never edited and an expert guy in general, you can do it very easily. It has nothing to do with a check user operation. Just think about that there was no reason to state something so big like that, you just wanted to see this reality, that's the point. Also, we even discussed in your talk page years ago and at a time I did not care to write this article.
About that part, remove. It is incidental in this context, the sources for the notability are other ones. Look I found other ones right now. a national newpaper calling him Maestro Manzi, than "il guru" on a video of Il Sole 24 ore il più famoso divulgatore informatico d'Italia in the description, than a a national radio where Linus define it more famous than Emily Ratajkowski to the audience. But you know this, you know he is the most known popularizer in the field. I know that and I did not live in Italy for years when he was already famous.
it's not a "call to action", I will link it after you completed the deletion in future discussion ;D. Which is no big deal, you really think I link to get support? I told you in talk page of the article how much I care. You see? here it is again, just for the anglophones reading this discussion... we have people who make of Aranzulla such a big deal that sometime they "create" this reality that just does not exist as much as they think it does. Aranzulla does not care about this article I suppose (when I briefly chatted with him he was quite calm about it, the idea of an article in English was possible but I suppose it is not his main target that's why he did not care particularly, who knows), I wrote it and I don't care very much (I commented because of this far-fetched allegation of being close to him), people with whom I discussed about it in these days while talking about other wiki-things don't really care about keeping it or not (but of course since the fuzz by the previous deletion, a lot of it-N wikimedians immediately realized about this deletion too). BTW, the English page is linked from the main page of google on the lateral infobox from Italy, so somebody will end up here maybe in any case, as they landed on the article in the previous months.--Alexmar983 (talk) 19:10, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Whether he does or "does not care", or what "his main target" consists of, is completely irrelevant to this discussion. You are turning the rest in a personal argument, with snarky remarks about my Wikipedia usage and a bunch of sarcastic smilies, which I am not interested to get into. Bye. --TheLazza (talk) 13:49, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You made a personal comment about who I might be, that's how you started here... and about the fact that the person who write this article might be close to him. you. And if you want, you could be interested in the sources. I asked you many times in the talk page if you want to put them in the article, the ones here and the other ones there. I never got a reply. I am glad we kinda proved to the anglophone audience what is sometimes the level in the it-N community about Aranzulla, a fact that users on this platforms could guess also by the unusual deletion attempts and the tags in the previous months. Now I guess that since I will never get an answer about inserting the additional sources, I can add them in the article myself. --Alexmar983 (talk) 22:18, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please, we are on en.wiki. I guess that our English-speaking friends don't care for the dynamics of the chapter in Italian language, so we have to make a collective effort to avoid replicating them here. -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 22:43, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to avoid to replicate them, don't start a discussion citing the deletion on itwikipedia as if it was a pro (it was not, by any platform standard, a functional procedure). Now people can start to question type of behaviour could be part of such decision, which I think the English-speaking users should also know f you cite it. To be honest, we are not replicating them, because I stopped them. As soon as the image of promotional POV-pushing was evocated, I killed it. Now you can hardly reply here the dynamic of the Italian wikipedia. As a result, we can finally discuss about sources and nothing else. I'm happy because I am the one who cited those.--Alexmar983 (talk) 22:59, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, I will insert all the sources tomorrow with calm, just for this discussion please notice also these snippets I found (easily)

Plus there might be even something on academic publications. In any case, the sources here and in the talk pages are probably enough. Tomorrow I add them.--Alexmar983 (talk) 22:59, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, I have edited quite randomly during the last hours. Since the important ones are already here and in the talk page, I have added a lot of "minor" sources, in order to clean up the situation. The last part is to rearrange the first lines with all the sources that define him as the most important popularizer in the field of IT for the general Italian public, which we have enough. I had to add more sources about the reaction to the deletion because it was not balanced. Originally, I avoided inserting it in order to evaluate the relevance only by the other aspects, but it was inserted so now it should be described a little bit more. What was there was totally missing other reactions. Finally, I added the information about the Italian promo of Black mirror because it was on different sources. There is also his new initiative as a pastry chef which is maybe correct to cite since two or three sources already do that (but I would avoid inserting it for the moment). He was cited for the "scandal" of the food delivery guys and the celebrities who do not leave a tip, but I also decide not to insert this part. Plus, there is also the award from the town of Catania, this can also be added. In any case the real final edit is the insertion or rearrangements of all the sources from national newspapers and financial magazines about the relevance in his field. --Alexmar983 (talk) 18:59, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, as I am now learning by having a look at the history of the page, that this is an article created by an Italian user whose home wiki is it.wiki.
