Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 August 4

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 3 August	5 August >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. – bradv🍁 21:39, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Distant Thunder (1978 film)[edit]

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

Unsourced article tagged as such that fails WP:NFILM. It has been tagged since 2017. Nothing found in a WP:BEFORE search. Unprodded with the comment that "References can be gotten by someone familiar with the subject." I couldn't myself. Dom from Paris (talk) 03:45, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 03:45, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft delete as it has already survived PROD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott Burley (talk) 23:43, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find anything either, results being listings, one unreliable blog, and passing mentions in books. Doesn't meet WP:NFILM because there is no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:20, 11 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. While a slim majority voted to delete, NOTVOTE applies and I don't feel that that's strong enough consensus for deletion, especially given that the article was improved during the AfD to the extent that one of the initial delete !voters changed to keep. I don't see why I should relist this a third time against policy, so I have closed it. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:42, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gay Hay[edit]

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

This author has not received sufficient coverage or been credited with sufficient influence to satisfy WP:NAUTHOR. Main claim to fame is being a finalist (unsuccessful) in the 2014 NZ Post Book Awards, which isn't enough on its own. I can not loocate the type of sourcing we would usually require for an article about a fiction author. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:54, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:54, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:54, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:54, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WorldCat shows holdings of most of her books to be in the double-digits (a few low triple digits), which, in the world of children's literature, is quite low. (Public libraries tend to have very substantial children's sections.) Agricola44 (talk) 12:49, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, although editors need to remember that Hay is a New Zealand children's author, there is a total of around 500 New Zealand libraries, of those (and looking at the type of libraries listed), expect an absolute maximum of 150 NZ libraries that would conceivably hold her books, so if they were only released in NZ (not that i am saying this is necessarily the case here), mid/high double digits would be pretty good, anyway, toodles. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:05, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed not the case that distribution of her books is limited to NZ. They are distributed internationally, a fact demonstrated by a quick look at WorldCat entries. For example, it shows many US libraries, as well as libraries in UK, AU, Japan, Canada, etc. hold Fantail's Quilt. (Same is true for many of her other books, e.g. Watch Out, Snail.) So the 81 actual holdings of Fantail's Quilt are unfortunately not impressive. Agricola44 (talk) 14:41, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lacks coverage in reliable sources to indicate the subject meets WP:NAUTHOR criteria.--SamHolt6 (talk) 00:31, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above, does not have enough coverage, fails WP:NAUTHOR. Nikoo.Amini (talk) 14:21, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obviously fails WP:NAUTHOR, also these books do not even have articles created and insufficient amount of coverage to survive that AfD. Sheldybett (talk) 02:19, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have found and added more sources - and also corrected some of the information. Her book published in 2013 was a finalist in the 2014 awards, not her book published in 2015! Her first picture book was also a finalist in the LIANZA children's book awards in 2012. I am still looking for more sources, and will add quotes from reviews. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:55, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Might you clarify whether "finalist" is an actual category of the awards you mentioned? I don't see much on these awards (except web pages, e.g. like this one), so it is not clear whether these awards are significant, nor whether she even won any of them. Thx. Agricola44 (talk) 14:41, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The awards are notable in New Zealand. No, she did not win them - she was short-listed (which is what being a finalist means) for two. I have added quotes from reviews. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:05, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, just to clarify for non-NZ editors (sorry that i didn't do this sooner), the New Zealand Children's Book Awards are a big deal (just have a look at the authors/illustrators who have won/been finalists, although if you're not into kids books like yours truly you may still just go huh?:)), so having ones book(s) as finalists is no mean feat. ps. i was going to create articles for one or two of her books (i mite still:)) but as i have found (wading thru dozens of unfinished kid book articles on my lappie) unless an Antipodes' kids book gets released in the US (or old blighty) it is difficult to find coverage/reviews (with ozzies/nzs being sports mad ... mmm, kids books written by sportspeople, nope even then reviews a few and far between:)), and that can take time if at all ie. Fantail's Quilt, original NZ pub of 2011/12, Kirkus review shows good ol' US publication as August 2019, see here. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:48, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But, as I understand it, she did not actually win any of these awards, so how far does notability extend? Some of the reviews are helpful, but IMHO we shouldn't set much weight by trade reviews (like Kirkus and Publisher's Weekly) that do many thousands of reviews annually. Agricola44 (talk) 18:27, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Agricola44, I am always reluctant to keep writers or books scourced exclusively to brief reviews these two trade mags (unless starred), but we don't have to. We have New Zealand Listener and School Library Journal.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:00, 26 July 2019 (UTC) Blocked sock. -- Scott Burley (talk) 07:56, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but, as is often the case when trying to dodge deletion, the article has now become a caricature of itself. It's now basically about 2 books that are not very widely held, that almost (but did not) win some awards, and that have been reviewed a few times (including pro forma reviews in Kirkus). Most of the article's text is now of the form reviewers wrote..., followed by lengthy quotes. There's almost nothing about the actual subject, excepting the unsourced OR of being "based in Pukerua Bay" and 1 sentence about PageBreak, as sourced from the subject's own website! I think this will be a pretty sorry example of a WP bio, if it is kept in this form. Agricola44 (talk) 19:56, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The reviews are about 3 books, not 2. They say that the author has written "poetic prose", "Short, sharp text [that] heightens the sense of tension and drama", "an engaging storyline", "spare but effective text", "minimal, loosely rhythmic text that uses many different verbal phrases", "simple telling", "lively text". That tells us a lot about the author's style of writing. They also say that there is "a strong message about predation", "An effective angle on environmental concerns"; one is "an information book for young readers about a little-known animal", and "the simple telling of one tiny creature’s natural world is enlightening" - that tells us about the author's concerns and intentions in writing. As for "based in Pukerua Bay" being "unsourced OR", it says that in the New Zealand Listener - I will add that source to that information. I did find sources about her work as a teacher, but didn't add them as it's not what makes her notable, but I will do so now. RebeccaGreen (talk) 03:49, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you're missing my point. In your zeal to put this material in, you've changed the article to predominantly a PROMO version of what other people have said about her books – it's like 90% of the article. There's very little about Hay. It's all just gushing PROMO of her work. Agricola44 (talk) 13:42, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's your point of view. WP:AUTHOR specifically says "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of ... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." We could reduce the size of the quotes and still show that there are multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. (Personally, I do not think it's gushing or promotional, just informative.) You seem to have based your Delete !vote solely on library holdings, which are not actually mentioned in WP:AUTHOR - it is in WP:ACADEMIC, but that is not applicable to an author of children's picture books. We do not always have a great deal of biographical detail about authors, but in this case, we know her date of birth, her former profession, and where she lives. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:05, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Say what you will. The article has turned into PROMO, with little detail on the actual subject. Thanks. Agricola44 (talk) 00:24, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The books are published by Page Break, a company that might be a self-publishing vehicle (see here). As to the sources currently posted up in support of our subject's notability, they leave a lot to be desired:

A routine author profile in the Storylines Trust and Foundation website; a mention in a list of the 50 best children’s books of 2011 from the whole of N.Zealand; an advertorial in the Otago Daily Times about an educational jointly created by Hay & Martin; more promotional verbiage at the home page of Page Break; the news reported by Stuff that one of the subject's books is "shortlisted" and will be sent to baby Prince George; a name check among the crowd of non-winners in NatLib's list of "award winning 2014 New Zealand picture books"; another name check amongst, as the text author puts it, "dozens of books"; another listing among "the 50 best children's books of 2013", in which our subject's entry lands at No.45; and the inevitable Kirkus capsule review (another one here), from the publication that "covers everything"! A gallant keep-job, indeed, but not enough for WP:AUTHOR. -The Gnome (talk) 10:06, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the books are self-published is irrelevant. Two have been finalists for NZ Picture Book of the Year, and there are reviews in the Australian journal Reading Time, the US School Library Journal, and The New Zealand Listener. That is the basis of the claim that she meets WP:NAUTHOR. The lists verify that the book was a finalist for the awards. The "advertorial" is included because it verifies that Hay was a teacher before she started writing picture books, and the article about the books being sent to Prince George verifies where she is from (as does the author profile on Storylines) - (Agricola44 claimed that that information was "unsourced OR"). Please distinguish between sources that verify information, and sources that establish notability. Furthermore, these reviews are what can be found online now - always, there are more sources that haven't been digitised or are behind paywalls and not findable unless one has a subscription. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:06, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, the line of argument that goes "There must be more sources out there, for sure" is beginning to grate. As to your comment that her books being self-published is something "irrelevant" I'm dumbfounded! The subject of the contested article fails all WP:NAUTHOR criteria; the only criterion one could hang a hat on might be 4c (The person's work [must have] won significant critical attention) but the sources extant (self-published, name drops, advertorials, and reviews in local media) are unfortunately nowhere near that hurdle. -The Gnome (talk) 16:23, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So when a self-published book is short-listed for a prize, we ignore it because it's self-published? And how are Australian and US journals "local media" for a NZ book? WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES does not apply - I have added sources; I was just pointing out that there is a world beyond online sources. RebeccaGreen (talk) 17:18, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Gnome, while it is true that most self-published books sink without a ripple, it is also true that some self-published books are notable, and it is certainly true that our goal here is always to judge notability objectively and the sources now on the page show that this author meets WP:AUTHOR. I will mention that self pibblished is a trend in children's books because some writers find that they can make more money this way.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:12, 28 July 2019 (UTC) Blocked sock. -- Scott Burley (talk) 07:56, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The vanity press aroma is but the spice. The main dish is tha lack of "significant critical attention," whether self-published or published by Hachette. I'm sorry but what is out there does not support WP:NAUTHOR 4c. And arguments to the effect that "there are bound to be more sources" are DOA. -The Gnome (talk) 06:26, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article has been significantly improved since it was nominated for deletion. Noahe123 (talk) 22:31, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss the improvements since the nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:03, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Utterly puzzled by Gnome's last comment. Page is now sourced to a "best books" list, feature article coverage of this writer, short-list for a book prize, and multiple book reviews in WP:RS publications. It meets WP:AUTHOR.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:23, 28 July 2019 (UTC) Blocked sock. -- Scott Burley (talk) 07:56, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott Burley (talk) 23:38, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the author lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Polyamorph (talk) 14:48, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
changed to Keep, there is not much coverage but on further reflection RebeccaGreen's ~~and E.M.Gregory'~~ arguments are convincing. Polyamorph (talk) 17:17, 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 List of Jeopardy! tournaments and events. There's not really enough here to declare a consensus, but closing this as NC wouldn't make sense. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:58, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jeopardy! College Championship[edit]

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

Tournament episodes of a game show. While Jeopardy! is a widely notable television show and part of pop culture, an unreferenced article about a week-long tournament every/every-other season does not meet WP:N. Google search produces links back to this article, the production website and external Wiki fandom sites. Subject is adequately covered in List of Jeopardy! tournaments and events. AldezD (talk) 12:17, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:25, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of sources if you search under WPRef, news, and books. Just doing a google search is not enough. This article helps declutter the main Jeopardy! page just like the other tournaments. The article simply needs more citations. AmericanAir88^(talk) 14:13, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:40, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott Burley (talk) 23:32, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with everything the nominator said. Maybe redirect to Jeopardy if people are so interested. Trillfendi (talk) 21:12, 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 keep. czar 00:29, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lost Junction[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:NFILM Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:58, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:58, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:58, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:25, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the film has been reviewed in multiple reliable sources including Wiki Film Project reliable sources DVD Talk here, DVD Verdict here,Variety (magazine) here, and also a review at TV Guide here so the film passes WP:GNG imv, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 21:41, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Atlantic306, the first two doesn't seem significant. While Variety is from a reliable magazine, the coverage is scant. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:45, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The first two are significant full reviews, both publications are Wikipedia reliable sources, they are used as top critics by Rotten Tomatoes and each have articles on Wikipedia with reliable sources coverage Atlantic306 (talk) 21:49, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Atlantic306, Well DVD talk's page says "Online community" --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:14, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The reviews are only done by staff members. These are the reviewers here, it started as an online forum but it is a review site now, with a seperate forum Atlantic306 (talk) 22:24, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found by Atlantic 306. matt91486 (talk) 11:26, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 23:20, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I saw a couple of reviews through IMDB. Barca (talk) 22:57, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Atlantic306 - thanks for tracking down the sources --DannyS712 (talk) 21:08, 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. Proposals to rename the article can be made on the talk page. – bradv🍁 23:09, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. State Fuel Octane Standards[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. No souerces proving encyclopedicity, and fails WP:LISTN. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 22:44, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but flesh out This is definitely an article with potential. With a few hours of good, solid work, it could be fairly good. I have watchlisted the page, and I will work on it tomorrow. It's 9pm where I am, otherwise I'd start right now. I'm willing to adopt it. Squeeps 10 02:56, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also going to say that it could use a retitling. Perhaps Gasoline octane in the United States? Or Octane standards in the United States? Squeeps 10 03:00, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 09:33, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 09:33, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Octane standards are certainly discussed at a state level, for instance here and here. And while many sources do discuss only individual states, they often do so in comparison to other states, which to me meets the spirit of LISTN. It certainly seems to meet the criteria for a standalone list (not too general or broad in scope, not too specific as long as we don't include those pesky Montana horse-thieves). And I think there is adequate sourcing available to fill in the remainder of the table. There would be a ton more to add if we did broaden the scope slightly to federal fuel standards as well. Regardless I do agree that the article needs a rename. CThomas³ (talk) 10:02, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was, however, remiss in not giving bonus points for encyclopedicity. Like that. CThomas³ (talk) 19:42, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename - the article has potential, and while it does need (significant) work it passes LISTN per Cthomas3. --DannyS712 (talk) 21:12, 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. – bradv🍁 23:10, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sławek Jaskułke[edit]

