Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 August 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 1 August 3 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 keep. (non-admin closure) ~~ OxonAlex - talk 17:24, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Children in a Chariot[edit]

Children in a Chariot (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 painting that has received little to no coverage, failing WP:GNG. Highway 89 (talk) 22:50, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:57, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I’m not clear how any work by Goya isn’t notable, but a search in google books shows multiple works discussing it as part of Goya’s oeuvre. The linked article on fr.wiki has multiple refs. Mccapra (talk) 23:05, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, an obvious keep which just needs a reference, and per Mccapra. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:10, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Another irritatingly useless article by this editor, taking up other people's time. A proper articles on the series would be better. Johnbod (talk) 04:14, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Johnbod, the creator of the article, DilletantiAnonymous has not responded to calls for better sourcing of their stubs, except this one time. I don't think we can expect a change in behaviour. The list at User talk:DilletantiAnonymous/Inlinesourcesneeded hasn't been maintained. If we think the mass-creation of unattributed translations is disruptive, we should propose a community ban of some form. Vexations (talk) 11:30, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I know, some of the calls have been mine! Lots of his stuff just repeats, reworded, the 2-3 lines on the museum site. I'd like a ban on new stub/article creation certainly, but I think that would be an innovative move. Worth the attempt perhaps. Johnbod (talk) 13:32, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. CThomas3 (talk) 08:59, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, a painting from such a noted artist reminds me of point no. 5 of WP:NBOOK : "The book's author is so historically significant that any of the author's written works may be considered notable." just substitute book and author with work and artist, anyway, having a look at the French WP article on this painting (thanks Mccapra) shows enough references to meet WP:GNG. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:20, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:23, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article needs to be fleshed out, but sources exist in Google Books.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 13:01, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nominator claims little to no coverage, but [1] has an extensive bibliography. Vexations (talk) 11:49, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep yet another article in need of a willing editor.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:47, 8 August 2019 (UTC)striking vote of sockpuppet Onel5969 TT me 03:26, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am stunned to note that E.M. Gregory was blocked as a sockpuppet. 43K edits... ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Equally stunned. Is this for real? Mccapra (talk) 05:49, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is for real, the nation state level sockpuppets get in there deep... Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:46, 9 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:49, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zamma[edit]

Zamma (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 references. Only source is unverifiable, as the link for it has been dead since July 2016. Contested PROD.   — Jeff G. ツ 22:36, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There are no reliable sources found for it, the game simply exists. Trillfendi (talk) 22:45, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:58, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:58, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are numerous sources including
- Mathematical Association; Mathematical Association of America (2003-01-09). The Changing Shape of Geometry: Celebrating a Century of Geometry and Geometry Teaching. Cambridge University Press. pp. 441–. ISBN 978-0-521-53162-7
- HB Staff; Harcourt Brace Jovanovich (January 1994). Math Plus, 1994: Grade 7. Harcourt School. ISBN 978-0-15-301868-8
- David Sidney Parlett (1999). The Oxford History of Board Games. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-212998-7 and plenty of others. Mccapra (talk) 23:00, 2 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. No evidence of notability, and WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE RL0919 (talk) 23:03, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marlon Magtira[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Marlon Magtira (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)

Unsourced BLP. Previously survived AfD in 2006. Talk page says:

‘Please keep the deletion page. This is obviously a page of blatant self-advertisment, self-friendstering, and self-wikipedia-ing. This person is not even that significant to be in this page. Please delete. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.9.74.18 (talk) 19:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

and

This is Marlon Magtira. Please delete this entry. My son (11) and daughter (9) was tinkering on Wikipedia and it was them who actually made the entry. I'm very sorry if this entry has made an issue of self-advertisement/self-friendstering/self-wikipedia-ing. I am insignificant but definitely not a moron. Please delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marlonmagtira (talk • contribs) 08:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Mccapra (talk) 21:09, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:09, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:09, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:09, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 21:27, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 21:27, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt at subject's request? and no sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:36, 2 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]
  • I was strongly tempted to speedy delete this, having seen that the same two people in 2007 and 2008 edited the first AFD discussion page long after the discussion had closed in 2006. However, I then saw that the article had been significantly revised and updated in 2015, albeit by a person that, from the account name, clearly knew the subject; citing no sources whatsoever, and undoing the prior wikification. I am inclined to let a full AFD discussion run, as comments by the subject and others in 2008 and 2006 possibly do not apply to the 2015 version of the article, and the subject now. That said, no sources at all, with external hyperlinks that are not to sources, for 13 years is long enough for a biography and if that does not change by the end of the AFD discussion period we should delete. Uncle G (talk) 14:16, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The article's history is a bit unusual, but it has been around for more than a decade and still makes no claims of notability. I failed to find any substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't think we need to pass the salt, but we do have WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE and per my BEFORE I'm not seeing sources establishing GNG here. Icewhiz (talk) 15:38, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:08, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - He is not a notable journalist. I did not find any reliable independent sources or substantial coverage. - MA Javadi (talk) 22:10, 9 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. A name change might be in order, as mentioned. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:50, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hillsong musicians[edit]

Hillsong musicians (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 notable entries have articles while the others are better discussed in the articles related to the groups of which they are members. Most of the content is unsourced and adds nothing encyclopedic. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:09, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:09, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:09, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:09, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:09, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:09, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:09, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Walter's nom is right. Every cited source is for a musician with an existing article, and there is little else in the article. The notable musicians are already collected at Category:Hillsong musicians. I would be okay with a redirect to Hillsong Music (label) or Hillsong Church, but it seems an unlikely search term, and I realized it's not even totally clear what the existing article is referencing (worship leaders at the Sydney church? any musician from any Hillsong group?). MarginalCost (talk) 20:51, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's entirely unsourced so it's not clear, but it appears to be any Hillsong musician who has led a song on any album that was released by Hillsong. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:09, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Hillsong Music (label)Keep - the nominator hasn't given a sufficient reason for deletion but agree the article is better placed within the label article. Bookscale (talk) 23:16, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- This is a typical list article, of a kind that has long been acceptable in WP. It is useful to have the information gathered together, distinct from the linked "main" articles. Hillsong Church has been very influential in Christian Worship music. I have to oppose merger to Hillsong Music (label), because that article is already large enough. However a short section should be added to the label article, drawing attention to the separate musicians article (linked by a "main" template). Peterkingiron (talk) 11:42, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - the size of the main article is a fair point. Bookscale (talk) 21:43, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Most of the sourced content is discussed in album articles, not articles on the subjects. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:09, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a valid split from a notable article that is too large for re-merging Atlantic306 (talk) 14:44, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Its a valid list article. Just rename it to List of Hillsong musicians. Dream Focus 15:07, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I am undecided, but if the article is kept the title should be changed to "List of Hillsong Church musicians" or something similar, which will indicate that it is meant to be a list article that hopefully follows the rules for that article type. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:55, 5 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. Fails to meet WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTY. RL0919 (talk) 23:07, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ramiro Martín Lago[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Ramiro Martín Lago (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)

Article about semi-pro footballer who isn't the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources (This blogpost is the pretty significant, but not in a reliable source). The article was previously nominated for deletion, but it was withdrawn based on erroneous information included in the article. The article claims 30! appearances for Tiro Federal in Argentina's fully-pro Primera B Nacional, but according to the blogpost he never played in a league match for the club (and all reliable sources like BDFA do not support the article's 30 appearance claim). If the editors knew he hadn't played in Primera B Nacional, they would have agreed that the article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Jogurney (talk) 18:54, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:05, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:05, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:05, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:07, 2 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:50, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ClusterTech Limited[edit]

ClusterTech Limited (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 IT company based in Hong Kong. I believe it doesn't meet WP:GNG. As a tech company, it has web presence but very little that would qualify as in-depth significant coverage in third-party reliable sources. For instance, let's examine the references currently in the article. We have a press release, a podcast since removed by Matthew hk because it "fails to verify the content" (I can't tell since it's in Chinese), an article written by the company's marketing department, a listing, another listing, an article written by who knows who that does not mention the company at all. That leaves us with one reference that shows the company won a not-particularly-notable industry prize and the document only lists the awardees so once again there is no depth in coverage. Pichpich (talk) 18:42, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Pichpich (talk) 18:42, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Pichpich (talk) 18:42, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:CSD#G11 material as well as failing WP:GNG. None of the citation are in-depth about the company. Also high likely a paid editing by the creator Colepoon. Matthew hk (talk) 19:01, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:31, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I looked through the citations in the article and can confirm the nom's assessment of them. Couldn't find any substantial independent coverage on Google either. —Nizolan (talk · c.) 19:57, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - material fails WP:GNG. - MA Javadi (talk) 21:36, 2 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. nomination was withdrawn (non-admin closure) John from Idegon (talk) 20:29, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

William Brashler[edit]

William Brashler (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:NAUTHOR, WP:NJOURNALIST and WP:GNG. John from Idegon (talk) 17:56, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:11, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:11, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:12, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Fails WP:NAUTHOR? A film was made from his novel. If writing a book upon which a film is based doesn't qualify as creating a significant work, what does? --В²C ☎ 18:38, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thousands of books are licensed for motion picture use every single year. The book does not equal the movie in way shape or form. If you want to claim that book is a notability pass, write the article on it. Hint...it isn't even slightly notable. The movie is. John from Idegon (talk) 19:44, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:49, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Brashler's Bingo Long is one of SI's top 100 sports books of all time, which continues to be a well-respected list/article. His books were reviewed in major publications, and often praised. The references are legit. I have only recently started editing again after being away for a decade plus--I confess that I don't know every rule and guideline, and I appreciate your help. Thank you.Caro7200 (talk) 20:05, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • To avoid this discussion, add a couple of those reviews to this article, or in the alternative, write the article on Bingo Long. John from Idegon (talk) 20:27, 2 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. Not at a level for WP:NPOL option 1 and lacks coverage for NPOL option 2 or WP:GNG. RL0919 (talk) 22:53, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chester Bankston[edit]

Chester Bankston (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:NPOL. Local politician with no SIGCOV. All press mentions are incidental. Rogermx (talk) 17:34, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 17:34, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 17:34, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 17:34, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. County commissioners are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because they exist — a county commissioner might occasionally get into Wikipedia if they either (a) can be properly referenced as having had preexisting notability for other reasons independently of their office, and/or (b) can be referenced to a depth and volume and geographic range of coverage that clearly demonstrates him as a special case of significantly greater notability than most other county councillors, but this satisfies neither of those conditions. Bearcat (talk) 21:25, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NPOL as a WP:MILL county councillor. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:43, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I added references, categories and infobox to the article. But so far I am not seeing a compelling case. Lightburst (talk) 20:40, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 211.243.200.191 (talk) 01:47, 4 August 2019 (UTC) — 211.243.200.191 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Please read WP:JUSTAVOTE. It's not enough to just say "keep"; you need to provide policy-based reasons to demonstrate why the article should be kept. Bearcat (talk) 01:51, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All of this user's "contributions" are AFD discussions. Rogermx (talk) 02:56, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I sometimes argue for keeping a county commissioner, but in this case I am not seeing especially notable achievements, and I note that the population of the county is only 364,000.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:14, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I researched this commissioner and found no notability. Lightburst (talk) 01:50, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there are thousands of county and township commissioners. Even if he were notable, which he's not, this page has too many typos to edit easily. Bearian (talk) 16:16, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I do have to point out that being a township commissioner is a lot lower level than being a county comissioner. However considering that we are no where near having articles on most state legislators, except those who served since the creation of Wikipedia, and we are lacking articles on most members of the legislature of Zaire or Ghana, allowing random creation of articles on county commisioners will only make Wikipedia more US centric and more presentist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:32, 6 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:50, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Modernizing Tradition[edit]

Modernizing Tradition (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 found nothing that shows notability. Fails WP:BK. SL93 (talk) 17:06, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:14, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:14, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:15, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 4 reviews on JSTOR. Sole book by historian at University of Wisconsin–Platteville. E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:46, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NOTPROMO, a clear WP:COI creation on a book to which no pages have linked in the decade that it has existed. It is out of print and was never issued in paperback. 22 citations at gScholar, but they do not discuss the book, they merely namecheck. The 4 reviews range form polite to negative, AHR: "both the conception and the execution of this book are flawed." I'm just not seeing notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:02, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- ADVERT masquerading as a book review/blurb. I would expect a bio of the author before we start on articles on his books. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:56, 3 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 and redirect to Kennedy family#Genealogy. There is relatively broad consensus in Wikipedia that notability is not inherited - and no other "keep" argument is made here. The "keep" arguments have therefore to be given but little weight. Sandstein 09:47, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Courtney Kennedy Hill[edit]

