Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 December 29

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 28 December	30 December >

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. BD2412 T 01:25, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

2002 Tour[edit]

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

There's been some edit warring over whether this should be an article or not, so I'm bringing this to AfD to settle the matter. IMO, the subject does not meet WP:NTOUR or WP:GNG and should be converted to a redirect. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:52, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:52, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-- not notable enough for an article, too generic for a redirect. Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:08, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:43, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:43, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:43, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable and barely any content in the article as a result. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 14:58, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Usedtobecool; I'm not seeing enough coverage to warrant a standalone article (WP:NTOUR). gongshow talk 19:37, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very little sources. The setlist source being from a user-generated website, which isn't a reliable source. Not notable, which fail to meet both WP:NTOUR and WP:GNG, same as the other article for the tour Shangri-La Dee Da Tour which contain very little reference as well. Title for the article is generic and a little bit vague. HorrorLover555 (talk) 05:39, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete While sources seem hard to come by, it occurs to me that 2002 is early enough in the history of the internet that most of the coverage for this tour would likely have been offline if it exists. I would suggest having a no prejudice against recreation if any offline sources can be found. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 22:35, 5 January 2020 (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. — Newslinger talk 04:12, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Superbike Factory[edit]

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

Non-notable Macclesfield warehouse and online retailer of used motorbikes in the UK. No material UK RS covers them for any kind of GNG that would meet NCORP; and they only get scant mentions in the UK motorbike trade magazines. They did small fundraising in 2017 (might explain the appearance of the article). Britishfinance (talk) 22:59, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Britishfinance (talk) 22:59, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Britishfinance (talk) 22:59, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:24, 31 December 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. — Newslinger talk 04:12, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ethan Conrad Properties[edit]

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

Non-notable company outside of the Sacramento area (e.g. no regional or national notability), whose RS is mainly WP:MILL (e.g. property transactions), and from Sacramento business trade media. The CEO's BLP Ethan Conrad is also at AfD and both articles, despite being largely created on 13-14 November, have different editors, but use similar refs but don't link to each other (so we might have a UPE/SPI issue as well). I leave it to the community to decide. Britishfinance (talk) 22:30, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Britishfinance (talk) 22:30, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 22:16, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm afraid I can't do much better than the nom. Totally local, run of the mill 145 "properties" means it rents out spaces at 145 strip malls. No allegation that any of this is more than trivia, or at worst, spam. We are a charity, not a free web host. Bearian (talk) 00:29, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NCORP. Likely paid for spam. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:16, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Run of the mill promo spam. Certainly COI, probable PAID. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 22:56, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 01:49, 6 January 2020 (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. — Newslinger talk 04:10, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ethan Conrad[edit]

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

Seems to be a property developer in the Sacramento area, and outside of small pieces in local Sacramento trade magazines (e.g. here), there is little other RS on him for GNG. Almost no RS outside of Sacramento (i.e. no regional or national notability). Strangely, this article, and his company article Ethan Conrad Properties, were created within a day of each other (13-14 November 2019) by two different editors who didn't link them (and the author of the BLP is a new largely SPA, who after a few random edits, dropped this BLP in one go); so we could have a UPE/SPI issue here too. I leave it to the community to decide. Britishfinance (talk) 22:23, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Britishfinance (talk) 22:23, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Britishfinance (talk) 22:23, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable property developer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:21, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 22:16, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Does not have nobility outside his local town. Nika2020 (talk) 14:40, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ANYBIO - coverage is entirely local. We are a charity, not a free resume service. A search of news articles outside of his home town reveals zero articles about him and his company. To paraphrase Elizabeth Warren, "He's made some money, good for him." I've appeared several times in interviews in my local BizJournals, but I'm making no claim that I'm notable. My full resume is at LinkedIn, where his belongs, too. Bearian (talk) 00:35, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No SIGCOV, clearly fails GNG as non-notable businessperson. PK650 (talk) 06:37, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTLINKEDIN. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:16, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 22:36, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject of the article clearly fails WP:GNG. Wikipedia is not for promotional piece. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 01:48, 6 January 2020 (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. Reliable sources were added to the article during the deletion discussion, and more editors believed that Fuentes met the general notability guideline with these additional sources. However, many of the editors who participated earlier in the discussion did not update their comments to reflect the article changes. — Newslinger talk 04:21, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Fuentes[edit]