And it looks to me like a (dangerous) loophole in order to pave the road to its reintroduction on it.wiki.
Alex, I am telling this honestly and frankly because I know you: this RfD was opened for the ENGLISH community to express their concern about an article of dubious enciclopedicity. Thus this is not an Italian RfD temporarily relocated on en.wiki.
Please, do not attempt to monopolize the debate with a flood of non pertinent data (like the ones you just tried to provide with) and considerations regards other partecipants. this is a discussion for the english-speaking community. Can I hope you understand what I say and step behind? I repeat: CAN I EXPECT that this is a matter that is not managed by guests on this chapter like us? -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 19:31, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I am a editor of enwikipedia. In addition to that FYI my original homewiki was frwiki before itwiki. I created this article after years from the itwiki deletion (and after its established presence on other language editions) as part of my interest in biographies of living people which i find challenging but interesting. It was coincidentally cited to me two times in the span of few weeks, that's why I decide to create it. After the pseudo-trolling of Italian users I stopped enlarging as I wanted to, and now I am completing it. Also, I have been even more active here than itwikipedia in the last months, or even years. To be honest, the other user is much less active on this platform than I am. If it was not a problem for you that he was here making allegations that were not pertinent to the article, how is my presence an issue now? If he did not make a unsubstantial claim about me, which is mostly why I am here, would you have been ok with his presence? BTW, isn't he also the user who started the deletion on itwikipedia, I seem to recall? In any case, I was not present on itwiki deletion procedure, I know it because many peoples in Italy (and all wikimedians) knew it at the time and it was quite a big thing. As a user of this platform, I will edit the article and describe why it fits the notability guideline of enwikipedia. The other "anglophone" users can make their comments about it. If I might, I find your deletion proposal a little flawed. If you have so much respect for the active content-creating users of this platforms, you could have waited for them to ask for a proper deletion request, instead of bringing the business of another platform here since the beginning. Platforms are independent and even if a deletion procedure is a good thing to scroll to get an idea (certainly for some sources), that specific deletion was not, it was quite dysfunctional and you should know that. As a result, you also invited comment such as the first one with these far-fetched allegations. Now that people have this aspect a litte bit more clear in mind, and your "authoritative" statement is a little bit more into perspective, they can simply evaluate the sources. In any case, I have no problem to leave this discussion after the last enlargement. will however explain why he is obviously not "famous for being famous", and I am here if anyone needs help about the Italian language.--Alexmar983 (talk) 20:25, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
established presence on other language editions: German (by a globally blocked Italian user), Latin and Lombardian. Please kindly don't try to make a fool of me :-) -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 21:09, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am not fooling anyone. Nobody deleted it after one year on German wikipedia, which is quite selective and has a rigid page revision mechanism, and a very expert user wrote it in Latin. Never considered lmowiki, in my evaluation. Since I got no reply on the rest, I hope you agree. In the end, I put an additional step before also checking the sources, it's more than many other users do. If I might, you actually tried to make a fool of me with your attempt to ask me to leave this discussion, and with your attempt to act as the person who wants a discussion devoid of the itwikipedia influences, after I was the one who had to stop them (and with the creation of this page after few hours of the doubt of the Italian user, citing the itwiki deletion procedure, you actually encouraged them).--Alexmar983 (talk) 22:21, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have added other sources. You all can refine, change, remove one but there will other ones. In the end, Aranzulla is not "famous for being famous", is the most important popularizer in the IT field for the general audience in Italy. There will be other sources probably, it takes more time to insert them than actually finding them. Have a nice holiday.--Alexmar983 (talk) 22:21, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, here is a source that is not Italian. It's Swiss-Italian, just to prove how Aranzulla is known to all the areas speaking this language. On Radiotelevisione svizzera here he is described as the Christian Barnard dei PC.--Alexmar983 (talk) 22:46, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: When Commenting Be pithy. Be concise. Cite policies or guidelines if possible. Confine your comments to what is germane to the discussion and be brief. Above all, be brief!