Courtney Kennedy Hill (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)

Unnotable: being the daughter of notable people and being a representative for the UN AIDS Foundation is not notable. AnUnnamedUser (open talk page) 16:33, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. AnUnnamedUser (open talk page) 16:33, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP - Being a member of the Kennedy family, actually, is notable. As much as we like to hide behind policy and pretend that it isn't. Just like all of those infant/toddler princes and princesses in England. They are only notable because of whom they were born to. Yet, they have Wikipedia articles. At the age of three or four, they have done nothing notable. Except to be born. Similar analogy. Being a Kennedy is notable. That's my two cents. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:55, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Notability is not inherited. The article reads like a gossip column and focuses entirely on her marriages, with more than half its content devoted to Paul Hill, including unencyclopedic filler such as the description of their wedding. There's zero focus on the subject herself save for one measly mention about her work with the UN AIDS Foundation. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 17:40, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:15, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:16, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:16, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even the tabloids don't have enough content to leak gossip about her, because she has deliberately choosen to stay private and not to live publicly[6]. Not notable at all, not even a redirect to Kennedy family is needed. --89.14.51.65 (talk) 18:23, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Kennedy curse. Delete. Being a new member of the British royal family and being a distant member of a US political dynasty are not the same thing, certainly not when it comes to exposure in a quality way by quality sources. So no harm redirecting, unless there's more encyclopedic substance that can be added. Because what there is simply does not merit an encyclopedia entry. News coverage right now is high due to recent death overdose, but I estimate that to be fleeting. El_C 18:28, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    El C, you know she is alive, right? --- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:49, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I do now! El_C 19:51, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    El C, this is the mother of the young women who recently died. A redirect to Kennedy curse makes no sense. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:56, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Redirect from Saoirse Kennedy Hill tripped me! El_C 20:02, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP - There is a page for Patrick Bouvier Kennedy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). For a child that lived two days. Just saying.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.239.124.44 (talk • contribs)
  • That death made 1963 a "pivotal year" for neonatology — it's about quality coverage by quality sources. El_C 19:10, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There absolutely SHOULDN'T be an article for that infant.12.144.5.2 (talk) 04:10, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural speedy Keep – No one seems to know who we are actually talking about here. No reasonable decision can be made at this moment when the news is so hot. I have said it before, this is not the time to discuss deletion. We will get nowhere with this AfD. All we are doing is damaging Wikipedia's reputation by having a cat fight during a sensitive time. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 20:11, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. @Coffeeandcrumbs: What news are you talking about? Right now in the deletion discussion it's too early for there to be a consensus, so we should keep discussing. How are we damaging Wikipedia's reputation if (probably) no one outside Wikipedia is going to see this? AnUnnamedUser (open talk page) 20:14, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The same news that brought all of us to this page. There is a giant tag now at the top of the article, that is visible to everyone, that links to this page. I bet that thousands of people have already seen this page. Already on 1 August, 1,100 people viewed the article. Are you saying it is a coincidence that you happened to nominate this page on 2 August. You should have waited. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 20:24, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So let's see a timeline: on August 2, I am patrolling recent changes and looking for vandalism. A removal of a deletion request is found to be "Likely vandalism," so I check it out. It turns out that a user just removed that for no reason, so I requested a discussion. What you're saying is that Wikipedia should keep pages up because their subjects are in the news, which isn't true. AnUnnamedUser (open talk page) 23:42, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is, for a short period of time. AnUnnamedUser (open talk page) 23:42, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Being the daughter of a former US presidential nominee (although I suppose RFK was not officially a nominee since he was assassinated prior to the convention) is just not sufficient for notability. I put a PROD on the article thinking that the article is so blatantly deletable that a deletion would not be controversial. I am surprised that the PROD was overturned and even more surprised that the article has existed for almost 15 years (since September of 2004) without a deletion discussion. Banana Republic (talk) 20:21, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: At the start of the discussion the only non-personal life item in the article was that she served as a representative for the United Nations AIDS Foundation. It appears that an effort has been made to expand that section of the article, and other non-personal life items now include: (2) working for the Children's Television Workshop at an unspecified role, (3) serving as her brother's campaign treasurer, (4) serving as a board member of the JFK Presidential Library and Museum, and (5) serving as a director of fund-raising for Robert F. Kennedy Memorial. While all those roles were certainly keeping her occupied to some extent, those roles are not all that notable. Being a campaign treasurer is similar to being a tax preparer – it's a job filling out paperwork. Being a board member of a non-profit organization means that she attended a meeting once a month.
So while I applaud the effort, it is unfortunately not enough to change my !vote. Banana Republic (talk) 14:17, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: That's your evidence that a proper BEFORE was not done? Using "Courtney" + "Kennedy" as a search term? Tell you what, what of those hits gives the "significant coverage" to the subject that the GNG requires for the source to count towards notability? Ravenswing 22:37, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Ravenswing, I have added material to the article sourced from my search result. I will be adding more. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 05:25, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hrm. The sections of that first entry Google will allow me to see are brief namedrops, and there's nothing showing on the second at all. Ravenswing 10:11, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Ravenswing, I linked to the index page where "Hill, Mary Courtney" is listed for a reason. You have to change the page number in the URL to see the pages. Pages 656-658 has the most detail about her 2 marriages. Not everyone is notable for their career. Some people are notable for their personal life. The lemma in [7] can be found on page 714. I have bought the book and it is in the mail coming to me. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 10:36, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP - If the article is deleted, where will we find info on all Kennedy family members (3 full generations, including Joseph Kennedy). Just because you aren't interested doesn't mean it should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilovemylife9 (talk • contribs) 21:49, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just because she may be "interesting" does not make her notable. See Wikipedia's general notability guideline for what constitutes notable. Banana Republic (talk) 22:23, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We aren't talking about if she interesting. If notability wasn't a Wikipedia guideline, we could make a Wikipedia article for every human in the world. AnUnnamedUser (open talk page) 23:40, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
An article that simply lists Kennedys genealogically would suffice.12.144.5.2 (talk) 15:33, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: There is no part of WP:BIO the subject meets, nor any part of the GNG the subject meets. So far the Keep voters have put forth arguments that violate established guidelines and policies; they didn't seem to care about properly sourcing the article a week ago, and I doubt they will a week from now. Ravenswing 22:33, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability is not inherited (unless the off chance is you’re Archie... but I still have my disagreements with how that went down.) and that includes political dynasties. I am staunchly against this “family member” thing on here unless there is overwhelming coverage of them that reaches general notability guidelines. Trillfendi (talk) 22:51, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete aside from a brief mention of her work with the UN AIDS foundation, there's nothing specifically pertaining to the subject herself, and being a Kennedy on its own just isn't enough to warrant a separate article. She fails WP:BIO. Notability indeed is NOT inherited, contrary to what some people seem to think. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:45, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed. Although the royal families argument was brought up, being a Kennedy is not a title in America, whereas being a prince or some other official position in government often does grant enough notability for an article by the title and also the news coverage. AnUnnamedUser (open talk page) 02:24, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This article was created in 2004. So, for fifteen full years, Courtney Kennedy Hill was "notable". The minute that her daughter dies, she is no longer notable. Yeah, makes sense. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:48, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No one realized that this page should have been deleted for fifteen years. A user in this discussion has already expressed surprise at the absence of a deletion request in all this time. AnUnnamedUser (open talk page) 03:20, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being around for that long is a moot point per WP:ARTICLEAGE, which says "Having survived a long time on Wikipedia does not guarantee the article a permanent spot." SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:25, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Beyond that, there's no notability criteria anywhere on Wikipedia that defines "notability" as "why look, someone posted an article about it." Ravenswing 10:06, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A non-notable article "sticks around" for 15 years. And no one notices? Then, in the blink of an eye -- after fifteen years -- the article is deleted because the subject is "no longer" notable. Seems pretty random, arbitrary, and capricious. What does that say about Wikipedia's deletion policies? And, by extension, this AfD that we are having right now? It's pretty hard to put any "faith" in a system that works like that. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:03, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how the page has lasted for so long, but did you not read how long it's been around is an irrelevant matter here per WP:ARTICLEAGE, or do you just not care? Nobody taking this to AFD beforehand isn't by itself a valid reason to keep either. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 19:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is indeed relevant. Because, for 15 years, this article was implicitly "notable". When someone creates a new article (that is non-notable), it usually gets deleted that very same day. Usually within a few minutes! So, for a newly-created article to stick around for 15 years implies notability. Or implies that the Wikipedia "deletion" process is terribly broken. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:24, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
While the deletion process certainly isn't perfect, I wouldn't go so far to suggest it's "broken". Staying around for as long as it had simply is an indication that for some reason nobody thought to take this to AFD beforehand. Some might not have even known it existed in past years. Regardless, suggesting that we should keep solely because of how long it's existed is a cheap cop-out. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:37, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just because the page collected dust for 15 years doesn’t mean she was automatically independently notable all this time. Isn’t that argument called... false cause? Trillfendi (talk) 23:35, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I make a page about myself but an admin deletes it in two hours because I am not notable (anymore!), I was notable for two hours (but not anymore since my article was deleted!). Uh-huh. AnUnnamedUser (open talk page) 23:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Her daughter's death just means that the page got a hell-of-a-lot more views than normal. On Aug 2, 2019 the page got 223,247 views. The day before it got only 1,100 views, and in the two weeks prior it never got more than 964 views.
And that's how Wikipedia works. When a page gets more views, it gets more scrutiny. The fact that for 15 years nobody scrutinized the notability of the subject of this biography should by no means be considered an endorsement of the subject's notability. If there was a previous AfD which closed as a Keep, then that would have at least been something to consider. But since consensus can change, even a previous AfD that closed as a keep would not have necessarily meant a full endorsement for the notability of this biography. Banana Republic (talk) 01:27, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete,being a Kennedy is not royalty and her personal accomplishments are not enough to earn an article.Let her be covered in a list of minor members of the family,perhaps.12.144.5.2 (talk) 04:12, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know,but it links to people's articles rather than provides capsule bios of those who don't rise to the standard of having articles.12.144.5.2 (talk)
  • Merge to Kennedy family. She's in the news from time to time. Bearian (talk) 16:18, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete This is basically a POV-pushing apologist tract for the IRA and their fellow terrorists. The United States is a republic and we do not recognize roaylaty. People who serve on minor boards and as tresurerer to congressional election campaigns are just plain not notable. What is broken is not the deletion process. What is broken is the die hard save every Kennedy article at all cost activist who are trying to foist a false, morally bankrupt and destructive family into the role of American royalty. I reject them and again chant Chapaquidick. What is broken is the article creation process that allows articles to be created without much oversight. This process was even worse back in 2004, in fact those were the wild west days of Wikipedia. Wikipedia has no legacy inclusion cretieria. In fact, inclusion criteria have changed on many issues, consensus has changed. In this case blatant random inclusionism and failure to reasonably limit articles on hangers on is a key problem.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:40, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wikipedia is not a place for memorials, and we do not do procedural delays because of deaths of 22 year olds. That whole argument is rubbish, and it is high time we excised lots of these articles on non-notable peole who have never done anything more notable than be a tresurer in one congressional campaign.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:54, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Kennedy Family#Genealogy. All personal views about whether you like or dislike the Kennedy family aside, the family itself is very much notable. However, I do not think that Courtney Kennedy Hill is independently notable. I believe that by redirecting to where she fits in the Kennedy family is most appropriate. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:42, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Does anyone on the delete side object to her being mentioned in another article about the Kennedy family if the article is deleted (just trying to see if there is a split between the delete and merge/redirect camps)? AnUnnamedUser (open talk page) 19:56, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see absolutely no reason to mention her in the article on the Kennedy family. She is entirely unnotable and has done nothing worth mentioning.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:38, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete her sole notable action was deciding to be born into a notable family. No objection to hanging her on the proper branch of the family tree on the collective Kennedy family page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:15, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:16, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – She meets GNG: [8], [9] and there is an entire entry about her on the Kennedy encyclopedia. It is not our job to judge why she is notable. She is notable for her personal life and her weddings, and marriages. Her career is not notable so what? --- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:41, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
An encyclopedia specifically about her family doesn't have the same notability standards as a general interest encyclopedia.12.144.5.2 (talk) 15:33, 9 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. Sandstein 09:44, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Shinkansen Henkei Robo Shinkalion characters[edit]