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

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Fuentes. ~~There is no indication that the notability of the subject has changed since January 2019 when the previous deletion discussion was closed.~~ Robert McClenon (talk) 07:12, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - See Draft:Nick Fuentes. If this article is kept, the draft should be replaced with a redirect. If this article is deleted, this draft should be Rejected. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:15, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:53, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:53, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:53, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WaPo source is new but this still falls short of GNG, in my view. Guy (help!) 10:55, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. He is mentioned/discussed in some of the sources, but those articles aren't actually about him. Those that are are local news only. Jmertel23 (talk) 13:23, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see what has changed since the last AFD. Sources are incidental to him and don't establish notability about him in particular. Could be selectively merged to Right Side Broadcasting Network. Reywas92^Talk 20:39, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I concur with Reywas92, not enough has changed since the last AFD. I fail to see how the sources support his notability. User:1brettsnyder 03:58, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ben Shapiro gave a 45 minute speech at Stanford about Fuentes, wherein he referred to him as a 'lead influencer of the alt-right'. He has also had a lot of similar attention from other conservative commentators (such as Turning Point USA president Charlie Kirk, who at a University of Houston event pulled out a television with a clip from the Nicholas J. Fuentes show to demonstrate a point about Fuentes to his crowd). There have been a substantial number of articles written about the recent influence he has had on conservatism. He is a 'hot topic' right now, and more detail certainly needs to be added to the page to reflect this, but I believe WP:Notability could ultimately be satisfied and it is simply the case that the page is a work in progress and not all details have been fleshed out yet.150.203.2.234 (talk) 05:28, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough has changed since the last AfD coverage-wise to establish notability. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:27, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I concur with the previous statements. This article is not backed up by enough information and not relevant enough.
Delete per WP:TNT. Even assuming he were notable, which I do not concede, the page is written as an essay (e.g,, "last month") not an encyclopedia article. The connections to actually (in)famous people are tenuous at best, and the sources are unreliable. He's a run of the mill, up and coming young activist. I would not object to userfying to a draft page. He may yet become notable, but we are not a resume service. Bearian (talk) 18:47, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn’t qualify as per WP:GNG. Celestina007 (talk) 00:03, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- he's been receiving significant news coverage very recently as the leading spirit behind Donald Trump Jr. being heckled at Berkeley, which undermines the claim that "the notability of the subject has [not] changed since January"... AnonMoos (talk) 08:40, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's been the subject of multiple stories in major publications. The fact that it's recent doesn't negate notability. — Confession0791 ^talk 18:48, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG sources mention subject but are not about subject. Hughesdarren (talk) 23:01, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to User:Bearian and anyone else: There is already also a draft, Draft:Nick Fuentes. If this article is kept, the draft should be converted to a redirect. If this article is deleted, this AFD should decide whether to keep a draft, or to delete the draft and salt the title in article and draft space. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:42, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - My own recommendation is to keep a draft but to extended-confirmed protect the title in article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:42, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This sounds reasonable to me. Jmertel23 (talk) 13:42, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting recently closed Afd as closing admin, based on new information for further discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JGHowes ^talk 21:48, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Can the additional information be added to the article so that those of us who already !voted know whether we should change our positions? I am willing to review and reconsider if the article is revised, and I assume other good-faith editors will do likewise. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:01, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Nate Hooper and Confession0791 at Draft talk:Nick Fuentes#Sources for Nick's article. There are now multiple reliable sources, including an entire documentary by MTV. The man is now notable. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 20:36, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. I understand the motive to marginalize a racist, but he clearly satisfies notability guidelines, including WP:GNG. He is the leader of the "Groyper" movement which is also notable due to press coverage. In light of the various mainstream sources others have cited which mention or discuss Fuentes, we would not be considering deletion if he were an anodyne journalist or political figure. GergisBaki (talk) 01:35, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Does not have enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. Nika2020 (talk) 14:46, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep at this time (although I was the original nominator), agreeing that the subject has achieved marginal notability (and have struck part of my nomination). The fact that many people consider the subject to be a racist or villain is not a reason to exclude coverage if he is a notable racist or other villain (agreeing with User:GergisBaki). Robert McClenon (talk) 00:38, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - There is definitely more coverage than the last go around. Most coverage is for his group's trolling with TPUSA. This event was designed to generate scandal and media coverage, and still only manages to get news-briefs and political gossip columns. Do any reliable sources have any reason to keep discussing this? If not, this would be better as a couple of paragraphs at Turning Point USA. Grayfell (talk) 03:45, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - there's been enough improvements in the article and draft that I'd go along with its eventual retention. Bearian (talk) 00:39, 4 January 2020 (UTC) P.S. I can't emphasize enough how this is in now way even close to an endorsement of the subject's racist and sexist views. Bearian (talk) 00:41, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. He's obviously quite an influential figure in the far right and considering he's had an MTV documentary made about him and a confrontation with Ben Shapiro that resulted in a Fox News op-ed since the last time this article was up for deletion, I would say he's exceptionally notable at this point. He's even hosted his own "party meetings" with hundreds, if not thousands in attendance. We should always strive for quality and consistency. If Fuentes is not notable enough for an article, theres no reason dozens of political twitch streamers, buzzfeed level "journalists" and youtubers with less than 500k subscribers should have articles either. Not to mention, (correct me if I'm wrong) I believe the Spanish wikipedia has had an article about Fuentes for the better part of a year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gottretteunsalle (talk • contribs) 02:16, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you are referring to this source (which describes his behavior as attention seeking) and this TV appearance which was apparently a five-minute segment in a longer work. None of the rest of your comments are relevant to an AFD. We are interested in reliable sources and policy-based arguments, and the existence of other articles is not a deciding factor. His popularity is only relevant to the extent is is supported by reliable, independent sources. Grayfell (talk) 04:24, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Most articles related to Nick Fuentes are about the Turning Point USA protests; I suggest utilizing the "Controversy" section of the Turning Point USA article, adding a subsection about the series of incidents (i.e. "Clashes with the far-right") and the role of Nick Fuentes. Outside of his antagonism towards TPUSA (and TPUSA attendees such as Ben Shapiro), Nick Fuentes is only mentioned by local news or in passing. Charlie Kirk, who is both more influential and well-known than Nick Fuentes, does not have his own article. Cherio222 (talk) 03:42, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems notable to me. The fox news source seems like it contributes to notability,[1] Additionally, there is the daily dot [2] (both the article as well as the 5 minute segment in the MTV documentary), both of which IMO contribute to notability. Both Fox News and the Daily Dot are generally considered reliable sources. There are also a number of other borderline sources available in the news even with a cursory glance. We don't have to like him, but he does appear to pass the threshold of GNG. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 22:49, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 11:03, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aylton Alemão[edit]

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

Article about a non-notable footballer who fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 21:42, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 21:42, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 21:42, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 21:49, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:21, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets NFOOTY, played in Serie B and Pernambucano. --BlameRuiner (talk) 22:29, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:21, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets NFOOTBALL per this. Needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 12:23, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - appears to be a notable footballer who has played in multiple editions of the PE State championship as well as a handful of matches in the Brasileiro Serie B and C. Online Portuguese-language sources are mostly routine, but I think someone making better searches will find significant coverage. Jogurney (talk) 15:40, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above Dartslilly (talk) 19:47, 4 January 2020 (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 David Rudman. There is consensus that the company is not notable due to lack of available sources. The article for the founder, David Rudman, was identified as a suitable redirect target. — Newslinger talk 04:14, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spiffy Pictures[edit]

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

A seemingly non-notable production company. It produces notable shows, but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. The sources used are either not independent (the company's own material or obvious churnalism) or not reliable (IMBD). A profile from the local PBS station (WTTW) is undercut as a source of notability by the fact that the company produces shows for PBS. Previous attempts to redirect to the article about founder David Rudman have been undone. RL0919 (talk) 21:31, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. RL0919 (talk) 21:31, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to founder. That's some sorry sourcing, and nothing better readily presents itself (although admittedly I didn't dig too deep). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:30, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom, this is simply not notable per sources available. All that exist simply mention it as a production company, none cover it extensively. PK650 (talk) 00:12, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Elmidae. Best I could find was this: https://reelchicago.com/article/kids-media-spiffy-pictures-wins-top-innovation-award170205/ bt even that it borderline press release material. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 22:39, 5 January 2020 (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🍁 05:56, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of sexology topics[edit]