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

Notability, not enough sources for an article of substance Vmavanti (talk) 22:26, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:33, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:33, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:33, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've tracked down a couple of good sources, added them, which along with his performances and work, is sufficient to satisfy ~~WP:NARTIST~~ WP:SINGER. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:37, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NARTIST isn't the requirement. See Wikipedia:Notability (music) for musicians.
Vmavanti (talk) 14:19, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doh! Same argument applies - I believe criterion 1 is satisfied. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:31, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the additional reliable sources references to significant coverage added to the article which are actually better than the refs in the Polish wikipedia version, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 22:34, 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. – bradv🍁 21:48, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rohema Miah[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, sourcing is weak and founding nothing after a courtesy search for sources. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 00:29, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 00:29, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 00:29, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 00:29, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:58, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the claims to notability are somewhat nebulous. Noe of the sourcing in the article are reliable sources. My own search turns up only passing mentions. -- Whpq (talk) 14:00, 10 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. – bradv🍁 21:52, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Complete Paris Concerts[edit]

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

Not notable, too few sources. Another unofficial release, so of course there aren't many sources or links to the article. How can it be The Complete Paris Concerts when there are only seven songs? Coltrane played in Paris more than that. Vmavanti (talk) 13:42, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:59, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:00, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:49, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 00:27, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shooter (2000 film)[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a short film with no claim of notability that would pass WP:NFILM. As always, every film is not automatically entitled to keep an article just because IMDb offers technical verification that it exists: the notability test for films requires evidence of significance, such as winning or being nominated for notable film awards and/or having enough reliable source attention from professional film critics to clear WP:GNG. This has neither of those things, however -- it basically just states that it exists and describes its plot without ever making a claim of significance or citing a reliable source, but films are not exempted from having to clear GNG just because the filmmakers and/or cast members have BLPs. Bearcat (talk) 17:29, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:29, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:29, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No significant coverage. Fails WP:NF. SL93 (talk) 04:58, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:43, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Completely unsourced in the article and I cannot find any coverage about it that would establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:50, 10 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. -- Scott Burley (talk) 21:30, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Faizan Khan (Indian actor)[edit]

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

Putting it here as the references don't show notability. I don't want to prod it and have to come back here after someone de prods it Josalm64rc (talk) 21:10, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:15, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:15, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:22, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:23, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - while he is in the two films (one of which has an article, but both of which are probably notable), his role is distinctly small in both and doesn't reach the level of a "significant" role. As such, WP:NFILM is not satisfied. No obvious single redirect target. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:44, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG upcoming not ntoable at this point.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:04, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice against recreation if the subject has more roles and attains notability. Until then, this appears to fail WP:NACTOR (at least for now) --DannyS712 (talk) 21:14, 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. -- Scott Burley (talk) 21:29, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hayat Mahmud Rahat[edit]

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

Does not meet criteria of WP:GNG or WP:BIO. I cannot find significant coverage of him in reliable sources. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:56, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:01, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:01, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:02, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:04, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete, Who is he? He is create short film just for youtube. And those reference doesn’t prove that he is notable. This article should be delete on A7. ChotoBhai (talk) 3:10, 05 August 2019 (UTC)
Keep. . He is a Bangladeshi Director. He had made many of short drama film which has on aired at national television channel. He also won an international award from We Art Water Film Festival^[1]^[2]^[3]. — Sajidulislampathan (talk) 12:45, 05 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ jugantor.com. "অ্যানিমেশন শর্টফিল্মে প্রথমবারের মতো চ্যাম্পিয়ন বাংলাদেশ | আইটি বিশ্ব | Jugantor". jugantor.com. Retrieved 2019-08-04.
^ "অ্যানিমেশন শর্টফিল্ম প্রতিযোগিতায় চ্যাম্পিয়ন বাংলাদেশ". jagonews24.com. Retrieved 2019-08-04.
^ "অ্যানিমেশনে দক্ষ হলে বেকার থাকতে হবে না". DailyInqilabOnline. Retrieved 2019-08-04.

Delete per nom. — Masum Ibn Musa ^Conversation 11:29, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a clearly non-notable filmmaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:19, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Anyone can call themselves a Director, this does not mean they are notable or even if they were directors that is not evidence of notability. His film being aired on tv adds nothing to being notable and an award from Art Water Film Festival means nothing. There are lots of festival and lots of award in the world; and only a few are notable. P.S. it is considered good form to mention on your vote that you created the article.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 02:02, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable film director, fail WP:GNG.--Nahal^(T) 06:38, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. - MA Javadi (talk) 16:30, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:51, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Balbir Singh Jakhar[edit]

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

Contested prod. Fails WP:NPOL, and all the coverage is about the scandal, which would fall under WP:BIO1E. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:47, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:47, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:47, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it fails WP:NPOL Never won any election, never held a major public post. Nothing to prove notability.--DBig Xrayᗙ 19:01, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles for being presidents of local bar associations, or for being candidates in elections they did not win, so nothing here demonstrates that he passes WP:NPOL. But per WP:PERP, a criminal allegation is not in and of itself to get a person over the notability bar — if he wasn't already notable enough for an article before he was charged with a crime, then the crime coverage just makes him a WP:BLP1E rather than a person who has earned permanent coverage in an encyclopedia. Bearcat (talk) 16:34, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unelected candidates are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:28, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOL not elected.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:08, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:52, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anuel Modebe[edit]

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

Non-notable autobiography. Two of the cited sources are "sponsored content," and brief mentions anyway. Some recognition for nomination for best photographer by the Nigeria Entertainment Awards, but this seems to fall short of WP:NBIO The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times. I could not find any further sources to establish notability in my search. MarginalCost (talk) 18:04, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 18:04, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 18:04, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:11, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable enough and autobio on top of that. -- Alexf^(talk) 18:43, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia has very stringent rules against autobiographies. They have kept us from being flooded with even more articles on non-notable people than we are currently.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Full of useless namedropping typical of promotional (auto)biographies. The sources are not only carrying sponsored content they are unreliable too. A draft of this was rightly rejected at AfC (see Draft:Anuel Modebe) for notability concerns, but the author seems unreceptive to anything but to have their autobiography on Wikipedia. – Ammarpad (talk) 07:17, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt - this guy (it's an autobiography, clearly) claims seven careers, none of which make him notable. If we allow these now, we'll lose our not-for-profit status and revert to that of a private foundation. Bearian (talk) 18:28, 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. -- Scott Burley (talk) 21:28, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Samad Dawood[edit]

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

Not notable in its own right, notability can't be inherited, which he can't inherit from his father or his family. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO. Störm (talk) 17:07, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:15, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:15, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - individual doesn't meet GNG - there are loads of mentions, and quotes, but the only proper coverage is in primary/non-independent coverage. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:55, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When nominating an article for Deletion, I don't see the need for the nominator to be making personal sweeping statements about the subject of the article. Does the subject article itself say that Samad Dawood expects to inherit notability from his father or family? Is this You Tube or an encyclopedia? MelvinHans (talk) 20:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The nominator didn't say that Samad himself expected to inherit notability (I mean, he presumably didn't make the article, nor knows about this deletion discussion), but ruling out ways people frequently think notability is established is a beneficial exercise, having seen thoughts of that type in prior discussions. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:50, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's focus on the factual part of the article and not give the impression of being personal here on this Discussion Forum. MelvinHans (talk) 21:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Italy infamously appoints "honorary consuls" in many moderate-sized cities. I once rented from the honorary counsel of Italy to Albany, New York (who was, by the way, a literal fascist). Does that make my late landlord notable? No, and neither is this guy. By the way, there's no such thing as a "third generation entrepreneur". I don't see how any of that makes him notable in any way. Bearian (talk) 18:34, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. -- Scott Burley (talk) 21:23, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Infomedia[edit]

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

non-notable company, all sources are the company or likely press-releases. Page is just an "about us" and I couldn't find any claim to notability elsewhere. creffett (talk) 16:04, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 16:04, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 16:04, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 16:04, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No significant coverage per WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 00:07, 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. -- Scott Burley (talk) 21:21, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Wojtkowiak[edit]

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

Bernard Wojtkowiak served in the Erie County legislature (an office that doesn't pass WP:NPOL) for only one year. I'm re-nominating this article for deletion because the previous outcome of Merge with the article Erie County, New York has proved not to be possible and to get a clearer consensus regarding deletion. GPL93 (talk) 15:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 15:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 15:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Path slopu: and @Otr500: who took part in the first AfD. GPL93 (talk) 15:41, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Stating that as the closing admin from the previous discussion that I am OK with a re-do for the reasons stated on my talk page. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:32, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There just is not any notability for the subject and no actual feasibility to merge. Per previous AFD "Does not pass WP:NPOL and we end up with only a career pseudo dictionary entry. Otr500 (talk) 19:44, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In Jo-Jo's defense, "merge" was definitely the consensus of the people who actually bothered to participate the first time — but it was a silly preference to express, because (a) the county's article only lists the current councillors and doesn't have a space to list everybody who ever served on it in the past, and (b) this doesn't even attempt to demonstrate a reason why Wojtkowiak might be a special case who still warranted being singled out for special mention despite the article otherwise lacking a comprehensive list of everybody who ever served on it in the past. Bearcat (talk) 06:52, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing here is even worth merging.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:04, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Johnpacklambert. We make mistakes sometimes. Bearian (talk) 18:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --SalmanZ (talk) 21:46, 10 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. Clear consensus in favour of notability. BLPREQUESTDELETE does not apply in this case. – bradv🍁 23:05, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rosemary Crossley[edit]

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

Subject of page has requested deletion. Not sure if it's worth keeping the page up, as subject isn't extremely notable based on sources. Request: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rosemary_Crossley&diff=prev&oldid=909288970 Ylevental (talk) 14:51, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:15, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:15, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:33, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I note that deletion would remove content about Anne McDonald, merged to this article 2 weeks ago. Does the nominator have a suggestion about that content? I suspect that both Rosemary Crossley and Anne McDonald could be shown to be notable, with sustained significant coverage in Australian media, none of which is currently in this article. I am trying to figure out why the articles were merged, and so far all I can find is a comment on 11 July 2019 on Talk:Rosemary Crossley saying "Most of the sources on Anne McDonald are about her dealings with Rosemary." That seems to be it. Why on earth not improve the sources??? RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:23, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would like to have a go at editing this article and adding sources. I know that the subject of the article should not edit it, but I have to say that I agree that the lede here is inappropriate for a BLP. Facilitated communication is hyperlinked in the very first clause, so we probably don't need the explanation which follows in the same sentence, and certainly don't need the four sentences about it in the second para of the lede. They do not relate to the subject of the article, and do not summarise the contents of the article, as a lede is supposed to do. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:51, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have started trying to edit this article. Some editors seem to be more concerned to say as many times as possible that facilitated communication is discredited than to write an objective BLP. The current edit to the lede has a second para that duplicates what is in the first. Why? I am starting to agree with the subject of the article that the only thing to do is to delete the article, even though the subject is definitely notable. However, I will try to continue adding actual information about the subject's career - which include disputed claims from very early on. I would rather like to move this to draft space, if other editors feel the need to keep adding in every paragraph that facilitated communication is discredited. RebeccaGreen (talk) 17:51, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the sensible comments. As Rebecca Green says, both McDonald's page and mine have been used as platforms to criticise FC. This is ironic, as FC is not even an Australian term. The Australian term is FCT, facilitated communication training, referring to hands-on therapy to teach people without functional speech to use communication aids. That is also the title of my text book, published in 1994. All of this is well after Anne McDonald fought her way out of a state institution 1n 1979, and when the book and film, both called 'Annie's Coming Out' appeared in 1980 and 1984 respectively, when neither term existed.

Having said that, the recent removal of Wikipedia pages about one-time participants in FCT teaching programs who've gone on to type independently, makes it hard to even suggest that there are 2 sides to this discussion.