List of Shinkansen Henkei Robo Shinkalion characters (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:NLIST. This is typical WP:FANCRUFT Dom from Paris (talk) 12:33, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:33, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:33, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:56, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
:*Delete per WP:TNT, the references can be saved for a future list. I normally would vote keep here but this list dives too deeply into a fan's point of view. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:00, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How so? Looks like just basic indisputable information. Dream Focus 20:02, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I only had to look quickly before I saw "Driver of the Shinkalion E3 Tsubasa and Shinkalion E3 Tsubasa Iron Wing. A 10-year-old who lives in Yonezawa, Yamagata Prefecture". What the heck is a "Shinkalion E3 Tsubasa" or Shinkalion E3 Tsubasa Iron Wing? The list needs a major rewrite so it isn't from a fan's WP:POV hence my delete vote to blow it up and start over. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:46, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Describing the content of a work of fiction, using the accurate names and terms of elements of that work, is not the same thing as a fan POV. This does not seem excessively detailed or involve any kind of POV/OR interpretation of the content, and if anything your example here would be calling for more detail to provide context ("Driver of two transforming mechas, the Shinkalion E3 Tusbasa and Shinkalion E3 Tsubasa Iron Wing"), not less. That would seem to be significant and relevant in a show about transforming mechas, just as it's significant in the context of Star Wars that Han Solo and Chewbacca pilot the Millennium Falcon space freighter. If you can give us an idea of what you think such a description should look like instead, that may help us understand where you're coming from. But for now your complaint does not seem accurate here. postdlf (talk) 18:48, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is, in Star Wars the "Millennium Falcon" is listed as a "space freighter", and readers here are supposed to know what a "Shinkalion" is? I'm all for keeping character lists per @Masumrezarock100: below, but for some there is just too much to be done. Maybe it would be best if someone who hadn't heard of the series redo the list? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:43, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hence my comment about adding "more detail to provide context." Which is fixable and so should be addressed through editing, not deletion. postdlf (talk) 20:45, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I will relent and hope for a massive re-write. I might touch the article here as well as I have never seen or heard about the series until now. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:31, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Complaining that you don't know what a Shinkalion is when that word is in the name of the series, is ridiculous. People wouldn't see a character list without knowing what the series was about, and would thus know that's what the robots are called. List of Neon Genesis Evangelion characters mentions they are the pilots of evas, without telling you what an eva is. Dream Focus 18:20, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No comment on the list, but if it is deleted then the character section of Shinkansen Henkei Robo Shinkalion should be restored, featuring the main characters as a bare minimum. —Xezbeth (talk) 16:32, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge, character lists are standard coverage for notable series, and may be WP:SPLIT due to WP:SIZE. Whether this can be trimmed and merged back to the parent article is an editorial decision for those knowledgeable with the subject, not for AFD to resolve, but in any event outright deletion is not a valid option per WP:ATD. I'm also struck by how inaccurate the deletion !voter is above, as the descriptions here are very brief and not "fan"-POV. postdlf (talk) 17:15, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Category:Lists_of_anime_and_manga_characters shows just how common these are. Sometimes someone tries to delete one, and it always almost ends in being kept. If its too long for the main article its split off like this. How its always been. Dream Focus 20:01, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And this is exactly the problem. They have become common despite not being encyclopedic and being pure FANCRUFT. But hey if they always get kept why not keep this one! --Dom from Paris (talk) 08:00, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Start a RFC about it, and discuss the issue there. Dream Focus 12:05, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If they always get kept, that means there is consensus to keep them. You can always ignore content you are not interested in; it’s a free wiki. postdlf (talk) 12:38, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Postdlf: You know as well as I do that there are certain subjects that get kept not because they meet notability criteria but because there is a solid base of fans that form a consensus against policy and guidelines. Notably certain sports subjects, certain types of music and manga/anime. When you say I should just ignore it does that apply to all new pages patrolling? 99% of the pages I patrol do not interest me in the least, I try and apply the guidelines and policies and nominate those that do not meet them and tag those that can be tagged and mark as reviewed those that have no issues. I find it odd that an admin would tell a patroller to ignore pages that don't interest him. The "it's a free wiki" is something I've heard from inexperienced editors who do not want to follow the rules here for exemple --Dom from Paris (talk) 17:57, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And others may interpret guidelines differently than you. There's a trap in thinking that "rules" exist in a vacuum outside of how they are applied. I'm not aware of a specific pro-anime bias, and it's not a subject I have interest in myself, but as I noted above, "character lists are standard coverage for notable series" and are consensus-supported, whether retained in the parent article or split due to size. postdlf (talk) 20:46, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Postdlf: But here's the thing...unless I'm very much mistaken the anime doesn't have a separate page, or at least there isn't a link to that page on the main page. If the anime doesn't have a page how can we have a WP:SPINOUT for a non-existent page. Shouldn't we have a page first for the anime before we decide that we can't have room and list the dozens and dozens of characters and the actors voicing them? Shouldn't we first have a list on the page and eventually collapse it before creating a list page? Dom from Paris (talk) 22:29, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The multimedia franchise to which these characters belong has an article that functions as a parent for this list. I'm not particularly concerned about hairsplitting about type(s) of media beyond that, and as this is the first time you've raised this question, ten days after your nomination, you obviously aren't either. Merge to that parent has already been suggested, including by me. Really the more this discussion proceeds, the more it shows how inappropriate AFD is for resolving this kind of content and organization decision. Yet no discussion had been first attempted on the talk page of this list, the parent article, or the creator/main editor's talk page. postdlf (talk) 03:13, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's the first time I mention it because I hadn't realised that there wasnt an article about the anime. I disagree that AFD is not an appropriate place to discuss whether a page is notable or not as per the different policies guidelines and essays but that is just mu opinion. Dom from Paris (talk) 06:38, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong| talk _ 16:10, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added some sources. I oppose mergeing this list with the main article because it's too large. Masum Reza📞 00:03, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TNT. If it is notable, let it be recreated with actual sources. The Keep votes offer absolutely no arguments as to why the article should be kept, instead making pure WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments. Are we sure this isn't straight up trolling at this point? "This article should be kept because they are common" is not a valid answer.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 17:21, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you TNT this, it can be merged into the main article, but keep as simple bullet lists. There are still a ton of characters, like with Majestic Prince (manga). AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:47, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I would like some extra time to work on the article. Worse case scenario, a drafting is a recommended decision.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 15:38, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify so that it can be worked on further by anyone until it's up to decent standards. I'm sick of feeling inclined to relist this discussion a second. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 02:55, 9 August 2019 (UTC) Update: switching to keep per Postdif since it seems to be a decent WP:CFORK due to the size of the anime's ensemble cast. Still, improvements are recommended. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 18:07, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@FoxyGrampa75: You should be more careful when relisting. Non admins are subject to relist bias. Masum Reza📞 04:15, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Masumrezarock100: Thank you. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 04:17, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per Postdlf. Character lists like this are necessary when the media in question features a lot of characters. Sk8erPrince (talk) 13:26, 9 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 Iona (band). Vanamonde (Talk) 02:30, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David Fitzgerald (musician)[edit]

David Fitzgerald (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)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:57, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:57, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:57, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:57, 2 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:20, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SRide[edit]

AfDs for this article:
SRide (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)

Same rationale as previous nomination. Namely:

  • the content is problematic relative to WP:PROMO and WP:NOTHOWTO (written as a promotional "how to", "how it works" type advert). And,
  • the subject does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG (the limited sources that are available are trivial/passing-mentions in which the subject is not the primary topic, are republished press releases, or are otherwise not independent of the subject).

Of the references in the article, the majority discuss the concept of ride-sharing in general, where the subject here is mentioned alongside many other companies operating in the same space (IE: it is not the primary topic). In many cases the references do not support the text they claim to support (for example, the Deccan Herald article is offered as support for the company's founding date - but there is no mention of the company's foundation in the article. And the citizenmatters.in piece is offered to support the list of the company's founders - but at least one of the names listed is not mentioned in the article). I cannot find other sources to support notability (or the claims/text in the article).

I still don't see how a 30 person company, with no material coverage in reliable sources, meets GNG or NORG. Guliolopez (talk) 14:33, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 14:37, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 14:37, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 14:37, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The current sourcing doesn't meet WP:GNG, pretty much all the reliable sources focus on ridesharing as a whole and not the subject. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:01, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Zero indications of notability, article reads like a company profile. I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 14:11, 9 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:20, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Laurel Hills, California[edit]

Laurel Hills, California (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 not a true neighborhood but merely a real-estate subdivision. All the articles about it are promotional. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 14:21, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 14:23, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I noticed there was an open Merger discussion going on, that has had no participation in a month. I was initially going to suggest the article go ahead and be merged per that, however, looking into sources, it would appear that the nominator is correct. This is not a true neighborhood, and there are no reliable sources even mentioning it that I can find. There is definitely a small street named "Laurel Hills" in the area, but I am finding nothing aside from mirrors of this article that denote it as a notable neighborhood. Rorshacma (talk) 15:26, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:33, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence of notability in substantive sources. Reywas92Talk 05:15, 3 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. No consensus to delete, merge can be discussed on the talkpage. Closing as keep. Tone 14:21, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Journal of Individual Psychology[edit]

The Journal of Individual Psychology (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 journal. Despite having been around for quite some time, it is not indexed in any selective databases, nor did I find any independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 17:14, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 17:14, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. The journal has a complex history dating back to 1935 at least, to some publication called Individual Psychology News, with a complex merging history involving titles like American Journal of Individual Psychology; Individual Pyschology; Individual Pyschologist; Individual Psychology Bulletin, and possible others. At worse, this should be merged to North American Society of Adlerian Psychology, not deleted.
Also as one of the premier places where Alfred Adler published and his had his work covered, this seems to easily pass under WP:NJOURNALS C3. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:18, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And also WP:GNG. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:40, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 17:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments First, having a long history may mean that there are perhaps sources to be found, in and of itself it is not a criterion for notability. Second, are NJournals C3 is the least clear of the criteria. Are there any sources that discuss, e.g., Adlers' importance for the journal or the other way around? Or is it just your personal estimation that this journal has a historical purpose? --Randykitty (talk) 18:14, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The long and complex history is mostly to point out at a summary search of indexing for the current iteration / ISSN of 'Journal of Individual Psychology' will be deficient. And there are two sources in further reading which discusses the journal and Adler to some extent that I came across while googling old names. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:13, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article in NYT reports that the journal was discontinued after Adler's death and then says other periodicals were launch later on.[1] Is there sufficient evidence that ISSN 1522-2527 is a continuation of the journal that Adler founded? Notgain (talk) 02:15, 19 July 2019 (UTC) Found this third party source in The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease (1957) that announces change in focus of the journal: "Changes in Journal of Individual Psychology. (1957) The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease (Notes and News), 125(3), 500." Also that fact that Albert Ellis published in the first edition may add to notability. Notgain (talk) 09:00, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The NYT article is about the International Journal of Individual Psychology and there is nothing that shows that that journal has any connection with this one, apart from the title overlap. Besides that, the NYT is only an in-passing mention (and a very superficial one at that). this suggests that anything published before 1940 has nothing to do with the current journal. The journal history as currently described in the article is quite speculative and I'm not convinced by much of the sourcing. I don't have access to all sources listed, but somehow I doubt that a 2 page bio (and probably not full pages at that) would contain more than an in-passing mention of a journal. --Randykitty (talk) 09:38, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
International Journal of Individual Psychology is one of the many former names of the publication (or closely related precursor publication). At a quick glance [10] has a good history. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:50, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See also [11] which has a meta-analysis of literature (Chapter 10), which separates in some way articles published by Journal of Individual Psychology vs other journals vs dissertations. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:12, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Headbomb:Found this quote which may shed some light on it, "Following Adler's death, the Journal of Individual Psychology, which he founded, was first edited by Adler's daughter, Alexandra Adler, and later by Rudolf Dreikurs. The present editor is Heinz Ansbacher, of the University of Vermont in Burlington. The Journal appears semi-annually. Papers are contributed by Adlerians and non-Adlerians, as, for example, H. Cantril, E. Sinnott, A. H. Maslow, G. Murphy, and L. Feuer. In 1957 Ansbacher formulated a "broadened policy" for the Journal”p.8 see, Papanek, H. and Papanek, E., 1961. Individual psychology today. American journal of psychotherapy, 15(1), pp.4-26.doi:10.1176/appi.psychotherapy.1961.15.1.4 According Library of Congress Aid, Rudolf Dreikurs was the editor of "Individual Psychology News" from 1940 - 1941[12] and was editor of "Individual Psychology Bulletin" from 1941 - 1951.[13]. Rudolf Dreikurs was editor of 'American Journal of Individual Psychology between 1952 and 1956[14]. Heinz Ansbacher renamed it to Journal of Individual Psychology from 1956[15]. Looks like pre-1937 Journal of Individual Psychology is the precursor to the post-1956 one edited by Rudolf Dreikurs. In 1973, it says it editorial was passed on to Raymond Corsini.[16] [17]. This is consistent with Proquest[18] regarding previous titles: International Journal of Individual Psychology (1935 - 1937), Individual Psychology News (Oct. 1940 - July 1941), Individual Psychology Bulletin (1941 - 1951), and American Journal of Individual Psychology (1952 - 1956), and Journal of Individual Psychology (1956 - 1981). And also matched EBSCO info on Journal of Individual Psychology (00221805) ISSN 0022-1805 (1974-1981)[19]. Articles of Journal of Individual Psychology from 1982 onwards, are available from EBSCO Academic Search Premier[20]. It is also consistent with what is on the Adler journals digitization project [21] Notgain (talk) 13:41, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:53, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:20, 2 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 14:19, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Funds2Orgs[edit]