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

"Sexology topics" is not notable as a group or set as required by WP:LISTN, nor is it distinct from sexology. This article is redundant to the categories that cover this and related topics. It also claims to be an outline, but we already have Outline of human sexuality, to which this is redundant (but to be honest, I also see no purpose in that as distinct from categories as well). -Crossroads- (talk) 21:22, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 21:22, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 21:22, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 21:22, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 21:22, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 21:22, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 21:22, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 21:22, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that this is not distinct from the topic of sexology itself. Indeed, the "Scholars of Sexology" is blatantly copied from the original article. I don't see any distinction between this list and the article itself, which more or less discusses all the topics included in the name throughout. Sam-2727 (talk) 02:22, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:13, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is nothing this article provides that is not (or shouldn't be soon) at Sexology. Reywas92^Talk 20:47, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't know whether it should be deleted or not, as I'm not familiar with list criteria, but strictly speaking from the perspective of someone performing a Google search, I think this would be much more useful than sifting through 2 articles such as sexology or Outline of human sexuality for something that could be more readily found in such a list. Of course it can be improved on, but it might be handy for someone curious about sexology that just wants to peruse common topics. Anyway, my 2 cents. PK650 (talk) 00:30, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Note that list-based articles, as navigational aids mentioned above by PK650, are not considered redundant with categories per WP:CLN and in particular, WP:NOTDUP. There may be other reasons for deletion, but "redundancy with categories" cannot be one of them. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 19:34, 2 January 2020 (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 19:51, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Millar (engineer)[edit]

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

State-level department head with no other political experience. There are no other cabinet appointees who have articles, let alone nationally for the heads of DOTs. His name turns up no results for most national news websites, except for a quote in The Washington Post. The local major newspaper, The Seattle Times, only has a few passing mentions of him after his appointment and confirmation. Sounder Bruce 03:58, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sounder Bruce 03:58, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Sounder Bruce 03:58, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Sounder Bruce 03:58, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SounderBruce: What about Hilary Franz? You edited that one. KidAd (talk) 04:00, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Franz is an elected official who has had far more regional coverage. An appointee like Millar rarely gets a full profile or interview in a reliable source. Sounder Bruce 04:02, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While Franz may be elected and Millar appointed, they receive about the same coverage from local sources. (Seattle Times, local TV stations, etc.) Franz hardly has a "national" profile. KidAd (talk) 04:00, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when somebody can write and source something much better than this. At the state level, nationalizing coverage is not as essential as it is at the municipal level — it certainly wouldn't hurt if there were some, but at the state level of office there's no inherent requirement for there to be any. What's more determinative here, rather, is that three of the four footnotes are primary sources that are not support for notability at all, with just one piece of real, notability-supporting reliable source media coverage shown at all. This is a role where an article would be fine if you could get him over WP:GNG on the quality and depth of sourcing, not an "inherently" notable role for which he would be entitled to keep an article that has to depend almost entirely on primary sources — but on a Google search, I'm not seeing any real evidence that Millar has equivalent coverage to Hilary Franz: I'm seeing a lot of sources that glancingly namecheck his existence in the context of being about transportation projects in the state, but not a lot of sources that are about him for the purposes of establishing his notability. I will note that his predecessor, Lynn Peterson, does not have an article at all — I've only been able to find one earlier holder of this role who does have an article, Sid Morrison, and he has an article for having been a member of the United States House of Representatives, not for this role per se. This role would be enough if the sourcing were better — but it's not a role where it would be so critically important to keep an article about him that he would be exempted from having to show better sources than this. Bearcat (talk) 14:37, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat, the question I have is whether appointed state level cabinet officials are "generally regarded as notable" (see WP:POLOUTCOMES #1) or is the standard you are proposing the "article should say more than just "Jane Doe is the mayor of Cityville"" (WP:POLOUTCOMES #2). If the former, then the article should be kept (as it is unquestioned that the subject holds a cabinet position in the Washington State government). If the latter, I am finding a bunch of sources about the subject around the time of his appointment (August 2016) (e.g. this Seattle Times article or this article from the Everett Herald). --Enos733 (talk) 18:37, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:20, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe that appointed state level cabinet officials are "generally regarded as notable" (see WP:POLOUTCOMES #1). There is no question the subject serves is the state's Secretary of Transportation (and a member of the State's executive cabinet). I think the amount of sourcing (even as much of it is largely quotes) is sufficient to develop a article that is much more than "he exists." --Enos733 (talk) 05:20, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as page creator Keep per WP:POLOUTCOMES #1 and WP:GNG. KidAd (talk) 05:27, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 23:05, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Nahal^(T) 19:24, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. (There is also a plausible argument to be made that it would facilitate properly encyclopedic coverage of state policy issues to have articles about top-level officials regardless of GNG, but there's no need to address that here.) Article seems fine. -- Visviva (talk) 21:02, 29 December 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) NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 19:24, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ely Walker Lofts[edit]

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

I do not see evidence for notability. The association with the Bush family is not enough. DGG ( talk ) 19:17, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:05, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing shows why this building is worth having an encyclopedia article on.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:55, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NBUILD. There probably aren't many warehouses used to store shoes, Catholic school uniforms, and gun holsters but this isn't enough to lend it "historic, social, economic, or architectural importance"----Pontificalibus 11:01, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:07, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, obviously. It is listed on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places, and there is substantial sourcing available about it, some already included in the article. It is one of 55 contributing buildings in the Washington Avenue Historic District (St. Louis, Missouri), whose article does not comment about this one building; it is fine and good for it to be covered in a split-out separate article. It is apparently one of the largest and most substantial buildings in the historic district. I added NHRP infobox to the article just now.

I am not opposed to it being moved to its historic name Ely and Walker Dry Goods Company Building (currently a redirect to the AFD topic article), if some feel the "Lofts" term is too recent and commercial, but that is not for this AFD.