A general difficulty is Wikipedia's approach to evidence, which appears to exclude primary sources, such as court judgements and medical records, and preferences secondary sources such as refereed journal articles, often with a significant selection bias. The single editor who on his/her own decided to meld McDonald's page and mine asked me, in relation to McDonald's undeniable growth of 18 inches (45 cm) after the age of 18, was there a news report that confirmed that this was unusual? A news report! There's a compelling series of broadsheet front page photos of Anne, starting with a picture of a nurse carrying Anne out of the Supreme Court like a babe in arms in May 1979, when she was 18 years old and weighed less than 30 pounds (13.5 kg), clearly showing her increase in height from 105 cm to 150 cm, as her weight increased to 50kg. Problem is there's no backgound site on which such photos or scans of medical records can be posted to inform editors. Regardless of whether McDonald's growth is considered worth mentioning, the reasons given for excluding it do point up evidentiary issues.

Those are also shown in the inaccurate insertion about the Stubblefield case. Previous efforts to draw attention to the verdict of the Court of Appeal to correct the record have been ignored, because it isn't evidence.

By all means include negative comments such as 'Crossley's more recent work has been controversial, as it has been associated with the introduction of FC in the US, which has been criticised in journal articles (refs) and has resulted in some professional associations passing negative resolutions (refs).'

Frankly,given that there seems to be no way of preventing frequent inaccurate additions and negative slurs on McDonald and myself, I would prefer that both pages are removed. It is distressing to see McDonald's reputation trashed, and I haven't got the time to monitor both pages and line up someone to correct them, as I'm not allowed to edit either, because of conflict of interest issues - never raised about the critics. Amdc538 (talk) 21:29, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Amdc538: Wikipedia person pages aren't about their lives, they are about what they are notable for. You are notable for promoting FC/FCT, a scientifically discredited technique. It's not about number of sides as much as what sides are reliable in this situation. Saying FC is just as legitimate as its criticism would be like saying that flat earth theory is as legitimate as spherical earth theory. Ylevental (talk) 22:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ylevental, could you point me to a WP policy that says "Wikipedia person pages aren't about their lives, they are about what they are notable for", please? My understanding was that biographies, whether of living or deceased people, should include as much about the person's life, education, career and achievements for which they are notable as can be reliably referenced to independent sources, and in the case of living people, is compatible with privacy concerns (eg regarding date of birth). RebeccaGreen (talk) 03:59, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RebeccaGreen According to WP:BIODD, "Don't give undue weight to traits unrelated to notability." Ylevental (talk) 13:25, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ylevental, Crossley's career since 1975 has been focused on disabled people with communication difficulties. That is what 3 of her books are about, that is what she received the AM for - and that is what the controversy is about. Therefore, a biography of Crossley should set out as much as is known about her education, career and achievements as can be reliably referenced to independent sources. That is her life. I will continue to work on the Career sections of this article, adding information from reliable, independent, secondary sources. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How much of this work is unrelated to facilitated communication? The article makes is seem like almost all of her work is with non-verbal people. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 15:32, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikiman2718: I am not sure what you are asking? Yes, she has worked for over 40 years with people with communication difficulties. Some continued to be non-verbal, some regained the ability to speak, etc. There is significant, sustained coverage which gives details of her work and her advocacy, and others' views and reactions to that. Ylevental suggested that the article should not be about her life, but about what she is notable for - and I replied that what she is notable for is the work she has done during her life. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:42, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More specifically, she is notable for the work she has done in her life related to FC and people who use it. Unless I am mistaken, she is not notable for any other work? --Wikiman2718 (talk) 15:46, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikiman2718: I still don't understand what you are asking, sorry. RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:07, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My question could not have been more clear. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 16:16, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikiman2718: Please would you do me the courtesy to ping me when you reply? Perhaps I should have said that I don't understand why you keep asking what Crossley is or is not notable for, nor why it is relevant what she is notable for - she is notable. I believe that I provided the information before you asked the question. Crossley is notable for the work she has done with disabled people with communication difficulties. RebeccaGreen (talk) 17:29, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RebeccaGreen: Yes. And all of that work is with FC users. She is notable for FC. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 17:46, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikiman2718: So what is your point? Per WP:BLPFRINGE, we don't just say "She is notable for FC, and this is what is wrong with FC". We are required to "write a neutral biography that neither unduly promotes nor denigrates the subject." That is what I have started trying to do. RebeccaGreen (talk) 17:51, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RebeccaGreen: The psuedoscientific nature of FC changes the whole story. Failing to convey to the reader what is really going on is non-neutral. Pseudoscience guidelines make that extremely clear. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 17:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikiman2718: Did you see that I referred to and quoted from Wikipedia:Fringe theories? That is the relevant policy, so what I quoted applies. RebeccaGreen (talk) 18:02, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RebeccaGreen: The Andrew Wakefield article points out right away that he is discredited and unethical, and if the Rosemary Crossley article were to be kept, it should do the same. Ylevental (talk) 18:04, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RebeccaGreen: It is not degenerating to the subject to give due weight to science. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 18:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikiman2718: @Ylevental: I am going to follow the policy and write "a neutral biography that neither unduly promotes nor denigrates the subject." If there are sources which specifically refer to Crossley or her work as being discredited and/or unethical, then I will include them. We should not say that if she specifically has not been discredited. The Andrew Wakefield is not an exact comparison, as Crossley is not a doctor, has not been struck off a medical register, and I have not seen any evidence that she has written fraudulent research papers. I have already found sources from quite early on that disagree with and challenge her, and I expect that I will find more as I search. They should and will be included. RebeccaGreen (talk) 18:17, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RebeccaGreen: Facilitated communication is discredited per Wikipedia's consensus. Sources that are unskeptical of FC are pushing fringe. In a balanced article, the appropriate amount of weight to give to the pro-FC narrative is zero. I haven't seen any sources accusing her of fraud. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 18:24, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RebeccaGreen: That is a false balance. It would be like allowing sources that promote flat earth theory Ylevental (talk) 18:41, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ylevental: If you don't like the policy WP:BLPFRINGE, I suggest that you initiate a discussion to change it. Also, I have not said anything about promotional sources - I have stated several times that the sources I have found include statements from people who disagree or challenge her. Please stop arguing needlessly! RebeccaGreen (talk) 18:46, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RebeccaGreen: That is not the correct interpretation of WP:BLPFRINGE. See Ylevental's comment about false balance. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 18:56, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some critics have protected their pages against any edits or comments. This is Ylevental's page

"Hello, this is my Wikipedia page Ylevental (talk) 12:41, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

No more agenda based editing or hiding. I get it. Ylevental (talk) 22:33, 3 July 2019 (UTC)"

On July 3 she/he promised 'no more agenda based editing or hiding'. This was after she'd been instrumental in removing the pagers of people, most of whom were women) who had started using communication aids with facilitation but now do so independently. Hiding the evidence, ableist attitudes and terminology seem to be a large part of Wikipedia's 'consensus. Wikiman2718, you joined up about 3 months ago. Please tell us how that 'consensus' was reached, and how wiping out the achievements of people with disabilities and refusing to recognise the extreme suffering to which many have been subject, as Anne McDonald was, as worthy of notice, is Wikipedia's policy.

BTW I'm busy working on a low-cost eye-gaze communication system for people who can't use their hands, costing less than a fifth of commercial 'disability-priced' systems. The free 'recipe' will be available at Australia's national AAC conference at the end of August, so interested therapists, teachers and family members can set up their own. The accompanying free multiple-choice activities I have written are now being used on iPads to allow people who can't talk and who can only choose clearly independently between 2-4 items to demonstrate advanced literacy and numeracy skills. Not just people with autism - people with ABD, CP, DS etc - are demonstrating skills Wikipedia doesn't want to recognise.

I'm too busy to keep on. Rebecca Green, thank you for your common sense and concern.Amdc538 (talk) 21:37, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Amdc538: This isn't about gender, this is about how falsely claiming someone can communicate through FC is notable. Show me the page of one man which is only about communicating through FC that has not been removed. Additionally, I have a strong suspicion that there is some WP:COI between you and Rebecca. @RebeccaGreen: If this is true, you probably shouldn't edit the Rosemary Crossley page, but leave suggestions on the talkpage. I am suspicious because of your belief in false balance. Ylevental (talk) 22:12, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ylevental, that is a strong accusation, some editors may see it as typical of a wikibully to cast such aspersions on an editor of good standing. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:49, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ps. and to "scare off" some editors from partaking in this afd. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:50, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ylevental: It is your perception that I believe in false balance. I am trying to implement the policy WP:BLPFRINGE as it stands. As for WP:COI, I know no more of Crossley than I do of any other subject which I find through AfD, PROD or declined AfC, and then research and attempt to improve the articles. RebeccaGreen (talk) 06:56, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RebeccaGreen: I won't look into it further, but you seem to be really defensive of her... same with @Coolabahapple: but I won't look into it Ylevental (talk) 15:23, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

and the allegations continue.... personally, i'm goint to have a nice cup of Assam. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:46, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, have been bold and undone the redirect/merge of Anne McDonald as i believe she is notable enough to have a standalone article, please see that talkpage.Coolabahapple (talk) 06:33, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Every mention of Anne McDonald involves Rosemary Crossley Ylevental (talk) 15:24, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:47, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Subject is notable and passes WP:GNG. The article should not be deleted, but it can be improved by WP:NEUTRAL editing. Netherzone (talk) 13:32, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. the individual is notable, not just borderline notable , so there is no basis in policy for deleting the article. . The fairness of the article can be discussed elsewhere, but as I understand WP:BLPFRINGE, we do state the general opinion is that FC is not generally accepted, but we we do not over-emphasise this. When we include a bio of a person, we discuss their life and their work. The work is almost always an integral part of the reason for their notability and we cannot avoid it. The discussion of the various opinions on FC in general belongs in the subject article, but the discussion of the specific work the individual has done is relevant in the bio. Eben so, it needs to be controlled--we writebios to give information about people, not to judge them. It's the reader who will be doing the judging. DGG ( talk ) 05:30, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly notable subject, agree with DGG and "AFD is not cleanup". Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:36, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the references present in the article show that the subject meets WP:BASIC / WP:NFRINGE. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:16, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete. Article speedy deleted by Bbb23 under criterion WP:G5. (non-admin closure) CThomas³ (talk) 09:25, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Bin (Demule Wilondja)[edit]

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

Per WP:MUSIC. Unremarkable singer, most sources coming from his Instagram page. Willbb234 (talk) 11:59, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Willbb234 (talk) 11:59, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Willbb234 (talk) 11:59, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the sources appear to be independent or reliable. Speedy Delete Meets Criteria given that this is an attempt to evade the WP:SALTing of the article Jack Bin. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:13, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per g5, meatpuppetry, sock puppetry, g11, a7...you name it. Praxidicae (talk) 12:49, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but not speedy. Sources in the article don't show notability, a good faith google search isn't turning up any that do. The SALTing of Jack Bin is for repeated recreation of a speediable article -- I'd rather have the AfD result that lets us easily use G4 on future versions under any title.----Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:18, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fabrictramp, Jack Bin has already been SALTed since February. These are multiple attempts to evade this both in draft and in mainspace. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:58, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, editor Erinsivek appears to have impersonated an American teacher of international students (news video and article on Sivek [1]) who has nothing to do with Computer programming languages (excessive list of boxes on userpage [2]) and ignored attempts to develop this to a meaningful article and placed this version in mainspace. Above reference was included in Jack Bin's article but does not mention Jack Bin at all. Rest of article is poorly sourced and not by mainstream newspapers but blogs and personal social media. There are piles of Jack Bin drafts that are duplicates or variants thereof that I'm pushing for CSD:
- Draft:Jack Bin, created 3 August by Erinsivek
- Draft:Jack Bin (demule wilondja), created 30 July by CrownprinceJbJK, edited and resubmitted by Erinsivek
- Draft:Muunga Wilondja, created 9 February by Jackbinvevo
- Draft:Jack Bin (Muunga Wilondja) , created 13 July by Ghuran babe
- Draft:Jack Bin - Kind Of Love, created 7 July by Michaelle23
- Draft:Jack Bin (Musician) , created 7 July by Michaelle23

This is likely to be self-promotional as Bin moved to the US and attends MPS [3] which is Milwaukee Public Schools which is where Erin's name is showing up. See https://www.reverbnation.com/jackbin AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:44, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The editor also swiped several barnstars and editor of the week icons from other pages. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:07, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@AngusWOOF: bloody good detective work. Willbb234 (talk) 16:46, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

they have also copied Robert McClenon’s userpage even down to the barnstars. Praxidicae (talk) 12:31, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@AngusWOOF: Excellent job, should we tie all these accounts together with an SPI? Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:03, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:GPL93 - Yes, an SPI is in order. ~~User:AngusWOOF~~User:Praxidicae - Which sock has plagiarized my user page? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon that would be Erinsivek [4]. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:53, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I see it was blanked. I will submit a diff if this goes to WP:ANI. But most of my barnstars have apparently been lost. I will recover them sometime, but not today. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- The MFD of the draft should be sufficient to qualify as a G4, since draft deletion is more stringent than article deletion. In any case, delete. This is a blatant case of gaming the system with stupid disambiguators, for which two sanctions should be used. The first is a regexp for 'Jack Bin'. The second is a block and ban of all of the suckpoppets. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:49, 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. -- Scott Burley (talk) 21:16, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Color Pink[edit]