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:09, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well basically the reason for deletion are sheer: Aranzulla is neither an IT specialist (by his own admission, plus), nor a technician, and the few articles that talk about him cite him only as phenomenon of costume to underline the general technological ignorance of the average Italian people. He's basically vaguely notoriius for having been dropped from it.wiki and having offended as "losers" the ones who expressed consent favourable to his biographical article. -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 19:21, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article fits WP:GNG. Aranzulla is the most relevant popularizer in his field to the Italian (or in a broder sense Italian-speaking) public. The presence of a Swiss source in this discussion (and in the article), that highlights his role, does not fully fit the narrative of ignorance of the Italian public about IT, and even if so this is the sort of consideration that has nothing to do with what the sources state. It is not possible to find a source in the last years that describes him just as "vaguely notorious" but a lot stating he has been in "notorius" and the reason is clear in expressions such as "king" or "guru" of this aspect of IT problem solving. His presence on newspapers, magazines, radio programs has been quite constant. He was already cited on specialized magazines or national TV programs when he was a teen-ager because of his work, he later became a successful entrepreneur who is currently interviewed by the most important Italian economic newspapers and magazines specifically because of this aspect. The deletion of his itwikipedia article was not notorious because he called "loser" the person who proposed the deletion, but because some newspapers couldn't even explain to their audience who found it excessive. As a person widely known to the public, he also has a minor involvement in some pop culture dynamics, as this often happens. Even not considering that, he is relevant in his field. --Alexmar983 (talk) 23:45, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Swiss source is not relevant because the Italian Switzerland, as well as San Marino, are not culturally "foreign", since they are bordering the mainland Italy. Aranzulla's relevance is still to be demonstrated, as the vague source cited in this discussion demonstrate. -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 01:09, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The canton of Lugano is not similar to Italy under many aspects, unless you have a source that states that their IT literacy is like the Italian one and that they are both poor. Both SUPSI and Università della Svizzera italiana have good or advanced research lines in the field. Switzerland has one of the highest standard in the world on overall literacy and computer diffusion. the country is at the top in the GDP investments in R&D. The national school system is second in the future skill preparedness and top 5 in the Digital Competitiveness ranking. I am just grabbing the first sources I am finding with google.
In any case, the sources concerning Aranzulla in the article are not vague. They are quite consistent over the years, presenting him as the top in his field. And they are on all major magazines and journals (only one, a 30 y.o, business magazine does not have an article here on enwikipedia, they are all sources so established they were all translated even on this wiki). The ones in the article now are those mostly related to him (I put the snippets where he is briefly cited only in this current discussion, and I have more from every types of sources).--Alexmar983 (talk) 12:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind to elaborate a little bit about the relevance of any fact you stated about Switzerland? I mean: Switzerland is advanced in IT, so what? S.A. is not a computer scientist nor an IT manager/expert/professional. Neither does he work in Switzerland. He is a full-time writer of tutorials for the general public, written in Italian. "His field" is SEO, not IT. His company legitimately earns money through ads and maximizing the number of visits on its website, not by managing IT projects. Moreover, it is not surprising at all that the Italian speaking community in Switzerland reads Italian language websites, which are mostly based in Italy. --TheLazza (talk) 14:29, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I said there are also Swiss sources, somebody pointed out that their situation is the same of Italy. I noticed it's not like that. They read the same sites (probably, but again why I am the only person bringing sources?) ok, but even with a different situation, they still give preeminence to him in this sector. BTW, I think the only really relevant part are the sources, I never put considerations of the low IT literacy of the Italian population as a factor to be taken into account in assessing the relevance of Aranzulla. He is a popularizer of problem solving and is recognized as the top both in a country with low IT literacy and in a region with high IT literacy. Which of course kinda proves the point that IT is not his core competence, which was never questioned by me. I simply point out sources are here and describe him in a certain way independently of their field (general, economic) or region (Italy or Switzerland) or year (2016, 2017, 2018, 2019).--Alexmar983 (talk) 16:03, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it even says in the article that "his page on Italian Wikipedia was removed because he was not considered sufficiently relevant" - I will trust the Italian Wikipedia here as they are closer to the subject and recommend delete - Epinoia (talk) 21:46, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you cite itwikipedia let's consider some facts about this deletion there. The let's say 50-50 split the itwikipedia would have kept the article if vote started (you need a two third majority to delete) but the discussion was closed before the vote, it was claimed that the consensus was clear, which wasn't by itwikipedia standard. People who wanted to keep the articles were also sysops and made good points as well. And it was with the sources of 2016. There are three years more of sources and a ongoing discussion even on itwikipedia now on it:Discussione:Salvatore_Aranzulla. Which is quite bizarre because also the talk page should be deleted, but it was not in this case. A peculiar situation. The loophole is that if an article is under deletion and there is no consensus you have to vote, but if you claim consensus is there (and it wasn't there) and the article is deleted (no matter how, for example avoiding to vote claiming consensus is reached) at that point you need to have consensus to put it back. It's not just that, there is more. Actually Aranzulla could even be on tiwikipedia as a relevant writer if you assume it fits these conditions, and here you have an ongoing debate about the sort of relevance of the reviews of the book he published.