Or perhaps better, it could be converted to be a larger article about the "Ely and Walker Company or "Ely and Walker Dry Goods Company" itself, with the building covered in a section. Such an article also could link to other historic buildings of the company. Currently Ely & Walker is merely a redirect (created in 2010) to Oxford Industries article which provides no coverage of Ely and Walker, while I presume the firm was eventually acquired by Oxford. It seems this was a major firm and brand, and the building is a major artifact of its history. --Doncram (talk) 22:14, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is, by the way, a wonderful looking building, architecturally, a major work of Eames & Young architects. Take a look at it in Google streetview: perhaps this link will work to show it to you. The terra cotta surrounded entranceway is great, imho. --Doncram (talk) 22:20, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep we have reliable sources in the article and WP:V that the building is one of the buildings in the Washington Avenue Historic District (St. Louis, Missouri). Lightburst (talk) 22:42, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I disagree that it should be kept just because it is an NRHP contributing property, however there are enough sources and information about this CP for an article. Seems to have been quite significant in its time in St. Louis. Would prefer the historic name also. MB 05:14, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just being within a historic distict is not enough to make a building notable. I live in a dedicated historic historic district; the house I live in is one of the about 900 that make up the district.That doesn't make it or all the neighboring house notable, even the ones whose architecture is discussed in a paragraph or two of the designation report. What's notable is being a specifically designated landmark of itw own. Many, but not a districts have a few prominent buildings that are individually designated--a few, like some of those in Manhattan or other historic downtowns, have many. But there's no evidence that this is one. And if it was "quite significant in its time in St. Louis", there would be multiple good sources.Quite a lot has been written about St. Louis. -- DGG

I don't think I said, and did not mean to imply, that all NRHP contributing buildings qualify for a separate article. I agree with MB and DGG on this. Note that NRHP historic district nominations often fail to provide much coverage about, or even to mention, some or many of the buildings included in the districts' areas. However, this is a major building, one of the most significant in a large historic district, and there exists substantial coverage about it within the NRHP nomination document, and there exists other coverage, including about whatever Bush connection (which I have not evaluated, have no opinion about). I added material about the building's architecture to the AFD'd article. --Doncram (talk) 14:44, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant Contributing property with arch., cultural, hist. merit.Djflem (talk) 10:41, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. NotButtigieg (talk) 17:13, 4 January 2020 (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 19:48, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ney Rosauro[edit]

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

Non-notable musician with no-third party coverage. Article has never been sourced since its creation way back in 2005, with its only content being a rewording of material from his official site. Fails WP:MUSICIAN. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 18:18, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:06, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:06, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:54, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Dartslilly (talk) 19:51, 4 January 2020 (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 19:48, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alien Cabal[edit]

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

Non-notable FPS. Previously deleted by PROD for absence of sourcing; now it's back with the exact same problem (i.e., one blog). A couple more scraps of the same ilk can actually be found ([3]) but there's nothing that rises to the level of in-depth coverage. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:07, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:07, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see any sign of notability. 2604:2000:E010:1100:B58C:8A75:F43C:4BA5 (talk) 19:08, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable game; no signs of significant coverage. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 19:51, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Dartslilly (talk) 19:52, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to List of Sesame Street Muppets#G. Sandstein 19:48, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Granny Bird[edit]

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

One of dozens of articles on non-notable Sesame Street characters I redirected to the appropriate lists. But this one was reverted by an IP for no reason, so I'm going here instead. ミラ P 17:41, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 17:41, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 17:41, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 17:41, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 17:41, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Sesame Street Muppets as suggested. All plot, no substance. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:27, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Sesame Street Muppets. This is all unsourced wiki-level fancruft and speculation ("unknown, possibly Jim Henson"). sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 19:45, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Restore Redirect to List of Sesame Street Muppets#G. Not enough material to support a separate article......PK T(alk) 22:06, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not even close to being remotely notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:12, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Article was eligible for speedy deletion per G5. MER-C 03:33, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rashmi Ranjan Parida[edit]

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

Subject of article does not possess in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources hence falls short of WP:GNG Subject is a journalist that fails WP:JOURNALIST as the subject hasn’t created any notable work/project. Furthermore he also does not pass WP:ANYBIO, Finally the reference-bombing observed in the article might be a front/camouflage intended to confuse the untrained eye. Celestina007 (talk) 17:33, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:33, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:33, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:33, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:33, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article is based on PR announcements and syndicated, promotional news. Not a single truely independent source with in-depth coverage about this person. At best he is a locally-known personality, but not a "notable" topic per our standards. The article is part of a COI-created series of topics around the founder and his festivals - in fact it could probably be speedied. Note: I have also asked for an SPI as background check. GermanJoe (talk) 18:01, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GermanJoe Brilliant job!! | Celestina007 (talk) 12:08, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete per German Joe. Nothing more to add. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:27, 31 December 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 19:48, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FairCom[edit]

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

Software firm of insufficient independent coverage. Previously deleted for being purely promotional; G4 declined this time round for substantially different content. Unfortunately that translates as "substantially more of the same" in this case. There's not a single source here that is not either a listing, a press release, or promotional copy. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:28, 29 December 2019 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:28, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 17:34, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 17:34, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 17:34, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not enough significant coverage from independent reliable sources to show it passes either WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:51, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete still not notable per GNG. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 22:21, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I work for FairCom in its marketing department and was alerted today about this entry and its possible deletion. I am a novice when it comes to Wikipedia. I hope this does not come across as confrontational, because it is not meant to be: For reference for whomever created this article and any potential future editors, what can be done to make this article meet the guidelines? ... Now speaking as someone who is a former journalist and has been associated with technology organizations for nearly two decades (approximately two years at FairCom) FairCom deserves to be apart of Wikipedia because it has been and continues to be a pioneer in the database industry. In addition to what is mentioned in the article, FairCom is one of the first database companies to offer a database specifically for IoT and more than 40 percent of the Fortune 100 uses FairCom. Among its many use cases is that the FAA uses FairCom for every flight plan that flies within or through U.S. airspace, and Faircom is used as the database in the leading backup and disaster recovery solution on the market today (according to Forrester and Gartner.) I can also tell you through firsthand knowledge that some of these sources are legit articles and not regurgitations of news releases. They were the result of independent reporters and analysts conducting research and interviews for their stories in their publications. ... Again, I am not trying to be confrontational. I would like to learn more, and hopefully this discussion will result in a better FairCom entry by editors and contributors. Due to its rich 40-year history in the database industry and use by many leading brands, it would be a shame if the FairCom page is deleted from Wikipedia. Thank you for your time and consideration. BT1002 (talk) BT1002 (talk) 04:39, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia notability requirements for companies are so high, you would need really broad coverage in good quality reliable sources. However, some of the FairCom products may be notable (eg. I found nearly two page review of FairCom Micro B+ for CP/M in the InfoWorld magazine - volume 3, number 7, 13 April 1981, ca. pp. 30-31). It is much easier to establish notability for applications (the older, the easier), so - if the company article is deleted - creating new article for some notable product with a short info about the company (with "FairCom" redirecting to that article) may be a viable solution. Note you should read WP:COI and WP:PAID before creating such new article. I´m willing to help to write one, if software in question is older than 25 years (preferably even older). Pavlor (talk) 09:08, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I declined the G4 because there were clear differences between this and the previous version of the article, and different sources were used - it wasn't a G4. I agree though that the sources don't meet the requirements at WP:NCORP, and this article needs to be deleted. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:04, 31 December 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 19:47, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kongamato[edit]