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

Per WP:MUSIC Willbb234 (talk) 11:53, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Willbb234 (talk) 11:53, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Willbb234 (talk) 11:53, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:24, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable musical unit.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:38, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable collaboration with just one non-charting single; does not satisfy notability criteria. PC78 (talk) 10:56, 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. (non-admin closure) MarginalCost (talk) 17:08, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Horton[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable. There is one rather detailed Vice profile of Horton, but other than that all media coverage in the article and all I could find is trivial passing mentions. Huon (talk) 10:52, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Huon (talk) 10:52, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Huon (talk) 10:52, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Huon (talk) 10:52, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Vice [5] gave him significant coverage, as did The Verge [6], mentioning his accomplishments and how he did it, and talking to him as well. Plenty of brief mentions also such as Gamespot [7] "Kevin Horton, who is widely regarded as an expert when it comes to recreating classic gaming hardware on FPGA chips." Dream Focus 00:14, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:BASIC with multiple sources that cover the subject in detail. Besides the Vice and The Verge sources, there is this book [8] which is a WP:SIGCOV with some bits in Fast Company [9] and in this book [10]. Some coverage in Polygon (website) as well [11]. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:54, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm not sure the Verge is quite in depth enough on Horton himself to qualify, but Vice and the book both are to show GNG is met. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:45, 11 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. – bradv🍁 22:58, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Lewis (Royal Navy officer)[edit]

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

I've been looking into Douglas Lewis and I am struggling to see why he is notable. The article appears to have been written as an expansion of his CV, with no useful references (apart from the one I just added!) His rank doesn't qualify him for WP:SOLDIER, and a CBE doesn't quite meet WP:ANYBIO (there are nearly 2000 honours given out each year, this doesn't seem that notable) There's nothing written about what he got the CBE for? His charitable work is even less notable than his military career. There are no articles written about him - he simply doesn't meet the WP:GNG. If it isn't deleted, it needs excessive editing to remove the clearly non-neutral language ツStacey (talk) 19:21, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ツStacey (talk) 19:21, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just a point about the CBE - Order_of_the_British_Empire#Composition states that "The Order is limited to 300 Knights and Dames Grand Cross, 845 Knights and Dames Commander, and 8,960 Commanders". That is in total, so the number of new CBEs created in any one year is limited by the number of members still alive. It's the lower ranks where around 2000 ("no more than 858 Officers and 1,464 Members") are appointed every year.

As for whether a CBE meets ANYBIO - I have sometimes seen it argued in AfDs that it does, and sometimes that it doesn't. KBE and above seem unequivocal, but CBE not so much. I'll see what I can find - there must be at least minimal coverage of the award. RebeccaGreen (talk) 19:43, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:19, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated. I added the reference with link to the Newspaper Supplement which listed the CBE but that was all I could find. I really intended to improve this article but my limited results regarding this chap have made it impossible for me to do so. Please let me know if you find anything; I'm willing to work on rest of article if you do. ツStacey (talk) 20:34, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:00, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Commodore does indeed qualify under WP:SOLDIER #2, as it is equivalent to flag rank in other navies (it would naturally be ludicrous if a USN rear admiral (lower half) qualified because his rank included the word "admiral", whereas the entirely equivalent Commonwealth rank of commodore did not; same with brigadier generals and brigadiers). And the CBE has always been held to qualify under WP:ANYBIO #1. Only 100-200 are awarded every year, not 2,000 (OBEs and MBEs, on the other hand, do not meet ANYBIO). I have never seen a CBE deleted at AfD, and quite a few have been nominated by people who are clearly unaware of the honour's significance. So he qualifies twice. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:42, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable for military achievements (unless there's more to add), not promoted to 2-star (rear admiral) so fails WP:SOLDIER; commodores are not generals/admirals, they're one-stars, and do not qualify as flag officers. If he had done something notable in combat as a 1-star, my vote would be keep; but his sole one-star appointment seems to have been at Greenwich. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:35, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- So you are going down the ridiculous route that his rank doesn't include "admiral" so he doesn't qualify, although an American officer of the same rank (and same authority and status) would? Frankly, words fail me. As I've said, we always have considered that Commonwealth "one-star" officers do qualify under WP:SOLDIER. And as I've also said, CBEs have always been held to meet the requirements of WP:ANYBIO #1. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:20, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Lets assume commodore (as rear admiral) inches past WP:SOLDIER(2). And lets assume CBE inches past WP:ANYBIO(1). Both of this establish likely notability (or presumed notability) - but just likely (and in both cases - he's right at the threshold set). Had our subject been Laotian (few enwiki editors speak Lao, and Lao script is non-Latin) or long-dead (e.g. died into 1970 - online sources might not be available) - going the presumed notability route might be legit. In this case we have BLP in an English speaking country, in a contemporary period - we should be able to see at least some sign of WP:SIGCOV online - instead we see close to nothing in terms of secondary sources available online.Icewhiz (talk) 15:49, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - He retired from the Royal Navy, his main career, in 1998. 1998 is hardly comparable to 2019 as far as internet presence is concerned. I think presumed notability is fine for someone who retired 21 years ago. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - I should also point out that someone is not notable because they were awarded the CBE; they are awarded the CBE because they are already notable on a national level! It seems bizarre that some editors consider that Wikipedia's notability standards should be higher than those of the United Kingdom, which only awards 100-200 CBEs a year to a population of well over 60 million. Mind you, if he was a sportsman (one appearance for a national team required), a pop singer or a reality TV star (endless reams of coverage by fans on the internet) his notability requirements would be much lower. Such, apparently, is the drift towards pop culture on Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:17, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        In response to Necrothesp, my definition of a general/flag officer is a two-star, not a one-star. One-stars aren't generals (or admirals); they're brigadiers/commodores etc. Combat service might move him up; the CBE might move him up; but not being a one-star. Buckshot06 (talk) 18:03, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        You're missing my point. In other countries (e.g. United States), a one-star officer is a flag officer or general officer (and is called a rear admiral or brigadier general). Are you saying that Commonwealth officers would not meet WP:SOLDIER simply because they are not considered to be flag or general officers whereas US one-star officers, who have exactly equal rank and level of responsbility but happen to use the words "general" or "admiral" in their rank titles, would because they are? That makes no sense as it relies merely on differences of terminology. Or are you saying that one-star officers should never be considered to meet WP:SOLDIER? Which would go against many previous decisions at AfD and what SOLDIER actually says. Also note that Commonwealth air commodores are considered to be air officers (i.e. flag/general officers), although they hold exactly the same rank as commodores and brigadiers. These claims are all completely illogical and inconsistent. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:42, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Hi Necrothesp. I'm saying that in my 30-year understanding of Commonwealth armed forces, one-star officers are simply not generals or admirals; they are officers under that rank. They do not meet my definition of what a general or an admiral is. If you like, no, I do not consider they meet SOLDIER in terms of being general/flag officers: they are *not* "considered to be general, flag, or air officers." Our article for Air officer says that commodores and brigadiers are not considered general/flag officers, which would stem from the common Commonwealth understanding which in some way I picked up 20+ years ago. (I have noted that that article says air commodores are air officers.) Usual clashing definitions. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:26, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        I know that in the Commonwealth brigadiers and commodores are not generals and admirals. I've said that. However, they are equal to generals and admirals in armed forces in which they are called brigadier generals and rear admirals (or something similar). And you could not possibly argue that the latter are not general or flag officers, since they clearly are. So what you're basically saying is that Commonwealth officers (apart from air commodores, even though they hold the same rank) should not be considered notable because of their title, whereas their direct equivalents in other countries should be considered notable because of theirs. Because a word is omitted from their rank they're not notable! That is utterly bonkers! And we have found commodores and brigadiers to meet WP:SOLDIER many times. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:02, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Hi Necrothesp. No, as far as I'm concerned you have to make 2-star to be a general/flag officer, worldwide, whatever other countries say. I do hail from the Commonwealth, after all. Commodores and brigadiers only make WP:SOLDIER, as far as I'm concerned, on combat or other notable achievements, not rank alone. That will remain the underlying reason why I vote as I do. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 07:05, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the question of WP:SOLDIER #2 is an interesting one. British commodores aren't flag officers (under the British set-up), but their NATO positioning does mark them equivalent in rank to officers in other armed forces/navies that are. I'm inclined to agree with Necrothesp that since it is the level of authority that underpins #2, not specific phrasing, the criterion is satisfied. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:12, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There may be more coverage of the article subject which would establish notability. I am at the moment looking into that matter. In the meantime, it is worth pointing out that WP:SOLDIER and WP:ANYBIO are guidelines to indicate when a subject is "likely" to be notable enough to invest the time in writing an article about the subject, rather than if the criteria are met that establishes notability, and both guidelines do say this. The criteria that is needed is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". If we can establish such coverage, then Doug Lewis would be notable enough under our criteria. Has anyone done a search for mentions in books and so forth? SilkTork (talk) 17:12, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. After conducting a search I cannot find an independent reliable source that mentions the subject other than as a listing. When looking into the history of the article I note that it was created by User:JDNM1989, a single purpose account who only edited two other articles, both connected to the subject, and then left: [12]. The article has not received much attention, and has gained very few readers - an average of less than 1 a day: [13]. The organisation that the subject is president of, International Social Service, is tagged as needing verification, and a quick search doesn't reveal much in the way of independent reliable sources. The combination of lack of independent reliable sources, lack of readership of the article, and creation by a WP:SPA, points to this being a promotional article to support the International Social Service article. SilkTork (talk) 06:11, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Borderline SOLDIER pass (either way) - however SOLDIER merely creates a presumption of GNG. Sources in the article are not in-depth secondary reliable sources. Searching for "Doug Lewis", "Douglas Lewis", "Douglas Raymond Snell Lewis" (+some D. Lewis, D.R. Lewis, D.R.S Lewis) (with CBE, Royal Navy, and other stuff) did not lead me to much. Lewis could plausibly be notable (rank, CBE, charity work, etc.) - however given that this is a biography in English, in the digital age - some reasonable sources should be available and we do not have to rely on presumed notability. Absent any reasonable secondary source covering him in depth - this is a delete. Icewhiz (talk) 10:59, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:54, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't consider the CBE to be a qualifying award. "Cecilia Mathieson" a CBE from the 2019 New Year Honours has nothing online other than mentions of getting the award. So we shouldn't assume that there would be offline significant coverage for CBEs from before the internet era. I'm not sure that he meets the military guideline. Maybe if he were higher ranking or there was likely to be offline coverage I would support keeping. Blumpf (talk) 05:40, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- So you think these people are awarded the CBE, only 100-200 of which are awarded every year in a country of over 67 million people, despite not being notable? Good grief... As I said, maybe they should kick a ball around a field for a couple of hours. That would make them notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:09, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well I have an even rarer award! It can only be held and given out by one person and that person is me. Should I get an article now? What if I get mentioned one time in the newspaper?

It looks like "thank you for your service" award that is artificially limited not because it is very difficult to get, but because there can only be a certain number of living recipients. There are probably thousands each year who are just as deserving of the award but weren't lucky enough. I don't care how special the British government thinks it is or how much the Queen appreciates them if there is zero significant coverage.