Funds2Orgs (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 appear to meet WP:ORG. The reliable sources are mainly not about this organisation but Soles4Souls, the ones discussing this organisation are of dubious reliablility and for a specialist audience therefore not conferring notability (WP:AUD). Also seemingly created by an undisclosed paid editor. I suggest redirect to Wayne Elsey. SmartSE (talk) 15:27, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:50, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Merge the respective content with Wayne Elsey, and potentially into Soles4Souls as well if necessary. Funds2Org is a real organization, the sources, however dubious, prove this is such. However, I'm not sure whether it warrants its own page, as the sources are not reliable. Therefore, making a small paragraph mentioning it on Wayne Elsey's article is probably the best option, as long as there is AT LEAST one good source, which I'm confident there is. If need be, sorting the content on Elsey's and the Soles4Soles' pages also could work. Utopes (talk) 22:14, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:21, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:17, 2 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 Dick Vitale#Video games. RL0919 (talk) 22:46, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Vitale's "Awesome Baby" College Hoops[edit]

Dick Vitale's "Awesome Baby" College Hoops (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 used to editing articles for video games, but I am pretty sure this article fails WP:GNG. The article only has 3 references, with one of which being a link to a YouTuber (Scott the Woz) who made a video on the game. Speaking of which, the article is almost fully dedicated to Scott, with the only exception being the infobox and some of the lead. I don’t really see how this game is notable enough to have an article on it. Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t. this isn’t my area of expertise. Micro (Talk) 07:48, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Micro (Talk) 07:48, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • GameRankings indicates no magazine reviews or similar. From more-modern reliable sources, the only one is a paragraph void of any significant details at GameInformer. I'm at work, so I can't guarantee that's it, but I think the paucity probably indicates this topic is not notable. --Izno (talk) 19:17, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Sega Genesis games, as it's on the list there, as an alternative to deletion - anyone looking for it can find some basic info like who made it and in what year on that list. This is pretty common with sports games of the era when various celebrity endorsements were everywhere to get games made - Sega actively pursued that in order to combat Nintendo's third-party support. It's worth noting as a person who has researched Sega extensively for this encyclopedia that of all those games with celebrity names, this one has never even been mentioned in any of the articles I've found. I did a WP:BEFORE check as well and came up with three magazines that had a print advertisement for it (but no article) and otherwise a couple of unreliable sources, which tells me this game is not particularly worthy of note. As wordy as the article title is, I still think it's a viable redirect to the list which has its entry. Red Phoenix talk 20:13, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mobygames lists three contemporary magazine reviews. I'm leaning toward Keep here. Phediuk (talk) 15:51, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:05, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Dick Vitale#In popular culture Dick Vitale#Video games as a plausible redirect (with added info from this article) where it would have a better place to go than the Genesis list-of...though maybe that section itself should be renamed "Endorsements". Otherwise, it's indeed a game that didn't get much attention at the time, but with a more comical but affectionate current notability. Nate • (chatter) 00:11, 27 July 2019 (UTC) (updated with re-org of this section Nate • (chatter) 17:45, 27 July 2019 (UTC))[reply]
    • While I prefer my suggested redirect more, I'm willing to call this my second choice. To Phediuk's thoughts on the reviews, it's nice if there are three vintage reviews, but if they are just the one paragraph on the list, that to me is not enough for significant coverage; it's common for gaming magazines to blast through games they don't want to go in depth with with a one-paragraph review. The newest two are from unreliable sources - one is an independent site, and consensus for WP:VG/S is that Sega-16 is only reliable for interviews and articles and reviews by Ken Horowitz—this one is not one of those reviews. Red Phoenix talk 15:24, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:13, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Dick Vitales article and section about video games. The sources may exist, but unless/until anyone gets access to them, it’s pretty much impossible to write a properly sourced article with any sort of content in it. And with the sources being locked away into decades-old print magazines, there’s no indication that ever obtaining them is likely. Redirect for now, and spinout if/when someone writes an article according to those sources (And not that crap by some non-notable Youtuber.) Sergecross73 msg me 16:25, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment looks like it was reviewed in at least one magazine: [22] SportingFlyer T·C 08:06, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Existence does not equal notability; surely we need more than a mention or two, or a single review. Merge/redirect. Drmies (talk) 02:50, 8 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 14:21, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Naziru M Ahmad[edit]

Naziru M 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)

Seems to be UPE or COI , since the article creator was warned and blocked multiple times. The only point of significance I see for this singer is that he won the award for best Kannywood singer 2013, basically a regional film industry inside nigeria. I must admit the award has a wiki article as well Kannywood Awards Is that enough to establish notability? Daiyusha (talk) 14:13, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 14:17, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 14:17, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 14:17, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is a BLP without WP:Reliable sources. There's also no evidence he's ever toured or gotten a top 10 hit. Bearian (talk) 16:22, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep First, the comment above mine is partly not true. Two of the current sources in the article (Daily Trust and Premium Times ) are national papers and are reliable by any standard. Yes, it's true he has not "toured or gotten a top 10 hit" but then, there's no this concept where he predominantly works (AFAIK). I am no music fan but I couldn't even found Nigeria entry at WP:GOODCHARTS.
    Now on the article; I believe he passes WP:SINGER criterion 1; he's received non trivial coverage about his work by BBC, Leadership, Daily Trust, Premium Timesand Aminiya just to mention a few. His wedding is of public interest [23], [24] likewise his day to day life [25],[26], [27], [28]. Note: I know the article currently contains some unreliable sources, I ignored them and I believe there are sufficient reliable ones above to replace them. The nominator hinted at likely UPE or COI, I don't believe in the likely of that here. The author was blocked (temporarily) for disruption—more like CIR issue, if you'd like— but anyway, that has no relation to notability of this subject. – Ammarpad (talk) 08:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per the multiple reliable sources identified above which show that WP:GNG and criteria 1 of WP:NMUSIC are passed (only one criteria needed) so deletion is no longer necessary, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 23:06, 8 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 14:22, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moukdavanyh Santiphone[edit]

Moukdavanyh Santiphone (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 am on the edge with regards to the notability of this singer. Also, a quick google check does not hield reliable sources. The added sources do not mention her in detail. I thus leave it here for community scrutiny. 10MB (talk) 09:15, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:29, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:29, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:30, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:30, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:23, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:13, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't find significant coverage. The Laotian Wikipedia page has no sources to help us, just links to her Facebook and Youtube pages. I can't find much coverage of the Lao Music Awards either to prove her significance that way and their own website registration has lapsed. The language difference is a barrier and I'm open to the possibility that she's more important than I can verify, but unless a Lao speaker can help improve the article or at least find sources, I don't think this should stay. › Mortee talk 20:15, 2 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. Arguments to delete this based on the absence of independent, substantive, reliable sources have not been convincingly refuted, despite the best efforts of Usedtobecool. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:18, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bhagawan Bhandari[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Bhagawan Bhandari (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 searched for sources under "Bhagawan Bhandari", "भगवान भण्डारी", and "Lord Bhandari" (apparently either a nickname or another translation of his Nepalese name?) and found nothing in-depth. Aside from the one Kane County Chronicle feature, there's just not a lot out there about this guy. I didn't find anything that substantiated the claimed awards. Overall this fails WP:GNG/WP:NMUSIC. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:26, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:26, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:26, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:12, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: I was frankly surprised that this article was in such poor shape, and then I was really surprised by how little there was online about him. I have done the best I could with the sources I could find, and I strongly urge the community to keep this one based on WP:NPOSSIBLE. I would remind the community that LDC's don't put everything online as of yet. What little there is, is mostly contributions from teenagers and young adults. If we can't keep articles on a Nepali artist with content and sourcing, comparable to what I've achieved in this one, we'll soon run out of articles for Nepali artists any older than Justin Bieber.
I am sure someone is going to bring up the youtube cites. So, let me preempt with this: Those are official channels of those record producers. So, they're contextually RS. If it's kept, I'll reformat the cites properly, and better organise the content. But, for now, that's all I'm willing to do.
Courtesy: Lord Bhandari is a completely bogus translation. That's akin to Jesus Alvarez being translated to "Son of God Alvarez". Usedtobecool ✉️ ✨ 11:44, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Record producers might be an RS for the purpose of confirming "yeah this guy made this album," but they're not independent for the purpose of supporting a claim to notability. We need independent media coverage for that, which I didn't find. (Regarding "Lord Bhandari" - it's what GTranslate kept giving me and I'd rather be accused of searching for too much than for not searching enough, just in case.) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:06, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I perfectly understand your viewpoint, and about the translation, it was just a courtesy as I indicated; it was certainly very clear from the nom that you were going on with standard research techniques on an unfamiliar subject, well aware of the limitations. I think everyone can appreciate your diligence. I was never very sure that this article would pass WP:GNG even with the work that I put in, even before I put in the work. As I've indicated already, I am just going for NPOSSIBLE here, as, to repeat, the failure to establish notability clearly here is certainly down to the digital divide. I think there are precedents (I certainly hope so anyway) for a lenient interpretation of relevant guidelines when it comes to third world topics. I am merely suggesting that, were those applied here, I think I have provided sufficient evidence to convince editors that there is enough evidence of notability, well within the good-faith mile of the editor (me) that's proposing such a leap be taken. There is perfectly good reason to take such a leap and there is an equally good reason not to. So, I can certainly appreciate the community's decisions to !vote either way. I have exhausted my arguments 1.5 times over and as such, I will not be commenting (on the merit of the article) any further. Regards! Usedtobecool ✉️ ✨ 18:08, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Heavy dependence on YouTube links and no proper references...citing a tabloid article doesn't qualify the subject to get a Wikipedia page. There are/were hundreds of folk singers in Nepal..fails both WP:GNG/WP:NMUSIC. Ozar77 13:27, 18 July 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozar77 (talk • contribs)
  • Notability doesn't depend on how many others there are, in the same profession. There are millions of politicians but only dozens of astronauts. Would you say one is inherently notable but not the other?
About NMUSIC-
  1. Kane county chronicle, eKantipur and a book.
  2. tours of multiple countries.
  3. Dhaulagiri cassette center and Bindabasini music are major record producers in Nepali folk music.
  4. Collaboration with Bima Kumari Dura, Raju Pariyar, Laxmi Neupane, Bishnu Majhi and so on.
  5. Nominated for Hits FM Music Awards.
Usedtobecool ✉️ ✨ 13:12, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:GNG...where are the sources for multiple tours and on? no sources at all... Ozar77 16:14, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi! I have made all my arguments to the best of my abilities. I even put in a decent amount of time looking up sources and reworking the article, in an effort to save this one. No matter the result, I can say to posterity I tried my best. So, no regrets here. I have left you a message regarding double !votes and signatures in the other AfD. Usedtobecool ✉️ ✨ 17:51, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:15, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:05, 2 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:05, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ajeesh Dasan[edit]

Ajeesh Dasan (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 does not meet notability criteria. No national awards or significant coverage. Archer1234 (talk) 06:46, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Archer1234 (talk) 06:46, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Archer1234 (talk) 06:46, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Archer1234 (talk) 06:46, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:03, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Does he not meet WP:BASIC for having three reliable independent sources that cover his work? Mccapra (talk) 10:32, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I will get the source have more references, initially i did had more content, but it was removed either by a bot or removed by an user. Will get something in a day or two. Please share me what are the notability criteria - i can get those.