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

Fails GNG; a Before search returned primarily fringe/cryptozoological sources that cannot be used to establish WP:SIGCOV or write a balanced article. There is no reliable sourcing for this being a potential unidentified species (even Melland's account from In Witch-bound Africa is skeptical) nor a figure from indigenous mythology. –dlthewave ☎ 13:53, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:10, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of reliable sources. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 13:38, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:38, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for lack of reliable coverage in secondary sources. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:17, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, In witch-bound Africa primary source, journals Bantu Studies, African Affairs, Journal of the Royal African Society[4] in search results but 1925-1944 and can't find the full content available anywhere. Lots of search results, a few mentions in reliable sources, but nothing so far that could be used for an article.—eric 21:00, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Benson C.W. (1961). "The Whale-Headed Stork or Shoe-Bill: Legend And Fact". Northern Rhodesia Journal. IV (5): 411–426.
- above reprints Burton, Maurice (December 27, 1958). "Deceptive Beaks, Small and Large". Illustrated London News.
- Jeffreys, M.D.W (1944). "African Pterodactyls". Journal of the Royal African Society. 43 (171): 72–4. is available but probably coyvio. results for African Affairs are a reprint, barely significant coverage

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more week to examine sources recently brought forward.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ミラ P 17:00, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is enough for a few sentences of content somewhere and a redirect, but i can't find any good merge targets. If someone can find one then merge (but please not to list of cryptids.)—eric 20:54, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of reliable sources. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:24, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The current sources are suboptimal and it's challenging to find better ones, indicating a lack of notability. —Paleo Neonate – 06:08, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Dartslilly (talk) 19:57, 4 January 2020 (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 19:46, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Carville[edit]

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

Football coach who fails GNG and NFOOTY. Never coached in French League 1 or 2. PROD contested on the grounds that the source [5] page is titled Trainers of First and Second Division Clubs, disregarding the Years in 1st or 2nd division (D1 or D2) parameter. SM Caen (1947–1949) and LB Châteauroux (1952–1953) were amateur-level clubs. --BlameRuiner (talk) 16:11, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 16:13, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 16:13, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 16:13, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:16, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (as article creator) give that nominator has now properly explained their rationale. RSSSF source indeed seems to confirm that person never manages in Ligue 1 or 2, and no evidence of a notable playing career. Giant Snowman 16:20, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. Seems well short of GNG. No Great Shaker (talk) 16:51, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet any of our absurdly broad inclusion criteria related to football.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:14, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG Dartslilly (talk) 19:59, 4 January 2020 (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 19:46, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

King Cid[edit]

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

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. He is a YouTuber who has not been discussed in reliable sources independent of him. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 15:57, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 15:57, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 15:57, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 15:57, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Another non-notable YouTuber with no third-party coverage and as such article is fueled entirely on non-viable sources. Aside from the inclusion of his legal troubles, it's badly-written promotional material. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 18:02, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable Youtuber.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:47, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 22:23, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is third-party coverage contrary to @Versace1608 and Beemer69:, and @Johnpacklambert and Mdaniels5757: are like WP:PERX. Can't say keep since I need input from the ones I'm pinging. ミラ P 00:47, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 02:15, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Miraclepine: Please lists the third-party coverage you found so we can analyze it. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 10:57, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Versace1608: I didn't say I found it. Why else didn't I say keep? Just look in the sources of the article. ミラ P 16:23, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Miraclepine: The meager citations therein are not viable third-party sources that justify keeping the article. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 18:32, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Beemer69: Analyze the sources one-by-one and explain why they don't count. ミラ P 18:33, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Miraclepine: You've never even edited the article, so it's curious as to why you're so driven on wanting to keep it. Its creator has several other articles up for AfD also due to lack of notability. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 19:22, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Beemer69: Of course, I kept quiet for so long because all the articles I created that was tag for deletion are notable, I just felt the editor that tagged it doesn't really understand notability guidelines. (Techwritar (talk) 13:41, 4 January 2020 (UTC))[reply]

@Miraclepine: The sources in the article are self-published sources and are not third party coverage. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 16:29, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Versace1608: Why are they self-published? (Techwritar (talk) 16:47, 4 January 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Keep: Firstly, third party sources (independent source) are sources that have no vested interest in a given Wikipedia topic and therefore is commonly expected to cover the topic from a disinterested perspective. All the sources there are third-party sources that have editorial independence. Secondly, he passes WP:ENT because he has a large fan base, one million subscribers and about 2.2 million views on one of his videos on YouTube. (Techwritar (talk) 16:10, 4 January 2020 (UTC))[reply]

@Techwritar: Which of the sources cited in the article have editorial independence? Can you show us where you see members of their editorial team? Only the second source has an "About Us" page, and there's no indication that said source is a reputable news outlet. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 16:29, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Versace1608: All(Techwritar (talk) 16:47, 4 January 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Techwritar is the creator of this and several other articles currently up for deletion due to lack of notability and bad sourcing, so he is going to blindly defend them no matter what and brook no opposing views whatsoever. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 05:36, 5 January 2020 (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 19:46, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blessing Williams[edit]