There's something called the "sports" and "entertainment" section in most newspapers. So if some singer or ball kicker gets covered there multiple times I'm not going to try to delete it even if I don't think they deserve it. But for CBE holders it's not uncommon to only get one sentence in a list. And the one game sports guideline is insanely retarded it should be "have played in at least two seasons". Blumpf (talk) 20:48, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:SOLDIER. There are numerous other 1 star bio's on WP Gbawden (talk) 11:33, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - while CBE and a single star does not make one automatically notable, in this case, he appears to make the grade. Bearian (talk) 14:31, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:26, 4 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. Other than nom, no consensus to delete. (non-admin closure) ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 16:17, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Packet Clearing House[edit]

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

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

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

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

Non-notable internet buisness Collaboratio (talk) 10:12, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:23, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:23, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I suspect nom is right with regard to notability, but it's a shame, because I suspect they should be. As well as being an absolutely critical non-profit, they generate hoards of quotes and summaries of cyber issues and whenever a DNS issue is in the news. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - PCH's 2018 audited financials show a budget of $249,918,249, which puts it in the fifty largest NGOs in the United States, out of a total of more than 1.5 million. That's 99.997th percentile, and larger than, for instance, the ACLU, the World Wildlife Foundation, the Public Broadcasting Service, the New York Metropolitan Museum of Art, the Smithsonian, Teach for America, or the Humane Society. PCH operates the fourth largest network in the world, exceeded only by Hurricane Electric, Akamai, and Google. That's out of more than 84,000 overall, so 99.995th percentile. Many smaller networks have Wikipedia pages, including Netflix, Yahoo!, and Verizon. More than 400 of the world's top-level domains operate on PCH's infrastructure, including those of more than 120 nations; no other DNS operator even approaches those numbers. PCH operates the only FIPS 140-2 Level 4 DNSSEC signing platform in the world other than that of the DNS root itself, and performs the DNSSEC key management for 51 countries. The donors who support PCH's operations include more than six hundred Internet companies and forty national governments. The criteria for notability of non-profit organizations are: "The scope of their activities is national or international in scale and the organization has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization." PCH provides services in more than 100 countries, and has been the subject of press coverage thousands of times over the past 25 years. Thus, it clearly meets the criteria of notability. Perhaps this is less a question of notability than of the proposer's familiarity with PCH's field of operation? So, I object to the proposed deletion. Bill Woodcock 14:25, 5 August 2019 (PDT)
Bwoodcock, judging by your userpage, you have a close connection with Packet Clearing House. I point you to Wikipedia's policy on conflicts of interest and the fact that "Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion". -- Collaboratio (talk) 12:52, 7 August 2019 (UTC) — Collaboratio (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Collaboratio, yes, as I make abundantly clear, I am PCH's executive director. Which has no bearing whatsoever on the facts of the matter. Do you dispute the facts, and are you prepared to address them? -- Bwoodcock 16:16, 7 August 2019 (PDT)
Keep - PCH is notable. The SIX has been advised by PCH for over a decade and references a BCP developed by PCH at [14]. RipWikipedia 16:35, 5 August 2019 (PDT) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that RipWikipedia (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.
Keep - PCH is notable. I humbly request you to remove it from the proposed deletion list. PCH has helped establish many Internet Exchanges across the world by providing operational support, equipments, trainings, etc. PCH also provides resourceful data for many researchers — 202.63.243.83 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep - I stronly disagree with the idea that PCH is not a notable organisation and should be deleted. PCH operates infrastrcuture and services that make the Internet more secure, reliable and robust for everyone, but particularly in underserved areas with large populations. Thanks to PCH's work in partnership with IXP operators in Africa, Latin-America and Asia-Pacific, Internet users can experience a better Internet. As a non-profit, it does not devote resources to marketing and self-promotion which would certainly help in defining the organisation notable. Elgaelo (talk) 10:34, 7 August 2019 (UTC) — Elgaelo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment - @202.63.243.83, Elgaelo, and RipWikipedia: - the fact that an organisation is helpful or a nonprofit doesn't help make it notable (we'd have loads more charities were that the case). @Bwoodcock:'s reasoning might support a Ignore All Rules justification, but Collaboratio is correct to point out your links to make sure you comply with PaidCOI obligations - doing so is not cause to snap back. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:51, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nosebagbear, well, do facts matter, or does only who states the facts matter? Again, there are two criteria: "The scope of their activities is national or international in scale and the organization has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization." Is there anyone who's seriously suggesting that operations in more than a hundred countries is not "national or international in scale," or that the New York Times, Reuters, the Christian Science Monitor, WIRED, Dan Rather, The Washington Post, NPR, Newsweek, Network World, CNet, the CBC, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Moscow Times, ACM Queue, Politico, the Wall Street Journal, the Associated Press, the Straits Times, ZDNet, AsiaOne, Computerworld, Mainichi Daily News, Politica Digital, InformationWeek, ITWire, IEEE Spectrum, Businessweek, Pew, Heise, and France24 are not independent of PCH? If not, can we consider the matter settled again? Every minute spent feeding trolls is a minute we're not serving our constituents. -- Bwoodcock 22:17, 7 August 2019 (PDT)

@Bwoodcock: - if you can link to even just 2 of those sources where Sig Cov is satisfied then the AfD is functionally done right now, which would be great. I couldn't find any cases in sources like these where Significant Coverage and independent (so no press releases (not that PCH does many of them) and nothing from a PCH staff member (including their interview answers). And no participant here is a troll, so calling them such is not particularly helpful. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:46, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nosebagbear, here is ZDNet coverage of the opening of our first DNSSEC key management facility in 2011, and New York Times coverage of the acceleration of our root-server infrastructure defense campaign in 2012. Bwoodcock 08:52, 8 August 2019 (PDT)

Bwoodcock - the first one just links me to a list of most recent articles that don't seem to immediately relate to PCH. The 2nd one is a broken link, but I could use it to find your desired link here. Only a bit of the content directly applies to PCH as vs a general consideration of the threat, but I'm already leaning to be pro-retention - if the zdnet source is better I'd be happy enough to be Keep. I've not been able to find the specific article by targeted google searches Nosebagbear (talk) 16:25, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nosebagbear, fixed links, sorry, too many different wiki syntaxes floating around in my head. With the anonymous attack, the structure of the press coverage was, itself, a significant portion of the deterrence effort. The goal wasn't to gain publicity for PCH, it was to deter the attack. Bwoodcock 09:57, 8 August 2019 (PDT)

Keep. There are available sources that support this article's notability.

Packet Clearing House has vital internet properties some of which are critical net infrastructure:

http://www.circleid.com/posts/20190327_guadeloupe_moves_to_set_up_internet_exchange_point/
https://www.govtech.com/network/Montgomery-Launches-First-City-Owned-Internet-Exchange-Point-in-Alabama.html
https://dyn.com/blog/does-establishing-more-ixps-keep-data-local-brazil-and-mexico-might-offer-answers/
https://technical.ly/baltimore/2019/05/29/network-engineer-devin-weaver-brought-an-internet-exchange-point-to-baltimore-data-baltix/
https://honestversion.com/global-data-center-blade-server-market-by-2023-type-segment-industry-segment-market-dynamics-market-size-and-types/
https://www.capacitymedia.com/articles/3822977/packet-clearing-house-launches-two-pops-at-interxion-marseille-and-madrid

Packet Clearing House is an expert in DNS matters in the news :

https://www.engadget.com/2019/02/28/russia-putin-internet-kill-switch-cybersecurity/
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/16/us/finding-who-and-where-within-the-sports-cyber-betting-universe.html
https://www.wired.com/2011/02/egypt-off-switch/
https://www.wired.com/2008/08/civilge-the-geo/
https://mybroadband.co.za/news/cloud-hosting/294296-dns-flag-day-telkom-website-does-not-support-latest-security-features.html
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/dns-firewalls-could-reduce-33-140000777.html
https://www.foxnews.com/tech/how-to-protect-your-router-from-russian-hackers
https://datacenterfrontier.com/clearing-the-confusion-defining-the-layers-of-edge-computing/
https://securityintelligence.com/the-past-present-and-future-of-dns-security/
https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/columnist/komando/2018/05/18/how-protect-your-router-and-wi-fi-russian-hackers/621297002/
https://mybroadband.co.za/news/security/301156-south-africas-za-domain-is-a-security-disaster-waiting-to-happen.html

They have been party to serious hacks:

https://www.wired.com/story/sea-turtle-dns-hijacking/?verso=true
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2019/02/inside-the-dnspionage-hacks-that-hijack-domains-at-an-unprecedented-scale/

Note the Quad9 DNS service in partnership with IBM:

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/11/20/quad9_secure_private_dns_resolver/
https://www.dailyhostnews.com/ibm-packet-clearing-house-global-cyber-alliances-new-free-service-protect-users-cyberattacks
https://www.cyberscoop.com/quad9-dns-service-global-cyber-alliance/
https://www.darkreading.com/analytics/ibm-nonprofits-team-up-in-new-free-dns-service/d/d-id/1330454
https://gizmodo.com/new-dns-service-launched-by-ibm-vows-to-keep-your-brows-1820508262
https://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/3021536/ibm-teams-with-global-cyber-alliance-to-launch-quad9-a-free-public-domain-name-service-system

Packet Clearing House has profiles at USAID, ProPublica, and Bloomberg

https://partnerships.usaid.gov/resource-partner/packet-clearing-house
https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/943380476
https://www.bloomberg.com/profile/company/0068845D:US

Berkman Center has paper archives on both PCH and its founder

https://cyber.harvard.edu/ixp/library.htm

Ocaasi^{t | c} 17:32, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What makes a source - The vast majority of the sources above only contain PCH-related content because they're citing a paper for a specific fact or because the exec director is providing a quote or some information. For purposes here, that doesn't aid proving notability, and makes it harder to pick out the 2 or 3 that are needed. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:38, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ocaasi, thank you for the leg-work; quite a few of those were new to me. FWIW, the Bloomberg one is mostly just factually incorrect. Nosebagbear, the two I picked I picked for the reason that each documented (however poorly) ongoing international projects with budgets of more than $10M/year for which we're exclusively responsible. In one case key management infrastructure, in the other, a specific campaign of cyber-defense deterrence and resilience-augmentation. The down-side of "independent journalism" is that it's often not clear enough to decipher what's going on through the journalist's hurry and hazy understanding. So we work with what we get. Bwoodcock 14:38, 8 August 2019 (PDT)
Weak Keep - I remain unsure about the sourcing, but there's certainly some there (plus, non-notable organisations can get some mentions but aren't usually asked for dozens of quotes by some of the most reliable soures going). On top of that, there are also the IAR reasoning considered further up. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:01, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So, can we consider this settled, and someone pull the notice from the PCH page? Bwoodcock 18:23, 10 August 2019 (PDT)

@Bwoodcock: - AfDs have to run for at least a week in almost all circumstances. We're coming up to that, at which case an uninvolved closer will take a look at this discussion - participants in the AfD can't close it amongst themselves. They'll probably discount some of the earlier discussions, since it isn't policy-supported, but they'll probably still judge the consensus as Keep, given the agreement around the references. They may decide to extend the discussion if they think we're failing at supporting our reasoning with accepted policy. Nosebagbear (talk) 01:35, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nosebagbear, thanks, I hadn't seen the one-week timeline. Bwoodcock 19:27, 10 August 2019 (PDT)

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

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

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 14:29, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Wilson (scientist)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACADEMIC Collaboratio (talk) 10:10, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:24, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:24, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:24, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:24, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article is currently in very sad shape (easily a BLPPROD if the inappropriate inline links are removed), and I don't have time to clean it up myself. But searching Google Scholar for author:kate-wilson finds heavily-cited publications that look like hers, leading with a single-authored paper "Preparation of genomic DNA from bacteria" with nearly 2000 citations. So if the article reaches an acceptably cleaned up state, she may well pass WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:10, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:48, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think this is a good example of article content not determining notability - David Eppstein has showed there are reliable sources that would enable her to meet WP:PROF. I agree though that the article is in a poor state and needs fixing. Bookscale (talk) 10:10, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: her LinkedIn page shows she's just taken up post July 2019 as "Executive Director, Climate Change and Sustainability at NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment", I've converted one of the inline links into a proper ref which gives a biog profile, altogether appears to be notable. Pity that the umpteen editors who've tagged it etc over the years didn't actually stop by to improve it at all, but hey that's Wikipedia for you! Note that there's another Australian academic Kate Wilson with whom not to confuse her. PamD 12:33, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, assuming someone can find and add more citations. Bearian (talk) 18:41, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have added two books and a primary source reference. Her actual training is as a Molecular Biologist and a Marine Scientist (I added that to the into). I see that her study of bacteria is applicable to agriculture and her work is referenced in several books so that the subject meets the criteria for WP:PROF#C1. I am inclined to Keep. The article was sourced entirely with a primary source, howeverWP:NOTCLEANUP, and WP:RS exists as pointed out by other editors in this thread. Wm335td (talk) 22:36, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on the improvements made above, it looks like she meets notability requirements. PohranicniStraze (talk) 01:34, 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. -- Scott Burley (talk) 21:14, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Canning[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO Collaboratio (talk) 10:10, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:25, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:25, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:25, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete consuls are not generally notable. The sourcing is atrociously bad here. The fact this article has existed for 13 years is a testament to how flawed our article creation process is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:21, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Johnpacklambert. I don't agree that the process is bad; the product is sometimes weak. Bearian (talk) 18:43, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. -- Scott Burley (talk) 21:14, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rao Ajay[edit]