Below are the articles featured about his works in Media. (1) The Hindu https://www.thehindu.com/entertainment/movies/leela-l-girikuttan-and-ajeesh-dasan-on-their-song-for-poomaram-that-has-gone-viral/article18515260.ece Hindu is considered the best english news paper in India, particularly S.India. The photo in this article, he is on the right side. (2) Times of India https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/malayalam/movies/news/kayale-kayale-song-from-thottappan-is-out/articleshow/69737112.cms Talks about his recent work - Kayale Kayale (3) the Hindua https://www.thehindu.com/entertainment/music/composer-ranjin-raj-on-his-journey/article26407776.ece This article shows why the poet is ignored by the musicians are more celebrated too, while both the said lyrics were penned by Ajeesh. (4) IB Times https://www.ibtimes.co.in/kalidas-jayarams-poomaram-song-kadavathoru-thoni-out-will-it-repeat-success-njanum-726610 This talks about a much celebrated song Poomaram, in which Ajeesh has debuted.

I've provided 4 urls, I will update the wiki page with his published books with their ISBN and amazon references - and other media coverage if any. Please share me the WIKI page which describes what all needs to be there for a biography article for a living person.

almithra (almithra) 10:01, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:16, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:04, 2 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 14:22, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yoli[edit]

Yoli (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 product. Fails GNG. Anarchyte (talk | work) 13:34, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (talk | work) 13:34, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 15:15, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Weak Keep, I heavily disagree about the claim to "not notable". It has been covered by trusted news source, and searches for "yoli soda" provide 859,000 (roughly) results on Google. It is a Mexican product, true, but the location in which it is produced doesn't discredit the need for an article on the topic. (The article COULD use an image though.) Utopes (talk) 18:05, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Utopes: 900,000 results and yet I could only find this and this by going through a few pages of Google and all five pages of Google News. Were your search efforts more successful? WP:GHITS. Anarchyte (talk | work) 01:12, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, sadly my whole premise relied on a fallacy; I didn't know WP:GHITS was a topic to avoid. I had more fruitful results myself, and I will be adding them to the actual article. My new vote is more reflective now. Utopes (talk) 16:08, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Weak delete or merge, I don't see report from reliable source, but if it is a market leader in the Mexico market, it should be kept, locals there might be able to point us to better sources. Viztor (talk) 22:43, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Viztor: If we have no independent reliable sources we can hardly keep the article. A redirect might be possible but I'm not sure where it would lead, except maybe FEMSA. I'm happy to keep the article if there are some Mexican articles somewhere. Anarchyte (talk | work) 01:12, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Anarchyte: Yes, we're on the same page. I can find some results, though few is usable, I'm waiting for editors from local market who might be more familiar with the subject. Viztor (talk) 01:16, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Further search showed it is just a local drink, hence the change of opinion. Viztor (talk) 05:00, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For additional time to find more supporting sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MarginalCost (talk) 14:53, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:53, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I added formatting and the Toronto Life reference. It used to be a regional drink but has since broken out across borders and seems to have developed a cult following. StonyBrook (talk) 19:32, 2 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 and redirect. (non-admin closure) Wug·a·po·des​ 02:01, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Faculty of Performing Arts, Banaras Hindu University[edit]

Faculty of Performing Arts, Banaras Hindu University (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)

Notability not demonstrated, fails WP:ORG WP:GNG. Alternatives are merging to Banaras Hindu University or redirecting to Banaras Hindu University#Faculties. Muhandes (talk) 09:57, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:00, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:00, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:01, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect or merge. Not notable to be a stand alone article for a faculty. CASSIOPEIA(talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:27, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:53, 2 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 14:22, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Jackson (psychiatrist)[edit]

Thomas Jackson (psychiatrist) (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 believe that the article is heavily biased and beyond saving. Several controversial statements in the article relies solely upon sources that come from biased and otherwise unreliable publishers [29] [30]. Sometimes, the controversial statements are even blatantly incorrect, such as "When Jackson acted as a whistle blower in 2008 and 2009 he was branded as a nazi by Aftonbladet [...]" where it is implied that Jackson has been wrongfully labelled a nazi by Swedish media when they simply state the fact that Jackson has joined a party which was formed out of the remnants of the Nazi organisation Nationalsocialistisk front.

"Simultaneously, Jackson was branded as a right wing extremist and thereby denied him the opportunity to deny any allegations resulting in Jackson becoming known as the nazi doctor" - None of the sources provided can properly back such a statement up and none of them refer to him as "the nazi doctor".

"Jackson was interviewed in 2006 by Swedish media where he said that he was a Christian doctor and that he was against multiculturalism" - There are two citations that accompany this statement, one is from the conservative "Ingrid & Conrad" podcast and other is from a local newspaper based in Sundsvall. The term "Swedish media" in this context, at least to me, implies major Swedish news organizations. Not a podcast and some small-town newspaper.

In its current form, I believe that the article would require a complete rewrite in order for it to become fully neutral and encyclopedic. See the talk page for additional concerns. lovkal (talk) 19:05, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. lovkal (talk) 19:05, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:07, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychiatry-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 19:54, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 19:54, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Improvements[edit]

I have made several improvements, such as added sources where Jackson is explicitly being labeled as a "nazi" and "nationalsocialist" by Gellert Tamas. I propose rewriting the parts which are mentioned here. There are several references to a numerous big news papers which mentions that Jackson has jonined a nationalsocialist party, but also where he is described as having "nazi" sympathies. Deletion of an article with 83 articles is not appropriate since it is not dubious or biased considering that I am merely quoting the articles content and the over all general debate about Jackson, based on my research. I will further improve the article based on these suggestions.

"When Jackson acted as a whistle blower in 2008 and 2009 he was branded as a nazi by Aftonbladet [...]" where it is implied that Jackson has been wrongfully labelled a nazi by Swedish media when they simply state the fact that Jackson has joined a party which was formed out of the remnants of the Nazi organisation Nationalsocialistisk front.

- This actually did happened. It is a summary of the series of events which led to him suing Aftonbladet. This is not a "lie".

"Simultaneously, Jackson was branded as a right wing extremist and thereby denied him the opportunity to deny any allegations resulting in Jackson becoming known as the nazi doctor" - None of the sources provided can properly back such a statement up and none of them refer to him as "the nazi doctor".

- He was shut out of the debate, according to sources from himself, and he protested by joining a nationalsocialist party. He is mentioned as being part of a "nazi movement". Sources provided are sufficient.

"Jackson was interviewed in 2006 by Swedish media where he said that he was a Christian doctor and that he was against multiculturalism" - There are two citations that accompany this statement, one is from the conservative "Ingrid & Conrad" podcast and other is from a local newspaper based in Sundsvall. The term "Swedish media" in this context, at least to me, implies major Swedish news organizations. Not a podcast and some small-town newspaper.

- Two sources together can be considered as part of "Swedish media"...

Improvements: Changed text from "Jackson was labeled as a nazi" to "Jacksons interpretation of Aftonbladets article of him joining a nationalsocialist party was that he was branded as a nazi". Improvement 2: Jackson became known as the "nazi doctor" because a google search of "Thomas Jackson nazistläkare" (translating to nazi doctor) shows several hits. Change text to "he believes he was branded as a nazi".

"I believe that the article is heavily biased and beyond saving. Several controversial statements in the article relies solely upon sources that come from biased and otherwise unreliable publishers [31] [32]"

NewsVoice is not an "unreliable source", its a Swedish independent news paper... The source is here: https://newsvoice.se/2017/10/thomas-jackson-resignerade-flyktingbarn-miljardindustri/ The second source is this one: https://mxp.blogg.se/2017/november/psykiater-thomas-jackson-apatiska-barnen-en-svensk-psykos.html

--Albert Falk (talk) 22:02, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:43, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with lovkal and Bearian. This is a rare case, I think, of an article about a plausibly notable subject that needs a complete rewrite to be acceptable. In the meantime it's worsening the encyclopedia and deletion is the clearest path to the article's eventual contribution. Its bias is so ingrained in its construction and wording throughout, apparently dedicated to railing against a perceived liberal media persecution (WP:GREATWRONGS) without much (any?) other content explaining anything about either him or the distinctiveness of his primary idea (malingering by proxy), that changes short of a rewrite won't help.
I appreciate that writing it must have taken Albert Falk a great deal of effort and that seeing it deleted will be painful, but I would respectively suggest stepping away from this subject and editing something else. It can be difficult to be objective about subjects you care about a lot and I think this is one of those cases. I criticise the current article so harshly not to be cruel but to be clear that I don't see a way that this is going to work for Wikipedia. › Mortee talk 20:46, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I might add that NewsVoice is not simply an "independent news paper". It's a known conspiracy website which has been exposed by Metro's Viralgranskaren and other organizations when NewsVoice published, among other conspiracies, articles that supposedly proved chemtrails.[33][34] lovkal (talk) 22:52, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • agreement

    I agree. Remove the article.

    Signed Albert Falk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albert Falk (talk • contribs) 2019-08-03 09:41:00 (UTC)

  • Delete, I had this page on my (long) to-do list because it blatantly misrepresented sources in a decidedly non-neutral way, but nothing short of a complete rewriting will fix it. It's better to have no article than one this thoroughly biased. Huon (talk) 19:40, 5 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. Sandstein 20:27, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

American Mullet: Legend of the Silver Fox[edit]

American Mullet: Legend of the Silver Fox (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 film. Sources all treat it as a very parochial local human interest story. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:40, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 23:20, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 23:20, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Masum Reza📞 21:58, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:42, 2 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 as the nominator and others have taken an ordinary editorial decision (somewhat out of process, I note) to make this into a redirect, which is of course reversible as an ordinary editorial action, to be discussed on article talk pages. No administrator deleted any page. Uncle G (talk) 12:48, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Birkenhead Social Justice Party[edit]

Birkenhead Social Justice Party (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:Notability and WP:NPOL. No reference in the article, looks like promotion. Harshil want to talk? 11:24, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by Nominator[edit]

This is case of WP:TOOEARLY and I am withdrawing nomination because it is decided to redirect the article to the founder's wikipedia page on the my talk page with conversation of User:Super Nintendo Chalmers. -- Harshil want to talk? 12:18, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Harshil want to talk? 11:24, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Harshil want to talk? 11:24, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep A hasty and unsourced article, but the party is the creation of a sitting British MP; it has probably already received enough coverage for general notability (see here) and presumably when Parliament resumes in September, then he will be an MP in the British parliament under its banner. If it's only him that ever stands for them then the party is probably best as a redirect to him; if it later stands other candidates then it can spin off into it's own page - but for now a redirect would be most appropriate. But now we're here, close this debate, keep the article and then it can either be grown as more info comes out, or remain as a redirect to Frank Field. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 11:39, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep as per above, a party represented by a sitting MP in the House of Commons. --RaviC (talk) 11:50, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment regardless of the bold !votes, I'd close this as "redirect" rather than "speedy keep" - if that is the outcome that prevails - since the article has not been kept; it has now been redirected. Also, nominating this for deletion two minutes after it was created rather than allowing for development or even trying to discuss notability concerns with the editor involved strikes me as rude and uncooperative. Perfectly true, this was an unreferenced stub (again, two minutes after it was begun), but it was entirely plain and objective: an apparent good-faith creation, not clear promotion. Nevertheless, while I don't like the way this has happened, I do agree with the current outcome. A redirect is the best solution for now. › Mortee talk 21:13, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirection is keeping. Deletion is an administrator pressing the delete button to remove the edit history and content. Redirection does not involve that; and, as can be seen above where an ordinary editor makes it as an editorial decision, is enactable by any editor. Uncle G (talk) 12:48, 3 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:09, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Burton (athlete)[edit]