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

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:NMODEL. She is only known for winning a non-notable beauty pageant. A Google search of the subject doesn't show her being discussed in reliable sources. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 15:53, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 15:53, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 15:53, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 15:53, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - fails WP:GNG as I can’t see in-depth significant coverage in any source(s) let alone reliable sources. Furthermore Wikipedia isn’t an indiscriminate information dump.Celestina007 (talk) 16:15, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable to meet WP:GNG. --Richie Campbell (talk) 17:23, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable by GNG. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 22:23, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:49, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone else. Not notable, no third-party coverage. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 15:17, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First of all Miss Bikini Nigeria International, is a notable award in Nigeria. Secondly When an individual is significant for his or her role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both but If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. She is the winner, I don't think there is a role larger than that of this event. Thirdly, there are significant views about her published on reliable and independent sources and lastly, She has made a unique contribution and achievement to the field of entertainment as the first Nigerian model to be on a Dubai Magazine Cover. (Techwritar (talk) 15:19, 4 January 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Techwritar is the creator of the article. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 16:27, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG Dartslilly (talk) 20:01, 4 January 2020 (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. After several relists, we're still getting "Weak keep" vs "Delete", so I think consensus for notability is on a knife-edge Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:10, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dale Shirkie[edit]

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

Despite passing the WP:NFOOTY guidelines by playing for one match for Motherwell, I would say that is not enough to pass the WP:GNG as all of the references are WP:ROUTINE. HawkAussie (talk) 09:10, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 09:10, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 09:10, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 09:10, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:14, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am concerned that the nominator has not done WP:BEFORE (again) given that a very quick Google search brings up sources such as this, this and this which go towards GNG. Given ongoing career and meeting WP:NFOOTBALL I say we keep the article. The nominator is also (again) confusing GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:47, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Oh I'm sorry but they all are only mentions and not actually references for that particular person. HawkAussie (talk) 23:29, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG per the above sources by GiantSnowman. Smartyllama (talk) 00:58, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the above sources help him pass WP:GNG. As a Junior player he has little hope of passing WP:NFOOTBALL again. Dougal18 (talk) 09:33, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Err once you've passed NFOOTBALL you remain passed... Giant Snowman 12:24, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I meant playing in a FPL. Shirkie has played 9 minutes in a FPL and his career has declined ever since. Dougal18 (talk) 17:05, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Articles need to pass GNG. Special guidelines mainly suggest what types of people tend to pass GNG. However if you cannot actually find to sourcing to pass GNG the article can and should be deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:23, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would agree that as it stands he passes WP:NFOOTBALL as he has played in a fully professional league when he was with Motherwell. However I would also agree that playing for just nine minutes in fully professional league is a rather questionable basis for saying that someone is notable. Dunarc (talk) 21:34, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd say the sourcing is rather thin and WP:ROUTINE. He is still playing his football career, however, how far down the league has he dropped? If he was playing actual Scottish league football I would go with keep, but he isn't, he is in non-league, so I am leaning towards a delete. Govvy (talk) 12:17, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 09:54, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The article is new and contributors should be given a chance to expand it since the subject is still play and judging with the references he passes NFOOTBALL Georgiamarlins (talk) 13:12, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How is the article "new" when the article is five years old. When I think of new, I think of less than a year not five. HawkAussie (talk) 04:33, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - pending an improvement of references and an article's expansion within a reasonable timetable.--Darius (talk) 14:14, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only passing references or routine coverage, nothing even remotely substantial. He's a 24 year old playing in the fifth level of Scottish Football (only the top two meet FPL, so he's nowhere near it), who spent 9 minutes on the field in a FPL six years ago. WP:NFOOTBALL itself says "will generally be regarded as notable". If that word has any meaning whatsoever, it applies here. --RaiderAspect (talk) 01:27, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm seeing 4 keeps, only one of which, weakly in my opinion, attempts to deal with GNG, offset by four deleted including the nomination together with two comments which I consider to be leaning towards delete. To my mind there is some consensus to delete but as some attempt has been made to cover GNG, I'm delisting to allow for further debate, but would close as delete if more substantial sources cannot be presented.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 13:41, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marginal keep. Passes the SNG but, although doubts about GNG are not unjustified, I think there's just enough. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:14, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think the sources are weak still, I haven't seen any improvement since I last looked. I hardly see this player returning from the depths of the Scottish non-league. Fails WP:GNG in my opinion. Govvy (talk) 16:51, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weakest possible keep Played in the top flight of the Scottish league briefly, decent coverage from his time at Ayr, just enough coverage for an article. SportingFlyer T·C 21:14, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Further to my previous comment, I have given this case more thought. Overall I think that, on balance, delete is probably the best course of action here. I would note that the last reference to him in the article is his move to Troon in 2015 - but looking at Troon's website he would not appear to be there now. A quick online search would seem to suggest he is now at Darvel F.C., who play at an even lower level than Troon, so there is nothing to suggest that his career has been notable since he left Motherwell. Basically I would say that if he had not made a very brief appearance in the top flight, I do not think that the outcome would be anything other than delete. So it comes down to does 9 minutes on a football pitch by itself make someone notable? For me the answer is no, hence - in my view - we should delete. Dunarc (talk) 21:49, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep — All articles that pass WP:FOOTY automatically pass WP:GNG. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 23:57, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply @KingSkyLord: Umm, no that's not how wikipedia works, you can't have an SNG override a GNG failure. Govvy (talk) 15:04, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's been a source of great debate User:Govvy as WP:N clearly states that it needs to meet GNG or SNG. And perhaps irrelevant given the claims that both are met in this article. Nfitz (talk) 21:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply @Nfitz: ? NFooty still asks for significant coverage, which this article does not have. Does WP:ROUTINE not mean anything to you? Govvy (talk) 21:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply @Govvy: 1) You said SNG not NFooty - there are other SNGs. 2) WP:NFOOTY actually doesn't say that at all, except for Youth players. 3) Please remain civil - I've not opined on either WP:ROUTINE or the notability of this particular player - just your unnecessary claim of "how wkipedia works". Nfitz (talk) 22:37, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the RS found by Giant Snowman. He played in the Scottish league. Wm335td (talk) 18:58, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and not because of the sources proffered above by GiantSnowman (which are only tangentially about our Shirkie), but because subject evidently meets WP:NFOOTBALL criterion #2: This player has played in a competitive game between two teams from a fully-professional league, i.e. the Scottish Premier League. (For the list of leagues acceptable as "fully professional" in Wikipedia, see here.) -The Gnome (talk) 20:17, 6 January 2020 (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:30, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Newsweek's Best High Schools in America[edit]