But, if you want to avoid digging into that (because as wikipedians we use other wikis as a starting point NOT as a source per se), just look at the sources. As a person with similar amount of edits here than those you have, but who can understand the language of the sources, I looked at them. Consider a country of a similar size, e.g. UK. Think about somebody who is described three years in a row by TV and radio and newspaper of such country as "the guru/king/etc of problem solving" both by pop culture and economic sources. That's notable by enwiki standards, here the source are in another language, but it's the same situation. As wikipedians we should trust the sources.--Alexmar983 (talk) 22:50, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Tone 06:48, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Irtishad Ahmad[edit]

Irtishad Ahmad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NBIO. Potential promtion and advertisment. Willbb234 (talk) 19:31, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Willbb234 (talk) 19:31, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:05, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 20:11, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, weak-ish, but still. The nominator is correct that the article looked like a copy of a CV. I removed most of the promotional and unverified info. Citability in GScholar is decent but not stellar for a high citation field, with an h-index of 20. He was indeed an editor-in-chief of a legit journal published by the American Society of Civil Engineers. I added a ref for that. Could be sufficient for WP:PROF#C8, although I am not sure how important the journal is (it is indexed in Scopus and in WebOfScience, and has impact factor of 3.269 in the latter). He also received an award in 2016 from the American Institute of Constructors. I added a ref for that too. Overall, seems to be enough here to satisfy WP:PROF#C1. Nsk92 (talk) 23:06, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Nsk92 above. Thanks you for removing WP:PROMO. I think Ahmad passes WP:PROF due to citations and serving as editor-in-chief. Thsmi002 (talk) 14:12, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:07, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 02:52, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Elecsim[edit]

Elecsim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article about a series of online conferences in the 1990s was created by the conference organiser. Per the article itself much of the conference materials have not survived. The only online refs I can find are authored by the same individual. Note that a search for ‘Elecsim’ brings up materials on simulation models of the same name, not about the conferences. Nothing to demonstrate that the topic passes WP:ORGCRIT. Mccapra (talk) 21:37, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:37, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:37, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:37, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:37, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Online search brings up mere mentions in books and a scarcity of otherwise direct references. -The Gnome (talk) 05:53, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:06, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The main problem with this article is its lack of content. The subject of the article is a conference, but the article briefly mentions the circumstances surrounding the subject instead of the subject itself. To wit: What was the subject of the conference? Who participated? What was discussed in it? What was the nature of its "success" that led to three other followups? What impact did it have on the industry? (Did it actually impact an industry?) In the language of analogy, this article's affair is like the case of a person wanting to make steak; he/she prepares everything needed, except meat! Flowing dreams (talk) 05:19, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it seems that Roger Smith, who created Elecsim also created the article, which is WP:COI - the article has no references that establish notability, has not "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" as required by WP:GNG - not notable; therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 01:31, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 02:51, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of educators and librarians of Upstate New York[edit]

List of educators and librarians of Upstate New York (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of political figures of Upstate New York and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of emigrants from Upstate New York, this is biographical listcruft, an overly granular fork of List of people from New York (state). Sure that is a massive category, but this is unsourced with no set criteria for inclusion. Reywas92Talk 01:51, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 03:17, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 03:17, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 03:17, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 03:17, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/merge The list of people from New York (state) has many occupational sections but doesn't seem to have one for educators or librarians. Such people as a group are notable per WP:LISTN. For example, see Demand and supply of professionally trained librarians in New York State or Encyclopedia of New York State which highlist the role of key people like Melvil Dewey whose system is now used worldwide. WP:LISTCRUFT is neither guideline nor policy; just disruptive WP:CRUFTCRUFT. Andrew D. (talk) 11:16, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, as above. This is way too esoterically crufty as a standalone. Agricola44 (talk) 14:49, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Andrew D. Delete In addition to being crufty. Given that the boundaries of where Upstate New York actually begins is widely disputed, it's difficult to use as a classifying criteria for lists. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:18, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TNT as hopelessly far from complete and hopelessly huge if ever completed. There are 13 people on the list now. Just including Category:Cornell University faculty would give some 1175 upstate NY educators and the region includes many other fine universities and colleges with many other notable faculty members. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:16, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A fuzzily defined inclusion criterion and no real indication that the set has been treated as a collective entity (the Google Books sources mentioned above either can't be read or don't limit themselves to upstate). Merging would just introduce arbitrariness into the target article. XOR'easter (talk) 00:41, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 02:47, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Alexander (musician)[edit]

Alex Alexander (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Written in a pretty promotional fashion. All entries are AllMusic type entries, interviews (which are not valid towards notability, being primary), or short mentions. Onel5969 TT me 00:24, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 00:24, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:49, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I could find nothing WP:RS, even using Swedish words like musiker and sverige in the search string. I looked at his official website. I would have expected the Press section to include things we might consider RS. It doesn't: it's all promotional and interviews. Even his (non RS) AllMusic and Discogs entries are extremely sketchy. He isn't mentioned in da:Disco:wax or its Finnish and Polish equivalents, articles about one of his record labels. On some of the songs where he is said to have been the lead artist, he turns out to have been a featured artist. Fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:ANYBIO. Narky Blert (talk) 10:13, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, having previously nominated this for PROD. No indication of meeting GNG, and the initial editor's comments in edit summaries about improving the article seem to attempt to derive inherited notability from the subject's collaboration with more notable acts as a producer or session artist. signed, Rosguill talk 16:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Too soon at best. – Broccoli & Coffee (Oh hai) 17:56, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment AllMusic staff written bios and reviews are reliable sources as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources but in this case it's just a listing which doesn't count at all Atlantic306 (talk) 18:39, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:39, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - notablility not established - does not meet WP:MUSICBIO - "Criteria for musicians and ensembles" paticularly excludes interviews - no substantial coverage - the article reads like someone in the wings trying to spin themselves as a major artist through WP:REFBOMBING - therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 00:01, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:29, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Evangelos Katsioulis[edit]

Evangelos Katsioulis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Katsioulis Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Delete. This page looks like a hoax, as some of the facts or figures are quite unreliable or not properly referenced. This person is virtually unknown in Greece, so I do have doubts about the writers of the article -- it could be him, which means there is a strong conflict of interest. I repeat, most of the sources used are very unreliable. Glucken123 (talk) 16:42, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:56, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychiatry-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:56, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we need more than someone's own website to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:17, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: Even the Greek Wikipedia article was deleted more than six years ago as users cited the lack of notability and references [1]. Surprisingly, more than ten newly registered users showed up in 2013 to oppose the possible deletion of the article, resulting in canvassing suspicions. It really doesn't make any sense that this page remained online for so many years. Let's fix that. Glucken123 (talk) 11:44, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no references, notability not established - One sentence does not an article make, WP:1 SENTENCE - does not meet WP:BLPNOTE or any other notability guideline - therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 23:44, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RS, WP:BLP, and WP:SNOW. No reasonable editor would accept this. Bearian (talk) 16:39, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2019_August_15&oldid=1142614724"