Trevor Burton (athlete) (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:Notability. The person is not notable itself and most likely fails WP:NATH and he was not even in top 8 in Commonwealth as this is the minimum criteria for inclusion. Harshil want to talk? 10:44, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Harshil want to talk? 10:44, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Harshil want to talk? 10:44, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Harshil want to talk? 10:44, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

England international and National champion
Was the article actually read before a nomination for deletion was made, he is an international (i.e selected by England to represent his country) and a three times NATIONAL CHAMPION. How is that not notable? Racingmanager (talk) 10:52, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is not written in the article. Most of the sources are official sources which doesn't meets WP:GNG and refer to WP:NATH before creating article. - Harshil want to talk? 12:10, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It does mention National champion in the article. Quote AAA National champion on three occasions. This is the UK's foremost championship. Racingmanager (talk) 16:37, 2 August 2019 (UTC) Keep. Participant of 1966 British Empire and Commonwealth Games so clearly meets relevance criteria. Florentyna (talk) 19:12, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Three time medallist at the AAAs and national record holder is surely more than enough for inclusion. --Michig (talk) 07:22, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets WP:NSPORTS for reasons given above, and this citation that was in the article before nomination shows that he came 6th in commonwealth games competition, so in top 8. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:38, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as all above. Clearly meets WP:ATHLETE. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:32, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lacks significant coverage and so it fails the GNG. There is no narrative beyond a couple of brief notes and there appears to be no potential for any worthwhile expansion. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:00, 8 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. Sandstein 20:24, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kinesiological stretching[edit]

Kinesiological stretching (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)

Paid advertising.

"Kinesiological Stretching a Trademarked and Copywrited concept, developed through ElasticSteel research by Paul Zaichik."

This page is promotion for one individal companies concept. Most of this article is original synthesis taking a bunch of facts about Kinesiology or about stretching and combined them together. Which sources use "Kinesiological stretching". The ones by ElasticSteel or Zaichik, ie the primary ones.

None of the independent sources cover "Kinesiological stretching" specifically so this falls short of WP:GNG. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:35, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:12, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advertising. Was created by a user banned for spam. Sources are about kinesiology or stretching, or are by the people promoting this (Zaichik and ElasticSteel). -Crossroads- (talk) 21:33, 2 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 14:22, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adewale Adetona[edit]

Adewale Adetona (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)

After a google search, i still struggle to find the notability of this individual to warranty a Wikipedia article. Given sources are primary and do not mention him in detail. I leave it here for consensus 10MB (talk) 10:09, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:47, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:47, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:47, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:47, 2 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. More sources have been found, it seems that the article is being worked on at the moment. Tone 14:24, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Northward (album)[edit]

Northward (album) (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)

Does not meet the criteria for notability of an album. All references are from the album's YouTube channel, no evidence of independent reliable sources discussing this album as per the guidelines at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Albums MurielMary (talk) 09:59, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:48, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:48, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:49, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:49, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Online sources include a review in the German edition of Metal Hammer ([35]), an article in Classic Rick magazine ([36]), a review in Dutch mag Aardschok, and a Blabbermouth.net news article. As usual with metal acts, there is likely to be more coverage in print sources. At the very least it should be merged to the band article. --Michig (talk) 07:34, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Notable per Michig. SL93 (talk) 01:10, 6 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 14:24, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Kloc[edit]

Dave Kloc (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)

Does not meet the criteria of notability for a creative professional https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals MurielMary (talk) 09:17, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:26, 2 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? 10:10, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Subject of this article does not meet criteria for WP:ARTIST or WP:GNG. No significant coverage in RS - the references contain a handful of articles that simply mention his name, and two interviews (primary sources). No important collections, exhibitions or awards/honors. Netherzone (talk) 14:11, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:TOOSOON. There is some minor coverage, mostly in LA Mag, but it's not enough for GNG.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:53, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - "local legend" says it all. No solo exhibits in major art scenes/galleries/museums. Bearian (talk) 16:27, 5 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. Sandstein 20:24, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hoodies Squad[edit]

Hoodies Squad (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 sources do not show notability. One is a press release and the other is run of the mill presentation and user comments. Fails WP:WEBCRIT and WP:TVSHOW Dom from Paris (talk) 13:02, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:02, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:02, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:02, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:02, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- airs on national TV network in Poland. Some sources from Polish article indicate reliability sources. [37], [38]. Additional links are not already on the Polish page, but indicate regular media coverage of the show: [39], [40], [41], [42].
Comedy Central is a pay-for channel that has a 0.36% market share and as such I dont think mcan be defined as having a "broad audience" to meet the TVSHOW criteria. I haven't been able to nalyse the other sources you have found yet to see if they get it past the GNG mark. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:20, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:42, 26 July 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, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Not a great article as it stands, but it has two refs already, and the corresponding Polish article has more refs and content that can be used to expand it. --Slashme (talk) 08:38, 2 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. Sandstein 20:24, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Felipe Machado[edit]

Felipe Machado (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 person is not notable either as a journalist, a writer or a musician. – Fayenatic London 09:29, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:55, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:55, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:55, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:55, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:56, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets notability per WP:AUTHOR as founder and guitar player for Band Viper which seem to be a big band in Portugal. However, article should probably get toned down a little and seems self promotional, probably created by person or someone associated with him. Peter303x (talk) 21:27, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: not entirely sure how the subject meets WP:NAUTHOR, but if none of his writing or business career is considered notable, at the very least the article could be redirected or merged to Viper (band) – the group have an AllMusic biography [43] and many of their albums have been reviewed by a variety of rock and metal music magazines, so the band pass notability. Richard3120 (talk) 13:47, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:58, 26 July 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, 2 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 14:25, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Johnathan Bagley[edit]

Johnathan Bagley (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 snooker player. As the article itself explains, he had little success as a pro (see this link) with a claimed career winnings of £475. More recently, he's had some success (no wins though) as part of the World Seniors Tour, a much lesser level of competition that, in turn, generates very little coverage in reliable sources. Thus, Bagley does not currently meet the requirements of WP:NSPORT, of the specific guideline for cue sports or of WP:GNG. Pichpich (talk) 20:37, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Pichpich (talk) 20:37, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Pichpich (talk) 20:37, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rollidan (talk) 04:41, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He totally meets WP:NSPORT, "People who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport," which he has, as he qualified for the snooker tour as it says in the article for two seasons. The career winnings is only from professional tournaments. Longstanding notability is that snooker players that have qualified for the tour are notable. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:26, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not every fully professional sportsperson is notable. We need sourcing, which is lacking here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:44, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Participating in the world championships makes one notable generally, no reason to make an exception here. Smartyllama (talk) 23:39, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:29, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Although he might just meet the subject-specific guideline, that just exists to establish a presumption that good sources either already exist or might be found. This article just gives two database-type entries that don't even remotely meet the "significant coverage" hurdle. Wikipedia doesn't need to have an article about everyone who has ever participated in any world championship of any sport. --Slashme (talk) 09:09, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Zero secondary sources exist, there is only directory information. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:23, 6 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 seems pretty clear now. Thank you Uncle G. Drmies (talk) 15:37, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Roberts Landing, California (neé Robert, California)[edit]

Advanced search for: 
"Roberts Landing"
In books/documents 
Google Books  · Questia
Internet Archive  · WorldCat
In the news 
Google News: recent  · archives

Questia  · New York Times
Los Angeles Times
Wall Street Journal · Washington Post
Financial Times · BBC News
The Age · The Hindu
News Limited · Fairfax Media

In academic/legal journals 
and reference works 
Google Scholar: academic  · legal

Microsoft Academic: new  · original
Oxford Reference  · JSTOR
PUBMED Central  · Questia
HighBeam  · Internet Archive

World Wide Web pages 
Google Web Search  · Advanced Search
Searx 1  · 2  · 3  · 4
Bing  · DuckDuckGo  · Startpage
Yahoo · Yandex · Gigablast
Images (free) 
Google  · Flickr
More 
Wikipedia Free English newspaper sources
The Wikipedia Library


Roberts Landing, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

I have found no evidence that this settlement has ever existed, besides GNIS. We already deleted Brookshire, a similar former settlement within Alameda County. Even if this place did exist, it should not have an article if there is nothing to say about it. -Naddruf (talk) 04:07, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:50, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:50, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rollidan (talk) 04:45, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, assuming nobody else can find a source stating it existed. Highway 89 (talk) 05:13, 26 July 2019 (UTC) Striking since sources have been found. Highway 89 (talk) 02:29, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. There doesn't appear to be anything novel about this telephone-book-like listing of a non-existent place, except maybe as a placeholder name for when a real Robert, California will be built. StonyBrook (talk) 11:23, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It did exist, and this was one of its names, per ISBN 9780520266193 page 319. It was a place more usually called Robert's Landing, outside of San Leandro in the 19th century. It is why West San Lorenzo Station was originally named Roberts Station, and you can find this place under the name Robert's Landing in plenty of history books. Uncle G (talk) 13:28, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • All this begs the question why we have an article about Robert, when the historical place was named other things (Robert's Landing or Roberts). The only one of those that google maps recognizes is Robert's Landing, and it goes to San Leandro. Someone would need to dig up those history books and prove from them that Robert (x3) was an important place. Barring that, this article should be deleted and Robert's Landing, California be created as a redirect to San Leandro, along with some mention of it there, which it currently does not have. StonyBrook (talk) 14:39, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because the article creator here took it from the U.S. GNIS, and the GNIS data were submitted in 1996 by someone who could not read a map. The old GNIS entry (U.S. Geological Survey Geographic Names Information System: Robert) cites its source as a 1934 California DOT highways map. I looked at the 1935 Alameda county highways map, which one can find on the WWW, myself. The dot labelled ″Robert″ is in fact the railway station, the railway line going directly through it, with the old settlement of Robert's Landing labelled separately just next to it. Its GNIS entry is U.S. Geological Survey Geographic Names Information System: Robert's Landing. Your way of doing things is quite byzantine and unnecessarily complex. We can just rename and edit the article. No administrator involvement required. Well, apart from the administrator who is showing how to fix this without involving administrator tools in any way, that is. Uncle G (talk) 17:01, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Changing my vote. The nom of this article has led its renaming and improvement with sources to the point that it is unrecognizable from its former state. StonyBrook (talk) 07:53, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brookshire is in fact on the same 1935 California DOT Alameda county highways map. It really did exist after all, it turns out. Uncle G (talk) 17:01, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see. If there is enough information to write an article about it, it could have an article. However I don't think there should be a page if it only lists the coordinates and elevation, without any local history. That brings up the question of whether we should have articles for all the former townships of Alameda County. Naddruf (talk) 19:49, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw (comment by nominator): now that the name has been changed, it is clear that this settlement really did exist and it house a useful article. Naddruf (talk) 19:42, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Naddruf The nomination can be withdrawn only if users with delete also change their mind! --Mhhossein talk 18:58, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Mhhossein: Looking at the users who commented delete, they both said that it should only be deleted if no info can be found about the article. This isn't true anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naddruf (talk • contribs) 00:06, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – @Mhhossein: Actually, a nominator can withdraw at any time, but when outstanding delete !votes are present, the discussion cannot be closed with a speedy keep result. North America1000 05:49, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The 1910 explosion blew out the windows in the San Leandro School, 2 miles away. That alone made the location notable: it was written about. But I think the title is over-apostrophized. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:52, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Aymatth2: If you would like to add that into the article, go ahead. It's not there yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naddruf (talk • contribs) 00:04, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I moved it to Roberts Landing, California, sans apostrophe. It is not the landing of Robert, or the landing of Roberts, but the landing named after Roberts. I will add some stuff on the Trojan years. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:56, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:51, 2 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. Sandstein 08:19, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sarashi[edit]

Sarashi (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)

TL;DR version: Nothing in the current article appears to be correct.