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

Pointless having an article which is just a reproduction of a list published by a magazine; editors, even the article's creator, evidently so disinterested as to leave the page fundamentally incomplete for nearly five years Sirlanz (talk) 12:48, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 12:49, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 12:49, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 12:50, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article doesn't even establish the ranking as being a notable list. (By contrast, see U.S. News & World Report Best Colleges Ranking, which has multiple citations to help establish that the U.S. News college ranking is notable.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:16, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - IMO there is little value to replicating Newsweek's list here, and I agree the list itself doesn't appear distinctly notable. –Erakura^(talk) 03:15, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete copy of a non-notable list. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 22:26, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.NotButtigieg (talk) 16:39, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Erakura, little value in duplicating a non-notable list Dartslilly (talk) 20:23, 4 January 2020 (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:30, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Spivakovsky[edit]

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

Non-notable businessman. Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. What coverage there is self-generated profile pages e.g. medium, press-releases for his company. Previously deleted G11, G12, A7 scope_creep^Talk 11:13, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 13:50, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 13:50, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:46, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete most sources are PR churnalism and fails GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:55, 3 January 2020 (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 Evangelical Missionary Church. Sandstein 19:45, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pitch and Praise[edit]

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

Evangelical but not notable Rathfelder (talk) 11:13, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 11:13, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

maybe merge back to Evangelical Missionary Church as the one book reference I see is in a history of that body, and even then we're talking about an official history and not an independent work. Everything seems to be primary-sourced and there's not any evidence given that anyone outside the denomination cared that much. Mangoe (talk) 07:15, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Evangelical Missionary Church as above, not independently notable, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 18:36, 4 January 2020 (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) NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 11:10, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zwolnieni z Teorii[edit]

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

Non-notable charity. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGCRIT and WP:ORGIND. Some coverage. scope_creep^Talk 10:50, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:01, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:01, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't their work as a charity that should be notable here, they should be noted for their work as an institution and impact on polish educational system. The lack of legal framework in Poland, forces them to operate as a charity, but it really workes more like fund or a trust. I will attempt to rework the article and prove to you that it has a greater news coverage and a scope of activities that I covered in my stub. Sincerely Nadzik (talk) 13:35, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What they're doing in Poland is neither here nor there, its is what is notable on Wikipedia that counts. The majority of the references are to the app or to the company profile pages and are non-notable, primary and not in-depth nor intellectually independent, or secondary sources. The rest are press-releases of one type or another. scope_creep^Talk 13:54, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. As I said, I tried to rework the article, added several sources that aren't press-releases. I hope that they will meet the criteria as they are notable, primary and in depth (unfortunately they are mostly in polish). I hope that this will allow other editors to see that their actions are notable and should be included on Wikipedia. If you agree with me on that, but for example disagree onthe format, please tell me and in my free time I will try to bring it to the norms using your suggestions. Thanks!Nadzik (talk) 14:02, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The fact that sources are in Polish does not reduce their significance. Rathfelder (talk) 11:35, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rathfelder, It wasn't the fact they were in Polish, they were translated as were the pages they pointed to and they don't add to up. I always check the references beforehand and always do the translation work. We can go through each one if need be. scope_creep^Talk 12:44, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will see it has been significantly reworked with all the app stuff taken out. I'll check the ref's again per WP:HEY. scope_creep^Talk 12:47, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well done. I have checked about 12 references and there is now some pretty decent secondary references. It is still full of non-rs much references, but it is provably notable. I will do a copy edit later. This can close as a keep. Nomination Withdrawn.scope_creep^Talk 22:42, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Some reliable news coverage of their events/activities in Polish media: [6]/[7], and [8]/[9] (lower quality as they seem like churnalism/rewrittem press releases). The media coverage (in Polish) seems borderline, but I am leaning to the notable side of the line in this case. [10] (local edition of a reliable major newspaper) mentions this program in passing but calls it "well known". --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:31, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources are in Polish because they are active in Poland. They are significant and are covered in Polish press. --MozeTak (talk) 19:24, 2 January 2020 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lurline Champagnie[edit]

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

This article has been in existence for a few years and survived a proposed deletion back in 2008, but it remains very short and notability has not been established. Mayors of English boroughs aren't necessarily important, they sometimes only last a year on a "buggins' turn" basis. PatGallacher (talk) 00:51, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:38, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:38, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:56, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I think this is one to lean on the side of keeping, though there's not a huge amount of RS coverage. She has an OBE, which counts for something, but doesn't automatically confer notability. The same for her local government office and being the first black woman to stand for parliament as a Conservative. There is some small dedicated local news coverage of her (here). Some limited national coverage (here; here; here) and some mentions in books. Because her main political activity seems to have been running for parliament in 1992 and for mayor of London in 2008, there may be further news coverage of her that could be found by someone digging more thoroughly than I have. Leaning on the side of including according to the GNG, but I appreciate the coverage makes this article a pretty weak GNG candidate. Ralbegen (talk) 18:29, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I find coverage in The Guardian in 1987, The Times in 1990 (2 articles by different reporters), The Telegraph in 1991 and 1995, and The Atlanta Constitution in 1991, in addition to the sources found by Ralbegen. That's not just national but international, and spans 8 years (with shorter mentions earlier and later, including when she was a candidate for the Tory nomination for Mayor of London). She certainly meets WP:GNG. The articles have more biographical information about her - her age (and so approximate birthdate), birthplace (Jamaica), the age at which she arrived in the UK, jobs, husband, number of children, as well as speeches at political conferences and candidacies. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:32, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Interested to hear that, but could you possibly add these sources to the article? PatGallacher (talk) 00:11, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:16, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have re-written this stub and added more references. She is noteworthy given her position as first black woman (and person) to run for (and hold) several political positions in the UK. She is also chronicled in several books about the Afro-Caribbean community in the UK including Chronology for Afro-Caribbeans in the United Kingdom, and several others (here, and here). She is 84/85 now, and I have no doubt that on her passing, the Guardian and/or Telegraph will do an obituary (more GNG). Very interesting woman and I think readers from the UK Afro-Caribbean community would value this article. Andrew Rosindell nominated her for a Peerage and wrote up her bio here (there is a better version in print only). Britishfinance (talk) 11:53, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have also added more sources and information, so there are now articles about her and her work from 1987, 1990, 1995, 2009 and 2010, with info about her in other articles, a book, and websites. I have also removed the stub tag, as it's now over 1500 characters. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:31, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nice work to all who contributed here. This shows that AfD can have a good effect in saving poorly made articles. Now meets GNG. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 19:10, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as improvements have shown this article passes GNG. Happy Festivities! // J 947 ^{^(c)} 22:02, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sources found, notability established, article improved. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 22:27, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.NotButtigieg (talk) 16:12, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Recently added sources show notability Dartslilly (talk) 20:25, 4 January 2020 (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) NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 11:14, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nevada Stoody Hayes[edit]