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

Non-notable person who fails WP:GNG Collaboratio (talk) 10:09, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:26, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:26, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails notability requirements. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:13, 4 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. RL0919 (talk) 14:27, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paul K. Sybrowsky[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG as there is no significant non-routine coverage of him. Collaboratio (talk) 10:09, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:27, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:27, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:27, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:27, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:28, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a university president he passes default notability for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:22, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTMEMORIAL applies, and I'm not certain that the former president of a private school passes WP:GNG lacking anything of note. Simonm223 (talk) 18:25, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Being the president of a university is a clear pass of academic notability criteria 6.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:48, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Concur with JPL on this one. Being president of a major academic institution passes WP:NACADEMIC. Sources exist and simply need to be added. Rollidan (talk) 03:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per above. Passes WP:NACADEMIC #6: The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society. MarginalCost (talk) 11:49, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep I think WP:NACADEMIC is very silly to favor school administrators with automatic notability that way, but this isn't the venue for that debate. Simonm223 (talk) 12:26, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I sourced some stuff to Virginia newspapers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:05, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NACADEMIC.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:41, 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. Sandstein 21:54, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Thomas (priest)[edit]

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

There is a presumption of notability to bishops of major territorial churches, but this does not extend to archdeacons, who are subordinate officials, having supervision of part of the diocese. There is no reference to show notability here other than routine biographical notices DGG ( talk ) 09:54, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. DGG ( talk ) 09:54, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:59, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:59, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Comment. I looked through the 106 Google results for "Walter Thomas" "Church of Ireland", and the only result relating to this particular Walter Thomas seems to be the Fasti Ecclesiae Hibernicae, cited in the article. This book simply lists the dates on which Thomas held certain positions, and since these positions aren't inherently notable as the nom points out I don't think it establishes notability all by itself. I couldn't find the reference to him in citation 1 (no page number given and no luck on GBooks), and citation 6 7 is just a transcript of an email which mentions him in a genealogical table. —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 17:13, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing my !vote for now since a new source has been added and I haven't thought through setting a precedent for the office of archdeacon as a whole. —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 22:31, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No presumption of notability, but archdeacons are usually kept - see the template at the bottom of the article. St Anselm (talk) 20:42, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@StAnselm and DGG: I am guessing that the article was created to fill in a navbox link. All the articles I clicked on in the "Archdeacons of Killaloe" navbox, from John Hall (Archdeacon of Killaloe) and Richard Daniel (priest) through to the last entry Ernest Murray seem to be in a similar state, so—without prior judgement on the notability of those other articles—I think this might imply the need for a wider discussion about how to handle this category of officeholders. If they are generally not covered in any depth in RS then it might be better to collapse them into a list at the Archdeacon of Killaloe (etc.) article, with links to separate articles if and when they're independently notable. —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 22:28, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also look at these

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Plemth

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Booth (priest)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Henry Cameron

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael John Keatinge

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Raphael

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Tuttebury

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas de Bodham

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wandlyn Snelgrove

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Verschoyle

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Wolfe (priest)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Wall (priest)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frederick Falkiner Goold

Bashereyre (talk) 12:55, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Bashereyre. I haven't read through all of the discussions yet but the general theme seems to be that there are many archdeacons who are independently notable but the office itself doesn't create a presumption of notability. So the problem then is creating such a presumption via things like a navbox full of red links—but I'm not sure how to fix that. —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 15:05, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At most Weak keep, perhaps delete -- In England the Church of England is the dominant church, so that it may be appropriate for most archdeacons to have articles. This is not the case in Ireland, where only the ascendancy were Protestant, the majority of the population being Catholic. On this basis I can make a distinction between England and Ireland. The archdeacon is a member of the cathedral chapter. In his case he served as archdeacon for just a year and then moved on (via precentor) to be cathedral treasurer, both NN roles. In this particular case I am not sure we need the article. However, then archdeacons navbox needs to be amended so that we do not have redlinks for people of whom we will probably never know much. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:09, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't make a distinction here: the basis for bishops being notable is their social role, and in the 18th c., as here, the CoE was still Established & had the same official role, as far as the governing classes were concerned. Whatever the rule, it would make more sense and be more in accord with NPOV, to apply it to any church with a substantial representation, rather than try to make this sort of distinction. DGG ( talk ) 09:38, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi its me again. These Afds never generate much response, largely I suspect because they are so uncontroversial. Maybe a definite ruling on Archdeacons is needed; and also perhaps on Monsenieurs (?) in the RC church Bashereyre (talk) 10:28, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:19, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bashereyre: Afaik there is definitely no presumption of notability for a Catholic monsignor, and a quick search of the AfD archives suggests that people have made that point explicitly. At least until recently, tons of people were given the title of monsignor automatically, e.g. the canons at certain diocesan cathedrals, who would not merit an article just because of that. That said, on the issue of archdeacons, lack of response generally indicates that people are unsure, not that it's uncontroversial (which would mean a lot of people responding with one option). This particular article still looks very borderline to me. —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 17:06, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is well referenced, enough to demonstrate notability regardless of title.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 00:00, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are four sources, one of which fails verification, the other is self-published; the third talks about two people who may or may not be the same individual, and only the fourth is definitely about him, and amounts to a couple of notices. So I'm not sure about that at all. I won't press it though, just replying since this was listed as a response to me. —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 16:27, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to set an arbitrary bar for people never really works out, again and again. The better way is to see whether this historical person has xyr life and works recorded in depth in the history books, the ordinary multiple independent sources that document the subject in depth from identifiable people with good reputations for fact checking and accuracy thing. By far the easiest reason that people with high office are often notable is that they are in the history books in detail. They are in things like the Dictionary of Irish Biography, or covered in detail in a parish/diocese/town history.
I have checked and this person is not in the DIB. The Fasti Ecclesiae Hibernicae does not support all of the content that it is being purported to support, either. It's mainly a bare list of dates and offices held, and Bashereyre has not spotted that the information about 1714 is a question, not a statement, so in fact you do not have a source confirming that this person actually was an archdeacon, as the source that you have questions whether this is a matching record. So the whole setting the arbitrary bar at archdeacons idea is wrong for a second reason.
Looking, I cannot find anything beyond mentions in lists, like the sources at hand. This person's life and works appear not to be documented in depth beyond directories of office-holders, anywhere, either cited or that I can find; and Wikipedia is not a directory of people, which is all that that gets us. No historian has actually done the legwork, including for starters conclusively matching up the questioned records to form a definitive narrative.
Uncle G (talk) 00:18, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Uncle G: I totally missed the quaerere. If this article is (potentially) mixing up two different people then that's a whole new problem. —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 16:17, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Have edited the article now to note that it's not certain per the source —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 16:21, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Archdeacons are not presumed notable, although they often could be, based on depth of coverage in sources. FWIW, my paternal grandmother was C. of I. Bearian (talk) 14:27, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sourcing is not good enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Could you please relist the discussion, so that I can continue my searches next monday? Thomas wrote a letter to William Smyth about John Allen. My feeling is that there might be something interesting to find… Genium . 01:21, Aug 2, 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 09:19, 4 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 21:53, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Metal Injection[edit]

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

The new sources that were added after the previous soft delete and restore are either WP:ROUTINE or no reliable sources themselves. Not even sure what the "book" states about the publication. We need significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I cannot substantially find secondary, reliable sources that discuss it online. The article still fails WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The reference in Extreme Metal: Music and Culture is brief but does imply some notable significance as a pioneer in a specific (niche) field. Amusingly it does so in the context of talking about how the niche nature of metal makes it difficult to get attention to dedicated media sources. (You know, like having Wikipedia pages.) Admittedly there's a lot of source padding here and the article is very borderline. But I think this is a harmless one where we can err on the side of inclusionism. Simonm223 (talk) 17:56, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be better to have significant coverage. That is what WP:GNG states. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just for the record folks: This article was first nominated for deletion in 2005, with that result was Delete by two editors who agreed to its deletion. In 2019, somebody recreated the article in an apparent of WP:REFUND case. How many nominations do we need to claim an article notability or otherwise?--Biografer (talk) 22:00, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Once it's determined that it's notable, that cannot be revoked. If the article keeps getting recreated and the subject is repeatedly determined to not be be notable, we can WP:SALT it to avoid recreation. Otherwise, we could be at the delete recreate process for a long while. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AmericanAir88^(talk) 19:56, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:SIGCOV. I would be happy to reconsider if someone brings sourcing that meets WP:SIGCOV, but my searches are not finding it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:43, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Let's give this one more week to see if we can determine a clear consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 09:18, 4 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 other than nom. (non-admin closure) ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 16:15, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dungeons & Dragons Starter Set[edit]

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

A minor aspect of a single role-playing game. Not an individually notable article, and the reception section is incredibly lengthy just copy pasting the sources in question. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:53, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:53, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the reception section contains reviews from independent reliable sources, which I believe qualifies it to meet the WP:GNG. If the section is too long, it can be trimmed, AFD is not cleanup. BOZ (talk) 11:47, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is WP:SYNTH. The sources are not about the Starter Set as a whole, but reviews of individual Starter Sets of different kinds. However, many non-notable Starter Sets merged together still doesn't make a Voltron article that is notable._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:27, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think if we have sources that give non-trivial coverage to the idea of starter sets over the last 40 years we can find the idea of starter sets notable. However, as I mention below, if only the idea is notable, then I don't think D&D has a monopoly on it and this article should cover the whole range of starter sets in roleplaying games. Rockphed (talk) 14:06, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this article went through WP:AfC & there are enough sources to meet WP:GNG (such as Shannon Appelcline, Dragon magazine, Pyramid magazine, Polygon, io9 & Paste Magazine, etc). This is similar to the Player's Handbook or any other sourcebook that is reissued multiple times for each edition where you group all of the editions together. Per BOZ, if any quote is too long then improvements can always be made. Sariel Xilo (talk) 13:44, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Magazine? Which has mostly been owned and operated by the owners of the D&D brand? I am fairly certain that it is hard to have it be independent of the subject at hand. Rockphed (talk) 14:06, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Response below. Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:08, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:18, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More than enough sources to establish notability but the quotes from the reviews are far too long up to the point that they might raise copyright questions. Haukur (talk) 10:28, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On the one hand, this article seems well written and sourced (I didn't read the whole thing or actually look at the specific cited sources, I skimmed the article and looked at the source list at the bottom of the page). On the other hand, it isn't about a specific starter set, but rather about D&D starter sets in general. I think that deleting this article is the wrong response to its failings. If, after combing through the sources we find that there are not multiple, non-trivial, independent, reliable sources about any one version(and we determine that there are unlikely to be more), we might move this article and its content to Starter Set (which might instead end up being a disambiguation with the article ending up on Starter Set (Roleplaying game supplement). I think that we would need to have at least one of the specific supplements be able to meet WP:GNG by itself before we can have an article about starter sets in D&D specifically. Alternatively, if each version passes WP:GNG, then we can use WP:SNOWFLAKE and make a list of starter sets with individual articles about ones that have received more press. Rockphed (talk) 14:06, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification When I created this article, I modeled it on the Player's Handbook and the Monster Manual (less on the Dungeon Master's Guide because it's mostly one edition of the DMG per edition of D&D). The Starter Set often acts as point of introduction for Dungeons & Dragons and works in conjunction with the core three rulebooks. So if we look at the Player's Handbook, in 4E D&D section there are three versions of the Player's Handbook published over the course of 4E D&D. If we look at the Monster Manual, there is similar amount of multiple versions of the MM published over the course of an individual game edition that then gets restarted with the next edition of the game. Some individual books do have their own articles but are also included in the larger roundup article that shows how a title changes & evolves over the course of D&D's history. The intent of this article is to show the same evolution of Starter Sets specfically for D&D. Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:08, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In terms of WP:GNG, all three of the 5E D&D Starter Sets meet that quite easily (Polygon reviewed all three to start with & there are 3 plus other sources per Starter Set). I was originally going to make three separate articles (one for each 5E Start Set), but then there was an ongoing discussion across a few rpg AfDs about to what extent Wikipedia needs individual RPG product/supplement/book articles versus articles that group together all of one type of RPG supplement for a specific game (this appears to be mostly a D&D argument) so I went this direction instead. For some of the older, pre-internet coverage, editions, there are the game review paper magazines (Pyramid magazine. But it also includes Dragon reviews which are used all over the place for both TSR products and non-TSR products for notability) and Appelcline's book but there are not as many surviving, verifiable sources as there are for the post-2010 products. Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:08, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It appears that although the article talks about various starter sets for the game, the starter kits in general meets GNG and deleting the article is a wrong response. Taewangkorea (talk) 11:52, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an easy pass for WP:GNG - why is this up for deletion?Simonm223 (talk) 18:57, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:23, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rosemary Disney[edit]

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

Bio of apparently non-notable designer. I can find one book she authored and an obituary. Mccapra (talk) 08:06, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 08:06, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 08:06, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 08:06, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 08:06, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG. I found very little online - a designer whom she inspired, a book she published in 1986, and the noted GMA appearance. That's not enough for WP:CREATIVE. Bearian (talk) 18:46, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a one-time appearance on a TV show does not make someone notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:45, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Delete as per nom. Barca (talk) 22:40, 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. – bradv🍁 22:55, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Walthamstow & District Photographic Society[edit]