Details: Sarashi (晒 or 晒し) in Japanese refers to either "bleaching cloth (by exposing it to the sun)" or "exposure (as in doxing)". I cannot find any Japanese-language resources that define sarashi as any kind of figure-altering cloth. Of the two references listed in the article, the first one (the Sarashi page on The International Shakuhachi Society's website, https://www.komuso.com/pieces/pieces.pl?piece=2121) also defines sarashi as "bleaching cloth", and makes no mention of any garment. The second one (a doula-related website, http://www.crowningmomentsdoula.com/History-of-Belly-Binding.php) appears to be a dead link. For those who can read Japanese, see the JA Wikipedia articles at w:ja:晒 about cloth bleaching, and at w:ja:晒し about sensitive data exposure. The former JA Wikipedia article mentions various garments as possible uses of the resulting bleached cloth, but never defines sarashi as meaning those garments themselves. An earlier version of the EN Wikipedia sarashi page referenced https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Sarashi, but I have no idea where that site sourced its information. The picture on that page suggests that the TV Tropes authors were confusing the word sarashi with haramaki, which actually does refer to cloth wrapped around the belly, and might be made from sarashi-bleached material.

I'm reasonably fluent in Japanese and an admin at the EN Wiktionary, focusing on creating and editing entries for Japanese terms. Please ping me with any questions about this AFD. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 00:37, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:00, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:00, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I can't see any reason to keep this: it is not an encyclopedic topic. As Eirikr hints, it might be the basis for a dictionary entry, once all the misunderstandings are cleared up. Imaginatorium (talk) 08:51, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The dead link is archived - [44]. There are a number of sources that mention sarashi binding - [45][46], and as a bleached cloth [47] or sarashi momen - [48]. I'm wondering if rewriting the article to clearly explain what it is, and what it might be used for might be the better option? Hzh (talk) 12:17, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I find it somewhat suspicious that I cannot find any Japanese references that mention any such "sarashi". I can find mention of bleaching, doxing, and various forms of public punishment that involve putting the guilty party on public display with a notice of their crimes (vaguely similar to how stocks were used in European cultures), as well as more gruesome punishments such as beheading and public exposure of the head. I can find mention of cloth that has been processed using the sarashi method of bleaching. I cannot (yet?) find any Japanese-language source that describes sarashi as specifically a cloth used for belly-binding (or indeed for any other specific garment).
Looking at the links posted by Hzh, I note that:
  1. https://web.archive.org/web/20160302003147/http://www.crowningmomentsdoula.com/History-of-Belly-Binding.php - the doula-related site is all in English, with no sources given;
  2. https://sarashi-binding.net/2016/03/26/how-to-wrap-a-sarashi/ - poor English and a bit confusing, but looking at the parent site http://sarashi.net/ mentioned at the bottom of that page, the content authors are sellers of sarashi cloth, and the "how to wrap" page is about one specific way of using sarashi cloth, rather than about sarashi itself.
  3. https://books.google.com/books?id=MSc4Afi9XWsC&pg=PA90&dq=sarashi+binding - English-only text, and while there is a bibliography with this one, there's no clear source for where the author got the notion that sarashi means "binding".
  4. https://books.google.com/books?id=4h0TAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA375&dq=sarashi - a mention of sarashi cloth, consistent with Japanese sources I've found, and without anything specifically about belly-binding.
  5. https://books.google.com/books?id=WHfTCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA166#v=onepage&q&f=false - sarashi momen is momen ("cotton") bleached using the sarashi process. Again, nothing about belly-binding.
I do note that the Japanese Wikipedia article on haramaki ("belly wrapping") at w:ja:腹巻き specifically mentions 晒木綿 (sarashi momen) as one kind of material used for these, but it does not say that sarashi or sarashi momen means "belly-binding" or "belly wrapping".
If someone wants to completely rewrite our [[Sarashi]] article, I'm fine with its continued existence. But in its present state, it's effectively lying to our readers. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 16:06, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's just poorly written, there is no need to throw accusation of lying. It's also just two sentences long, should be easy to rewrite if anyone wants to do it, and it seems that a few minutes adjusting the text by someone who knows the subject should fix any error. I don't have strong feeling about keeping or deleting it, but perhaps a better rationale for deletion should be given rather than any error in it - perhaps WP:NOTDICT, but it seems that it could be expanded, for example its use in rituals [49], or to wrap around parts of the body - [50][51], etc. Hzh (talk) 17:57, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that there is no basis whatsoever for the implied claim that sarashi is a Japanese term for a binding cloth, rather than for the type of cloth. There is no accusation of lying (saying something you know is false); the suggestion is that the handful of entirely English sources are muddled about what sarashi means. Imaginatorium (talk) 18:07, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There you are, I've just done just a little work to fix the wordings, instead of spending time arguing about it. I'm sure you can do better than me fixing the content. Hzh (talk) 11:48, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neither reference attached to the first sentence supports the (surely false) claim that "a sarashi" is a "bleached cloth". Hepburn's dictionary says that sarashi refers to bleaching (as we knew), and the shakuhachi article refers to a piece titled sarashi, meaning "(the act of) bleaching cloth", and not to a particular type of cloth which has been bleached. Imaginatorium (talk) 13:53, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting tiresome. The dictionary gives two definitions, one of them "white, or bleached muslin". Can you do something more useful than pointless carping? Hzh (talk) 16:39, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:57, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, the above conversation between editors appears to be about the definition of this term, is WP a dictionary? Coolabahapple (talk) 03:19, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator thought that the definition is wrong, hence concentrated on the definition. This is probably the wrong thing to do, since an error in definition can easily be fixed, and is not that relevant to whether the topic warrants an article or not. Hzh (talk) 00:03, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think I have fixed the issue the nominator was complaining about. There are also other sources on its production and uses, and other related things, for example there is a sarashi dance based on the cloth - [52][53]. It is therefore possible to expand it into a decent article on the subject. Hzh (talk) 00:18, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that after the nomination for deletion, the article was significantly copy edited by User:Hzh, which included the addition of several sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:57, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's just poorly written, there is no need to throw accusation of lying... Hzh (talk) 17:57, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My use of the term "lying" is from the sense of "knowingly telling a falsehood". The [[Sarashi]] article is known to be false. In its current state, we are effectively lying to our readers, by knowingly (at this point, at least) telling a falsehood. We could rewrite the page at [[Sarashi]] to properly conform to known Japanese usage, describing the material, what it's made of, and how it's produced. However, none of the English-language links so far posted to this thread provide the information needed to do that. I'm also uncertain if it's notable enough, although I do see a page for [[Muslin]].
  • The page after editing by Hzh seems ... unuseful. I recognize that that's a subjective judgement; however, the page barely provides more information than a dictionary entry would. And if WP:NOTDICT holds, then [[Sarashi]] appears to fall below that threshold, and we should delete. Some of the sources also don't say what the article seems to imply that they say; I'll clear those out in a moment. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 16:51, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like you misread a lot of what is written there. The thing you complained about is actually about its use, not what it is defined as (e.g. the cloth used for binding either a woman's or man's belly is sarashi). You also seem to misunderstand what sources may be used - while English sources are preferred, there is nothing wrong with using Japanese language sources if you want to do per WP:NOENG, therefore arguing about English sources is pointless. You can just replace them with Japanese ones if you want to. If there are valid sources in Japanese in Japanese Wiki, then they can also be used here. It's really odd to keep referring to the Japanese Wiki, for one you should not use another Wiki article as a reference (Wiki article are not valid sources whichever language they may be), for another, if the sources used in the Japanese Wiki are valid for that article, then they can be used here. Otherwise you can also argue for the deletion of the Japanese Wiki article. I have no idea why you waste so much time writing here in the AfD when you can just spend a few minutes in the article to fix any issues given that it is just a few sentences long. Hzh (talk) 21:04, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, why are you bolding delete, it makes you look like you are voting delete again after nominating it for AfD. Hzh (talk) 21:27, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I very much agree with Eiríkr here. I have just edited the article slightly, but don't know how to get the bolded title to be italic, as it should be, since it is not an English word. Fairly clearly some ancient (unreliable) sources in English have confused the Japanese term for the type of cloth with its purpose. So once again: what is the topic of this (supposedly encyclopedic) article? Your comments about Japanese sources seem odd: the WP:ja article totally supports what Eiríkr is saying, and we should generally assume that writing by speakers of Japanese is a more reliable guide to usage in the Japanese language than isolated (mis-)quotes from non-speakers of Japanese. Imaginatorium (talk) 02:50, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is the policy of Wikipedia per WP:CIRCULAR, you cannot use Wikipedia as source. You can however use content that is sourced. Since that article is referenced with Japanese language sources, you can therefore simply translate the article and use it here with the sources. All these arguments are pointless since the issues are so easily fixable, and we are only having this discussion because the nominator isn't aware of Wikipedia policies and guidelines (including on deletion). If the nominator thinks that an article on sarashi shouldn't exist in English Wikipedia because of the sources, then it would also apply to the Japanese one and he can nominate that one for deletion as well. Hzh (talk) 06:45, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Responses to Hzh.
  • "You also seem to misunderstand what sources may be used - while English sources are preferred, there is nothing wrong with using Japanese language sources if you want to do per WP:NOENG, therefore arguing about English sources is pointless." -- Hzh (talk) 21:04, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
At no point have I added sources to the [[Sarashi]] article. At no point have I advocated adding sources to the [[Sarashi]] article. Instead, I have pointed out where existing references in the [[Sarashi]] article have been incorrect. If an English source is wrong, I will argue against its inclusion and/or remove it from the article.
  • "It's really odd to keep referring to the Japanese Wiki, for one you should not use another Wiki article as a reference..." -- Hzh (talk) 21:04, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I use the Japanese WP as a point of reference, but nowhere do I advocate for using the Japanese WP as a reference proper, that is, as a source for the [[Sarashi]] article here.
Sarashi is an artifact of the Japanese language and culture. Understanding what sarashi is and its significance requires that one evaluate what Japanese writers have to say about it. When the Japanese WP article at [[ja:晒]] disagrees with the English WP article at [[Sarashi]], simple logic suggests that we should give more credence to the article written (presumably) by authors who belong to the culture and language from which sarashi originated, and then do further research.
  • "...if the sources used in the Japanese Wiki are valid for that article, then they can be used here. Otherwise you can also argue for the deletion of the Japanese Wiki article. I have no idea why you waste so much time writing here in the AfD when you can just spend a few minutes in the article to fix any issues given that it is just a few sentences long." -- Hzh (talk) 21:04, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
One thing that hasn't been addressed fully is whether the topic of [[Sarashi]] is noteworthy enough for an English-language audience to even merit the existence of the [[Sarashi]] article. I explicitly called that into question above: "I'm also uncertain if it's notable enough, although I do see a page for [[Muslin]]." ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi |Tala við mig 16:51, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding so far has been that the existence of an article on one language's Wikipedia does not necessarily mean that the topic is similarly notable enough for readers of other languages. Each Wikipedia is a separate community, with separate ideas about what merits notability. By my reading of the English Wikipedia guidelines at [[Wikipedia:Notability]], the topic of sarashi is not sufficiently notable to merit a separate page. I am uninterested in expending the effort to build out an article on a topic that I judge to be non-notable. At least one other editor here, Imaginatorium, seems to share my view; in your posts here to date, you haven't stated anything explicit about your views on the notability of sarashi for English-language readers.
  • "...we are only having this discussion because the nominator isn't aware of Wikipedia policies and guidelines (including on deletion)." -- Hzh (talk) 06:45, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect. My initial nomination was prompted by the patent and complete incorrectness of the entire article at that time, and by my view that it is better to have no article at all than to have a completely incorrect article. At present, I continue to advocate for the article's deletion, as I do not think that the topic of sarashi is sufficiently notable for English-language readers to merit an independent article.
  • "If the nominator thinks that an article on sarashi shouldn't exist in English Wikipedia because of the sources, then it would also apply to the Japanese one and he can nominate that one for deletion as well." -- Hzh (talk) 06:45, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also incorrect. For one, bad English-language sources in the English-language article have no bearing on the quality of Japanese-language sources used for the Japanese-language article. For two, I do not think that the topic of sarashi is sufficiently notable to merit an independent article. For three, as I stated above, the different Wikipedias have different criteria for what constitutes a notable topic for an article.
In summation, 1) is the topic of sarashi sufficiently notable to merit its own article? I do not currently think so. I am open to being convinced otherwise.
Also, 2) if we are to keep and maintain the [[Sarashi]] article, it should at least be correct. This is where I am concerned about the sources. Given time, I can find you sources published with Japanese government ministry approval that state quite clearly that Americans all have big family gatherings and turkey dinners on Halloween. Anyone with much experience of American culture can ascertain that this is incorrect. Simply finding a source isn't good enough: sources must also be vetted. Several of those listed above have not been correct.
Iff a convincing argument can be made that the topic of sarashi is sufficiently notable for English-language readers to merit an independent article, then I will happily withdraw my nomination of the [[Sarashi]] article for deletion. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:10, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Heavens, if I had known this is going to get so tedious, I would never have participated here. You claim to know what the deletion policy is, but only mentioned actual guidelines after almost two weeks. Half of the problems lie with you misreading what's written, then rely on your misreading to claim that what's written is wrong. The only person who supported you could not even read the dictionary source provided properly. If there are sources in Japanese that discuss the subject in any depth, then it is notable in English Wikipedia. Notability of any English language article is not limited by the sources available in English. You apparently have found sources in Japanese, unless those are trivial sources, if you are questioning its notability knowing that there are significant Japanese sources, it would suggest that you don't know what the policies and guidelines are. Hint: read WP:SIGCOV, if sources in Japanese don't cover the topic more than trivial mentions, then argue for deletion based on that. Hzh (talk) 19:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hzh, please maintain civility. Your responses have grown increasingly belittling and accusatory.
I have read WP:SIGCOV: as I stated above, I have read Wikipedia:Notability, of which Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline is a part. Apparently my understanding differs from yours. Particularly (emphasis mine):
"A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article... If a topic does not meet these criteria but still has some verifiable facts, it might be useful to discuss it within another article."
For instance, I believe that sarashi might merit a mention and brief description in the [[Muslin]] article.
By way of relevant example, the Japanese-language editing community decided that the topic of lower bigrade conjugation verbs deserved a whole page, at [[ja:下二段活用]]. The English-language editing community decided differently, and instead we only have a mention of this conjugation pattern in the [[Classical_Japanese_language#Verbs_(動詞_Dōshi)]] section. Clearly, different-language Wikipedias make different decisions about notability.
Along similar lines, I am not convinced that the topic of sarashi is sufficiently notable to English-language readers to warrant its own article. This is wholly independent of sourcing and the language of any such sources. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 20:38, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You only have to click on the Japanese version of WP:N to see that the same criteria on significant coverage and others also apply. If you want to argue about the notability of the English article, then you are also arguing for the deletion of the Japanese version. However, I have no idea what your argument for deletion is based on (you need to specify what exactly which bit of WP:N the article supposedly failed), which is really strange after you have written so much. Even odder that you are in effect disputing what WP:SIGCOV says on the link between sourcing and notability. You really need to show that you understand which policy and guideline that this article fails. And no, the fact that a topic only appears as a subtopic in an article does not mean that that subtopic does not warrant its own page. Splitting of a subtopic occurs too often to be even worth discussing (someone may very well create an article on that subtopic tomorrow), and entirely irrelevant here. What you are saying about putting it into the muslin article is also an argument for merging (see WP:MERGE), not deletion. I recommend reading WP:Deletion policy on reasons for deletion and the various alternatives available for an article. Hzh (talk) 20:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Hzh: Among your posting about you said "The only person who supported you could not even read the dictionary source provided properly." I think this means me, so kindly remind me what you refer to as "the [sic] dictionary source", and explain what I am not able to read. You have never explained: what is supposed to be the topic of this supposed encyclopedia article. A topic cannot just be "This Japanese word", it has to be a noun phrase describing the subject. Currently the closest seems to be "Various misconceptions in old books in English of the meaning of the Japanese word 晒し"; at least it could be moved to sarashi momen (晒し木綿), so that the topic could be described by the English noun phrase "Bleached cotton in the context of Japanese tradition". Imaginatorium (talk) 02:50, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did you check the sources again after you complained about sarashi meaning only bleaching and not bleached cloth in the dictionary? The dictionary gave 2 definitions, you apparently stopped reading after the first one. If you don't want to check, perhaps you can just ask Eiríkr Útlendi, who said that sarashi meaning "bleached white cloth" conforms to all the Japanese materials he had seen. I have spent a ridiculous amount of time replying when those I replied to can just do a simple check themselves, and to a nominator who so far has not produced a valid reason for deletion (citing WP:N while apparently disputing what it says on sourcing and notability is absurd, he should really understand that notability is not independent of sourcing). As far as I can see, there are enough sources to extend the article beyond a simple definition, therefore WP:NOTDICT would not apply, and so justifiable in keeping. I think I should really bow out of this discussion before I get really rude over an article I don't care that much about. Hzh (talk) 10:59, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I looked in 大辞林, which is a pretty good dictionary. 晒し can be used as short for 晒し木綿, which is "bleached cotton". But you did not answer my question: what is the topic of this article? If it is "Bleached cotton", then that would be a better title. Or is it "Semi-misunderstandings and confusion around the Japanese word sarashi in old books in English"? Is that really a notable topic? Imaginatorium (talk) 13:36, 6 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. seems to me the sensible outcome when no one seems to be able to agree whether the sources provided in the article represent significant coverage Fenix down (talk) 09:17, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sohan Mohammad Sima Qom FSC[edit]