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

Still poorly cited and orphaned after 4 years. Though there is a claim to be "one of the oldest photographic societies in the UK", this would not authomatically confer notability, and is contradicted by the news source in the article about a founder of the club who was born c.1916. This article is primarily an advert for the clubs current activities and fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Sionk (talk) 17:34, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:23, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:23, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:23, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The news source is in turn contradicted by the club's own history written by apparently the same Albert Bale that the news item accuses of being a founder member. Since this society is listed on page 252 of the 1922 issue of the The British Journal of Photography Almanac and mentioned as running its annual exhibition as usual despite the slight inconvenience of World War One on page 401 of the 1914 (volume 60) edition of The Amateur Photographer and Photographic News, I suggest that the club's history is far more likely to be right on this point than the newspaper article. Uncle G (talk) 02:41, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can we have an end to these nominations of organisations which were established a century ago? Notability does not just mean known to Google. Rathfelder (talk) 09:49, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Mind you, notability is not automatic for a local society (or anything else) that claims to be more than 100 years old and meets every Monday. I expect, because photography was rapidly becoming more widely available in the 1890s, there were loads of photography clubs. Sionk (talk) 19:41, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:34, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:52, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:N; sources are local and/or not in depth. WP:MILL local club. Sandstein 21:52, 11 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 10:48, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fabrice Clément[edit]

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

This has been previously deleted. I do not believe simply owning a sports team meets WP:GNG. JamesG5 (talk) 07:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:40, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:41, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being a sports team owner is not a default sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:10, 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. Michig (talk) 07:28, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

South County Stadium[edit]

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

Non-notable stadium Collaboratio (talk) 06:48, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:50, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:51, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:21, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:16, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:16, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A pretty standard small, local suburban stadium with little outside coverage. The main tenant is a UPSL team, which is in the bottom of the non-professional tiers of American soccer. Sounder Bruce 04:19, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SounderBruce. Bookscale (talk) 23:18, 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. Sandstein 10:44, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Team Plan B[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG Collaboratio (talk) 06:47, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:52, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:52, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Teams competing in contests are not handed an automatic presumption of notability just for the fact of being there — just like reality show contestants and music competition entrants and other people who participate in contests without winning them, merely being present as participants is not a notability guarantee in and of itself in the absence of reliable source coverage. Rather, this would have to pass WP:GNG and WP:ORGDEPTH on the depth and range and volume of coverage they could show in real media, and the contest's own self-published promotional YouTube video about itself (the only source being cited here at all) is contributing absolutely nothing whatsoever toward getting this team over the bar. Bearcat (talk) 15:47, 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 merge to Tad (band). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:25, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Molly[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NBAND and WP:GNG Collaboratio (talk) 06:46, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:58, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:58, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:59, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tad (band). This was one of Tad Boyles various projects, and a sole album that tanked doesn't have much notability beyond his involvement. An AllMusic entry exists, but it, too, is largely about where this project fits among Tad Boyles's career. A 2005 AfD nomination passed per early-years wikipedia voting, when editors deemed notability based on the existence of Google hits. But it's 2019, and criteria demands sources, and there are none provided. ShelbyMarion (talk) 12:03, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tad (band) for the reasons cited by the previous voter. Hog Molly's existence is already described briefly in the "Post-breakup (2000–2012)" section over there. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:50, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a few sentences and redirect to Tad (band) as there is an AllMusic source that can be used for a few lines, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 22:38, 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. Sandstein 10:43, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Aase[edit]

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

Article about a non-notable company director written like an advertisement Collaboratio (talk) 06:45, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:46, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there’s not a lot of SIGCOV on him; it’s a lot of related sources like LinkedIn or company bios. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 14:18, 4 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 Change (band). Nothing sourced to merge. czar 00:25, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

James E. Robinson (singer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO nothing found in a before search to show he meets the criteria. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:35, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:35, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:35, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:56, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Change. If he is notable in his own right there needs to be sources. There is an AllMusic profile, minus the "E" middle initial, that establishes him as a journeyman vocalist who accompanies other notables, but it's tough to argue significant individual notability based on a single album with no indication of its success/notability. A google of "James E. Robinson's" turns up so many other James E. Robinsons--including another one who is a musician, but is not the same as this persons-- that it makes it next to impossible to search. Only by including his nickname "crab" does anything turn up, and it's just his own webpage plus the standard retail and Discogs-type sites with artist's credits. So until better sourcing is found, redirect. ShelbyMarion (talk) 16:46, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:34, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - he's not independently notable, yet we have WP:CHEAP. Bearian (talk)
Merge into the Change (band) article as he does have some reliable sources coverage, such as the AllMusic profile, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 22:14, 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. The only "keep" does not address the reason for deletion. Sandstein 10:42, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

United States Marshals appointed by Donald Trump[edit]

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

A list of predominantly non-notable people. Fails the guidelines of stand-alone lists. There is no such list for previous presidents. Collaboratio (talk) 06:08, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Collaboratio (talk) 06:08, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Collaboratio (talk) 06:08, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Collaboratio (talk) 06:08, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Collaboratio (talk) 06:08, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ~~All redlinks, except for Major General Susan Pamerleau.~~ The president appoints (or in Trump's case, is supposed to appoint) lots of officials (e.g. United States Attorney). Marshals are not of sufficient prominence that people pay much attention to who appoints them as a group. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:41, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Who's Who in Alaskan Politics, written by credible authors (Evangeline Atwood and R. N. DeArmond) and published by a reputable publisher (Binford & Mort), refers to the office of Marshal for the District of Alaska as a notable office going all the way back to the position's establishment in 1884 under the United States territorial court. Therefore, this may be yet another attempt by Wikipedians to push their personal opinions about a pecking order of titles rather than an attempt to reflect what's notable about the world as found in reliable sources. Tying this into Donald Trump is the obvious problem here. That the position of Marshal is not as highly political as it was decades ago may also be the problem. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 22:20, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looks like valid list. If we have such lists for other presidents is irrelevant. My very best wishes (talk) 01:24, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I do not see in Category:United States Marshals Service any similar lists of appointments by previous presidents - although many such appointments are made by every president. I spot-checked about 2 dozen of the men and woman in Category:United States Marshals and every one I checked clearly got to be notable for doing something else. 250 marshals since George Washington works out to marshalls becoming notable only at the rate of about 1 per year. Even the current Director of the United States Marshal Service is not bluelinked. Moreover each nominee is supported by a single source, almost always to congress.gov although an occassional news article (Probation Officer Nominated as Marshal in North Mississippi) indicates that better sourcing may be available. Nor am I seeing WP:SIGCOV on the topic: Trump appointments of United States Marshalls. E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:06, 6 August 2019 (UTC) Note to ivoters and closing administrator: E.M.Gregory is a blocked sock. Lightburst (talk) 12:11, 9 August 2019 (UTC) [reply]

There is absolutely no requirement that every individual item in a list should be notable. My very best wishes (talk) 01:37, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But there is a requirement that the list is in some sense notable. Where's that? Bondegezou (talk) 10:05, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My very best wishes, if you could find SIGCOV of the topic, that is, articles about Trump's selection of candidates for marshal appointments. I searched for such, but if there is coverage of this as a topic that cold be persuasive.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:15, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A head of the United States Marshals service for the entire state (e.g. Colorado) is obviously a significant position. Only such people are included in the list. It does not mean that individual people are notable enough to have their own page (some could be). But as I said, there is no requirement that every individual item in a list should be notable. This list is a reasonable supplement to page United States Marshals, I do not see any problems. My very best wishes (talk) 18:16, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That might be true for a simple list of marshals, but this is one for a specific president. And despite his record of generating chaos, he hasn't done so (yet) in this particular area (cross fingers). Clarityfiend (talk) 19:17, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that should be a more general list, but one should start from something. My very best wishes (talk) 18:19, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:8CCF:747C:B4E6:7CB0:7320 (talk) 04:50, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The only "keep" opinion does not address sourcing, and the opinion by Coolabahapple that does do so does not express a preference for keeping. If better sources are later found, the article can be restored. Sandstein 21:48, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wilkins Lumber[edit]

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

Local company with no larger presence and no notability outside that area. Sources are all local, nothing from outside the small radius they operate in. Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:14, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:14, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:14, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:29, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this is an old article, never included in any WikiProject, so neglected and isolated and undeveloped. I guess it is targeted for AFD because it is written in a quaint, modest way "a small company", etc., that is out of style now, rather than punching with promotional assertions. However it is about one of the oldest mill companies in New Hampshire, maybe one of the earliest ever sawmills in New Hampshire, and I am sure there is offline coverage about the company, the original sawmill, later expanded mill facilities, over the centuries. The topic includes history, historic sites, technology. Historic sawmills are relatively rarer than grinding mills; see Category:Sawmills vs. Category:Grinding mills in the United States. There is no New Hampshire-specific mills category, at all, as far as I can tell.

Add to Wikipedia:WikiProject Mills, Wikipedia:WikiProject Historic sites, Wikipedia:WikiProject New Hampshire, and post notices in those Wikiprojects asking for any info. Tag it for development. Does the historic mill still exist, or ruins of it, and are those listed on any historic registry? Then revisit in a year or two. --Doncram (talk) 09:41, 30 July 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, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate a single reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability. It is a really old company - if it were notable, you would expect to find something by way of reference. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:14, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. sadly not notable. Only primary sources exist. Lightburst (talk) 18:50, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, editors need to be careful that they do not reject an article because the sources listed are not online/hard to access, with this article the references section has a book, The History of Millford, and two newspaper articles (from the Nashua Telegraph, and the Union Leader, the largest papers in the state(?)), none of these are "primary", they do not appear to be available online, but that is not a reason to delete an article, as for "unable to locate a single reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability", a quick gsearch reveals the following: from The Nashua Telegraph - "Making the Case For Lumber Company" (an editorial, so senior staff of a major state newspaper see this company as significant), "Lumber Firm Seeks Conservation Easements", "Area's Last Sawmill Struggles Against Global Competition, Even As It Donates Land To Conservation", from the Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests - "Sawmill Owners' Generosity Provides Chance To Conserve 500 Acres in Amherst, Mont Vernon" (i acknowledge most of these are about the one issue), so sources do appear to be out there. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:10, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Good point that some sources may be offline (perhaps even likely) due to the age of this company. But the sources you've highlighted above do not meet the criteria for establishing notability. There's a higher standard for notability-establishing sources than for other sources that may be used within an article to support facts, etc. We need to see two sources that talk about the sawmills in an in-depth manner (WP:CORPDEPTH) and contain independent content (WP:ORGIND). Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. In my opinion, those sources do not meet this standard. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:51, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

hi HighKing, agree that unfortunately they are not indepth, it was probably wishful thinking on my part that listing them might encourage editors with an interest in the history/development of the New England timber industry to find better sources (i'm also surprised that they do not have some sort of hertiage listing, although the all consuming fire of the 40s wouldn't help:)), hence, why i commented only. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:54, 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 no consensus. There do seem to be multiple articles in multiple media covering the series. The "delete" opinions should have addressed them. Sandstein 10:38, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tiny Fuppets[edit]

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

Original PROD reason was: non-notable website/webseries. After being the subject of a pair of fluff pieces on HuffPo in August 2014, it attracted no further in-depth coverage.

De-PROD'd by Kvng citing WP:NOTTEMPORARY, a misunderstanding of my argument. It was not "temporarily" notable, it was never notable to begin with. Being linked to in two fluff/filler pieces in HuffPo does not constitute notability, particularly since there were no other sources. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:19, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:19, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:19, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:29, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have added another ref. Nothing wrong with existing HuffPo cites. Now mentioned at Scott Gairdner so at least deserves to be redirected there if a consensus indicates a standalone article is undeserved. ~Kvng (talk) 16:49, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No convincing claim to notability. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 18:59, 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 05:50, 4 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 10:31, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OpenPsych[edit]

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

The article about the editor of this journal has been deemed non-notable in a AfD before: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emil Kirkegaard.

I don't see independent notability for this journal. All the sources relate to controversies related to the people who wrote in this journal. The Noah Carl controversy is covered, well, at Noah Carl, and the London Conference on Intelligence article exists as well (the SPLC source relates to this). The only independent thing here is the OKCupid controversy, which was covered in the Emil Kirkegaard article as well that was AfD'd. I suspect that this was created by a sockpuppet, although it's not confirmed yet, still FYI. Pudeo (talk) 16:24, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Pudeo (talk) 16:24, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:33, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:33, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The journal itself does not seem independently notable, but only through the controversies. I think that they could be merged into the respective articles. Taewangkorea (talk) 23:53, 21 July 2019 (UTC) [reply]
- Keep upon closer review, it seems that the article meets GNG. Taewangkorea (talk) 07:16, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no suitable redirects exist. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:51, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually Keep, upon review, this does meet WP:GNG. Kirkegaard et al can be redirected here if needed. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:55, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 12:39, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:23, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the article does meet WP:GNG.Knox490 (talk) 02:27, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:32, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the creator has now been blocked as a suspected sockpupppet. But perhaps this does not qualify for WP:G5 after some fixes by Randykitty, so notability considered. I would note that half of the sources have beem written by the same journalist in three different publications, some of which are less weightier like student newspapet Cherwell amd London Student. --Pudeo (talk) 07:56, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the current version has several acceptable sources for relevant statements. A Wikipedia article is just the right place where to keep such information on a controversial (pseudo)journal. Nemo 06:19, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why are these several student newspapers reliable sources? Do they have reputations for fact-checking and accuracy and do they offer something other publications do not? Without those sources, the article becomes quite anemic. czar 00:17, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- What student newspapers? At a glimpse I only see two such citations. Most of the citations seem to go to a New Statesman author. Nemo 07:34, 11 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 is to keep. Suggestions within the discussion could be used to tighten up inclusion criteria to deal with some of the issues. Michig (talk) 07:22, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of video game crowdfunding projects[edit]

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

An WP:INDISCRIMINATE list with an overly large scope. Crowdfunding is no longer a curiosity but an integral part of entertainment. The amount of crowdfunded video games in the past and future is likely to be an incredibly large amount, rendering the list a constant and taxing work in progress. Category:Crowdfunded video games works fine to categorize the games that are actually notable. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:19, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:19, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but trim down. I think I may have started it or being an early editor on this, but I know I was concerned for items that were only listed against their KS or other crowd-sourced page, as to have at least some type of discrimination. I would re-enforce that stance (requiring RS third-party sources), as well as setting at least some minimum funding level ($10k? $50k? $100k?) or has a clearly notable article (eg Undertale). Importantly, it helps establish a history of the the crowd-funded mechanism as the sizes grew following Broken Age, moreso than what a category can do. --Masem (t) 05:26, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One problem with that is that the minimum funding level says nothing about the quality of the game. Mighty No. 9 had a $4 million budget and was widely panned, Hollow Knight had a $50k budget and is often cited as one of the best games of all time. There is no functional reason to sort games by their Kickstarter budget, like movies would be listed by their box-office returns, because a budget means little about the relative quality and popularity of the finished product.

Requiring third-party RS is just not enough to make the article any less indiscriminate. And requiring the entry to have a Wikipedia article, is something that would likely be quickly forgotten about by new editors contributing to it._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:13, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about quality, it is about notable crowd sourced games where the crowd sourcing has been the subject of some discussion. So this will cover games that turned out bad like M#9, as well as those that became critical darlings despite tiny crowdfunding requests. That's why I say that the inclusion guidelines should be based on a combination of third-party sourcing that identifies the crowd sourcing effort and/or a minimum budget and/or a notable standalone article on the title. We'd need to refine that a bit more but there's a way to discriminate well based on those three points. And if new users add something that doesn't fit, it can be removed. (And not to evoke OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, we have List of highest-grossing films, irrespective of the quality of the final work.) --Masem (t) 13:24, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:36, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:37, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is fairly indiscriminate, Wikipedia is not a database of anything that has appeared on Kickstarter or Indiegogo. This is hardly a defining characteristic, especially when this includes not only games but music and Youtube projects. Reywas92^Talk 15:21, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but impose much more strict inclusion criteria, such every entry requiring its own article. It’s a notable subject, and criteria would trim it way down, eliminating the INDISCRIMINATE issue. Sergecross73 msg me 16:03, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Only include things with their own article. Dream Focus 17:22, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's notable as long as the games in question have their own article. Phediuk (talk) 19:35, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, initially i thought why should there be an article listing crowdfunded video games as crowdfunding is used to finance numerous projects/things but having read Crowdfunding in video games, agree that this is useful in showing the impact of this funding source on this industry, that said, also agree with above "keepers" that the list needs to be tightened to only include notables. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:18, 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. czar 04:55, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Karin Foley[edit]

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

I found no coverage that meets WP:BIO. SL93 (talk) 04:31, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 04:32, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 04:36, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 04:36, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It seems to me that this comes down to whether she meets WP:NACTOR "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." Of the three shows listed, I think only her role in Tenko could be called significant - from what I can gather of the others, her role in them was not significant and/or was only in a couple of episodes (2 or 4 out of 13). Apart from those listed, I see that she played a child in a pantomime in 1978, the daughter in the 1981 TV production of Grahame Greene's The Potting Shed, a maid in an episode of Miss Marple, and she was in one of 24 episodes of Leap in the Dark. So I don't think she meets that WP:SNG, and as there is no coverage of her, she does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BASIC either. RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:31, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no secondary source coverage and fails WP:NACTOR. The I, Claudius and Tenko roles both seem significant but she wasn't a main star in either, so alone these roles do not demonstrate notability. — Bilorv (talk) 11:18, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Blp with no actual references and no signs of notability. PatGallacher you may want to look through your previous creations - you have been getting messages about this for years. Boleyn (talk) 18:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sources are no where near passing GNG and the multiple significant roles in notable productions called for for actress notability are lacking.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:18, 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. Sandstein 10:30, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Minebest[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:SIGCOV and WP:NCORP. Maybe too soon Josalm64rc (talk) 03:16, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I certainly didn't uncover any reliable sources for either GNG or CORPDEPTH. JamieWhat (talk) 04:11, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good day. I deny breaking WP:CORPDEPTH. But, I reviewed the page and found that I violated PSCOI, namely: the presence of 2 links to openly advertising materials. I will edit them, it will solve your claim? In turn, I ask you to adhere to WP: NEWBIES, namely, specifically write what is better to fix to save the article. I will be happy to discuss all claims. SerhiiHarbaruk (talk) 11:05, 4 August 2019 (+3UTC)

Delete, possibly speedily. Yet another coin-related questionable page. No evidence of GNG.49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 04:59, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good day. Please, I suggest sticking to Wikipedia terminology. You put my article to be deleted and I ask you to specifically indicate the location of the error. I am ready to correct the error, if possible. Thank. Also, for my part, I will indicate that your assumption about the doubtfulness of the article is governed by some criteria? This needs to be discussed. I carefully studied everything. Yes, I just now saw that 2 links are breaking my PSCOI. But I am ready to fix it. I assure you that I have no WP: COI violations. Interest in this article is caused by the preparation for scientific work. My scientific activity studies the field of the cryptocurrency economy, and, in Poland, this is a very significant unit of the cryptocurrency economy. Please report a specific error in this article, I am ready to correct the violations, if any. Regarding WP: GNG: I am ready to add sources of information in Polish language for comparative studies. Will this solve the situation? SerhiiHarbaruk (talk) 11:19, 4 August 2019 (+3UTC)

Delete TOOSOON. Company itself adding COI after deletion notice. Company account spamublocked.. -- Alexf^(talk) 22:47, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:40, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:40, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:40, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:42, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 04:53, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre et Marie Curie School[edit]

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

No WP:RS coverage (either linked or that I could find separately). Promotional, reads like the school's webpage, does not appear to meet WP:NSCHOOL. creffett (talk) 02:16, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 02:16, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 02:16, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nicaragua-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 02:16, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found no sources describing this school besides its website (already linked). This is not adequate sourcing to satisfy WP:ORG or WP:GNG. ComplexRational (talk) 13:28, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG, Can't find any independent sources. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 17:01, 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. Lourdes 05:35, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Character class (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

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

Entirely a game guide about how to play D&D. Unencyclopedic, because Wikipedia is not supposed to host game guide content. Doesn't demonstrate independent notability outside of that, as a minor aspect of a single role playing game (not to be confused with Character class which is more broad concept). _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:21, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:21, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:21, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge the independently-sourced parts to Dungeons & Dragons gameplay. BOZ (talk) 02:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a WP:SUMMARYSTYLE spinoff from Dungeons & Dragons gameplay, because it would be far too long to cover decades of classes without distracting the flow entirely. D&D is an exceptionally long-running and influential game, so this level of coverage is appropriate even if tilted to primary sources. This isn't the equivalent of fancruft of a single video game; this is closer to an entire cultural industry, akin to Category:Chess openings if a single company owned chess. SnowFire (talk) 03:45, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per plenty of focused coverage on the concept over the years it looks like, and it also helps maintains a necessary split from the D&D page. JamieWhat (talk) 04:20, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SnowFire, and as an aspect of the game commented on beyond being a game mechanics aspect but as a pop culture topic. oknazevad (talk) 05:02, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have read over the Keep votes so far, but I am unable to discern any policy based reason for keeping the article. They all seem to be WP:ITSPOPULAR arguments phrased in different ways. The article does say that "Dungeons & Dragons was the first game to introduce the usage of character classes to role-playing", but this article goes far beyond that to list the character classes in every single edition of D&D, information that wouldn't be useful to non-fans._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 09:00, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- "Not of interest to non-fans" isn't policy based reasoning. 1994 Montreal Expos season is probably not of much interest to people who don't care about baseball, (90568) 2004 GV9 is not of interest to people who don't care about planetary objects, etc. WP:GNG and WP:SUMMARYSTYLE control here: the better question to ask is are there reliable references, and there indeed are, just as there are for chess openings and advanced mathematics concepts and the like. So... no problem, it's a spin-off appendix to the above. SnowFire (talk) 15:29, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Per the last section of WP:GNG - "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I'd call this page indiscriminate information, particularly a description of a creative work that lacks context in the form of "development, design, reception, significance, and influence"._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:48, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

further " information that wouldn't be useful to non-fans", hi Zxcvbnm, i note that you have listed on your userpage a number of video games that you have created/edited that includes gameplay sections, just wondering why you included something that would be "information that wouldn't be useful to non-fans"? this afd appears to be leaning towards WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:50, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:52, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:19, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I see some of the info is sourced to a UCP book. Depending on how much coverage there is in that book, that could easily pass GNG on its own. I'd also bet there's no shortage of sources like the io9.com site also in the references, although I'm not sure whether that counts as RS. It is a little annoying though that nearly everything in the article is sourced to the publishing company, perhaps some of this coverage is WP:UNDUE. Daß Wölf 02:58, 10 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. (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 03:06, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Colby Minifie[edit]

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

Wouldn't pass WP:NACTRESS. No third party coverage or winner of any awards. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:01, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:01, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:01, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:01, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:45, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:59, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:00, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:00, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This another example of a clearly notable actor with numerous major credits, especially on television and on Broadway, although the article fails to give the names of the characters that she played in each appearance. A Google news search reveals coverage in over 400 news sources, like The New York Times. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:50, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ssilvers, I had a look at that article and it doesn't really tell if the role itself is significant. The Walking Dead one might just be a minor character. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:53, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

She has had several recurring roles on TV shows, in addition to numerous guest-starring roles. Her roles in Punk Rock and Long Day's Journey into Night were both significant. I think she easily satisfies the criteria for notability. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:15, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ 183.177.231.187 (talk) 03:20, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: IP has been spamming "keep" on a couple of AFDs I found an IP that's just voting "keep" on a ton of AFDs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/183.177.231.187 --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 03:27, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. The subject clearly passes WP:NACTRESS.

Ozar77 (talk) 03:57, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ozar77, I don't see one role which could be considered "sigificant." She also did not win any awards. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 03:59, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Tyw7 I don't think subjects need to win an award in order to have a Wiki page...or else there are several pages in Wikipedia of actresses that would be deleted because of this reason. What do you think?

Ozar77 (talk) 04:22, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ozar77, well she doesn't have significant roles either. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 04:38, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: her television roles do not demonstrate notability by themselves but she may meet WP:NACTOR through her theater roles in Punk Rock and Long Day's Journey into Night. — Bilorv (talk) 11:29, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added some reviews of stage plays as sources. I think she does meet WP:NACTOR with significant roles in her stage appearances and some of her film roles. The TV roles do not appear significant, but she got positive reviews of her stage appearances, especially Punk Rock and Long Day's Journey into Night. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:40, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
RebeccaGreen, I found https://nypost.com/2014/11/17/simon-stephens-explores-teenage-violence-in-cliched-but-effective-punk-rock/ but I can't tell if she has a major role in that. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:41, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tyw7: I noted above that you had said that. I found several other reviews (the ones I have added), and she certainly did have a significant role. That's why I say here that they were significant roles - whereas I agree that the TV roles were not. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:45, 4 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] ugantor.com. "অ্যানিমেশন শর্টফিল্মে প্রথমবারের মতো চ্যাম্পিয়ন বাংলাদেশ | আইটি বিশ্ব | Jugantor". jugantor.com. Retrieved 2019-08-04.

[2] "অ্যানিমেশন শর্টফিল্ম প্রতিযোগিতায় চ্যাম্পিয়ন বাংলাদেশ". jagonews24.com. Retrieved 2019-08-04.

[3] "অ্যানিমেশনে দক্ষ হলে বেকার থাকতে হবে না". DailyInqilabOnline. Retrieved 2019-08-04.

[1]

[2]

[3]