Sohan Mohammad Sima Qom FSC (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 and WP:NORG. Page draftified once as lacking the sources needed to show notability. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:46, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:46, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:46, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:46, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:10, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 08:11, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There are sufficient credible sources. Pournia 02:36, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Pournia: May I ask where are those sources as I don't see any. HawkAussie (talk) 01:38, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are many resources available in Farsi. Maybe you're blind! 19:18, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
You're welcome to comment but you need to refrain from insulting and personally attacking people as well as disruptively removing AFD tags and IP hopping. Praxidicae (talk) 20:28, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:34, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Lacking of notable source. Barca (talk) 11:49, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A search on Google produced no sources for this team and easily fails WP:GNG. HawkAussie (talk) 01:38, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the Sohan Mohammad Sima Qom FSC is a professional futsal club.The reasons are enough.https://betsapi.com/t/259201/Sohan-Mohammad-Sima-Qom 12:17, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep There are a number of sources in the article, but Farsi's a language that's really difficult for me to search in/identify reliable sources for. It should not be deleted until the Farsi language sources have been disqualified. SportingFlyer T·C 23:50, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Those Farsi sources claim (on this version) that "coach changed" (6:broken link apparently), "the club promotion to Iran futsal pro league" (7 and 10), again "new coach for the club" (8 and 9), "club loss in three matches" (11, 12, 13: all local sources).Farhikht (talk) 14:38, 8 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. -- Scott Burley (talk) 04:35, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lootcase[edit]

Lootcase (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:NFF. The coverage is short rehashes of press releases. Fails WP:GNG Dom from Paris (talk) 13:39, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:39, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:39, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:33, 2 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) 04:16, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Photonic laser thruster[edit]

Photonic laser thruster (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 the research of Young K. Bae, was created by Young K. Bae him/herself. The article does not cite any references that establish notability. With one exception the only cited references that discuss photonic laser thrusters are the ones by Bae. All of the other references are cited to support points about historical background (like other propulsion systems) or general principles. The one possible exception is the paper by F.Y Hsiao et al., which may be about photonic laser thrusters. Someone would have to get a copy and review it to find out. There are certainly not enough reliable secondary sources cited to establish notability. I strongly suspect that the lack of sources establishing notability is because such sources do not exist. Srleffler (talk) 03:48, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:18, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:19, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Inadequate independent sourcing. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:24, 2 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep/merge It doesn't seem difficult to find independent coverage in sources such as Popular Mechanics. Perhaps, to damp down the hype, it might be merged with a more general page such as Laser_propulsion#Photonic_laser_thruster but deletion seems inappropriate per WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 12:11, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Andrew D. thinks deletion of literally anything is inappropriate and once it exists on Wikipedia it should be preserved for eternity. It's clear that this article is promotional, and development on this topic has not left the article's author's own lab. A single magazine blurb does not show this early-stage single-author research topic is notable, and the section at Laser propulsion, also written by the scientist to promote his own work, is itself excessive for something other researchers beyond Bae are not addressing. Reywas92Talk 18:55, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article by Hsiao et al. is about photonic laser thrusters, but it is insufficient by itself to establish wiki-notability and it has itself essentially been ignored (1 citation on Google Scholar or on NASA ADS). The existing content is overtly promotional, trying to lead the scientific community instead of following it, exactly the kind of hype we should not preserve. XOR'easter (talk) 20:06, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Clear author COI and promotion of Y.K. Bae Corporation. We already have a laser propulsion article and solar sail discusses its use for interstellar travel. There is no strong evidence that Bae's version is notable enough for a standalone article. The Popular Mechanics article found by Andrew is pretty much churnalism from a press release and not enough by itself for notability. SpinningSpark 00:27, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete laser propulsion is sufficient. Keep the image though. It's stellar. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:49, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per the above concerns about lack of secondary sources and COI issues. I would furthermore suggest that, should this article be deleted, that the corresponding section in laser propulsion also be removed from that article, as it suffers from the exact same issues as being promotional material added by Young Bae, using only his own work as references. Rorshacma (talk) 23:40, 7 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. Sandstein 08:18, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Metastable inner-shell molecular state[edit]

Metastable inner-shell molecular state (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 the research of Young K. Bae, was created by Young K. Bae him/herself. The article does not cite any references that establish notability. Most of the references are to Bae's own papers. The other references all predate Bei's 2008 proposal of MIMS. I did some quick Google/Scholar/Books searches which turned up only one use of the term by someone other than Bae, and that was a conference presentation by some of Bae's coauthors from other papers. Bae's papers have very few citations, most of which are other papers by Bae. I didn't find anything that could establish that the topic is notable. Srleffler (talk) 03:29, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:18, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sourcing completely inadequate. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:27, 2 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep The topic is important. Perhaps it should be renamed to quasimolecule as the concept and study was around before Bae came up with the term "metastable inner-shell molecular state". Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:18, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on the WP:TNT principle. Renaming to a better-established term would give a biased and COI-inflected presentation of that topic which would require effort comparable to writing a new article to correct. XOR'easter (talk) 14:45, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Promotional material on the author's own work that does not appear to be covered by other researchers as a notable topic. Reywas92Talk 18:56, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree that quasimolecule is a notable subject and should be created, but I also agree that this page is a self-serving TNT case. Bae's work, by itself, does not appear to be notable. If the history section gave a clear development of the subject there might be something retrievable in the page, but even in the first section (which covers the 1930s) Bae cannot resist shoehorning in his own research out of historical context. XOR'easter is right, starting from a blank page is going to be easier. SpinningSpark 00:00, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OR and WP:SPAM. We follow; we don't publish research news. Bearian (talk) 16:14, 5 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) 04:09, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Shipwright[edit]

Adrian Shipwright (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)

WP:BLP of a tax law advisor and writer, not properly referenced to any evidence of notability. Right across the board, this is referenced entirely to primary sources, like his "staff" profiles on the self-published websites of directly affiliated companies or organizations and his books' directory entries in WorldCat or Google Books. As always, however, the notability test for a writer is not just that his employer and his books technically metaverify themselves: it is the reception of reliable source coverage about him and his work in sources that he is not directly affiliated with, such as journalism about him and his work, critical reviews or analysis about his books, and on and so forth. Bearcat (talk) 03:34, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:34, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:34, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:19, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:20, 2 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.
  1. ^ "Comeback". The New York Times. 1971-02-28. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2019-07-19.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2019_August_2&oldid=1142614696"