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

Claim to notability is being at one point married to a pretender to the Portuguese throne (until he died about three years after). Honestly when I stumbled upon the article, I thought it was a hoax based on the sheer lack of sources or information on her from pre-wikipedia times...I have confirmed she does exist, but it seems fairly clear that there is really not that much on her life, at least in any English language sources. Jerry (talk) 00:57, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jerry (talk) 00:57, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Jerry (talk) 00:57, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Jerry (talk) 00:57, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. I could not find anything more than a passing mention in either a normal Google search or a Google Books search. – UnnamedUser (talk; contribs) 01:17, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per UnnamedUser. Much like as I said in a previous AfD discussion, marriage isn't a way to gain notability. It's well written, but that dosen't help due to the fact that it is completely unsourced. James-the-Charizard (talk to me!) (contribs) 01:38, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Regarding sources - an initial search doesn't come up with anything too useful. Here's an archive link for the one source in the article, which is just someone's website, and doesn't say anything more than that she existed and was Afonso of Braganza's wife. Afonso of Braganza cites "Montgomery-Massingberd, Hugh (ed.) Burke's Royal Families of the World (1977), volume 1, page 449" in a paragraph discussing Hayes' marriage in some detail, implying that the book may have significant coverage of Hayes, but the book's offline, so we have to trust that the citation supports the text. And here's something interesting. The article has some huge blockquotes (which should probably be removed) that are presented as being from Caroline Schermerhorn Astor's "400 list" of notable people. Unfortunately, a Google search shows that they're not from there but rather from some guy's blog. But - that blog's about page says These women are included in the book, Crowning Glory: American Wives of Princes and Dukes, with a preface by His Royal Highness Prince Michael of Greece and Denmark. So, let's look up the book - it's offline, and I've never heard of Henchard Press before. Meh...

However, newspapers.com brings up some good results. It looks like she was quite a hot topic in the newspapers of the time. These articles, IMO, constitute SIGCOV: [11], [12], [13], and there's more here (might need a subscription to view): [14] While I would like to have some more substantial sources than newspapers, the fact that books discussing her (apparently) exist, plus the age of the subject, plus the fact that she has ties to Portugal, suggest that there are more sources available that are offline or not in English. So I'll have to go with a weak keep here. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 02:21, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: one of the few americans to have married a senior member of a european royal family. Her inheritance included numerous priceless pieces of portuguese art which were thus separated from Portuguese national patrimony. I think she meets the threshold of notability, as a particularly controversial and unusual royal consort. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 05:40, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:57, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While I think further I'll just comment that there's a biography of her (in Portuguese) [15][16]Thincat (talk) 09:54, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me that in using this book we'd need to separate out fact from (literary) fiction. In Portuguse it is described as "romance" which seems to have the same connotation as in English[17] though Google books classifies it as biography and autobiography. Thincat (talk) 10:19, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If this helps, I've found a review of the book which states (according to Google Translate) that Information about a jewelry auction aroused the interest of Ana Anjos Mantua, Coordinator of the Dr. Anastácio Gonçalves House Museum, and launched it into an exhaustive investigation into institutional archives and private collections. Thus came “ the incredible story of Nevada Hayes, wife of D. Afonso, Duke of Porto, ” told in the first person.. The review itself also provides some decent coverage of Hayes. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 16:22, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's very helpful. So, I'm clear she's notable but I doubt a non-Portuguese-speaker could cope with the book if it is on the border between novel and biography. Thincat (talk) 16:50, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:12, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly merge to her husband -- She was not a pretender to any throne, though her husband was. Her marriage seems to have been regarded as morganatic, that is not conferring royal status. Even apart from that she would not have inherited his claim to the throne, because that would devolve according to the national law of succession, not according to the pretender's will. The royalty of kingdoms are commonly notable, though distant relatives of a monarch may not be. Pretenders (claimants to abolished thrones) will probably be notable, though not necessarily when abolition is so distant an event that the possibility of restoration is illusory. However there non-royal relatives are not necessarily notable. This is a common situation in WP with nobility (WP:NOTINHERITED). A common solution is to merge a summary of a wife's bio to her notable husband, leaving the usual redirect. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:21, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is coverage in contemporary newspapers, digitised on Newspapers.com, from at least 1909-1961. I did not find anything searching for "Nevada Stoody Hayes", but plenty for "Nevada Stoody" and for "Nevada Hayes". With the coverage at the time, plus the biography in Portuguese, she certainly meets WP:GNG. The article could do with improvement - the newspaper articles have some info about her early life - but article quality is not a reason for deletion. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:56, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article quality isn't the issue. Her notability is her marriage to the by-then pretender of the Portuguese throne, which besides lasting a couple of years, did not include her in the succession. She's barely more notable than other socialites of the era, and as someone noted before, the book on her life may partially be based on fiction, means it probably isn't a reliable indicator of WP:GNG. Jerry (talk) 16:39, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:13, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment She doesn't need to have done anything - WP:GNG states that "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." She did receive significant sustained coverage, in reliable sources across the US, starting several years before she married Afonso of Braganza. She was already notable when she married him. I will add sources and info to the article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:51, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree per RebeccaGreen. IMO, she was the Princess Royal of Portugal, but the Portuguese royal family rejected her. However, she was a particularly controversial and unusual royal princess consort. Idolmm (talk) 19:26, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficient write-ups back in the day to support notability.NotButtigieg (talk) 06:47, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep as renamed/expanded. Issues remaining with the neutrality of the article are not the purview of AfD. BD2412 T 00:09, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign involvement in the Yemeni Civil War[edit]

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

Looks a bot ORy to me, firstly this is not NATO, its some NATO members. It seems much of the "support" is just standard arms sales. References to "Coalition" air strikes (what coalition?) Slatersteven (talk) 10:05, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: The article name was changed during the AfD to Foreign involvement in the Yemeni Civil War per the split proposal.-SharabSalam (talk) 21:49, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:02, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:02, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Yemen-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:02, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bahrain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:03, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kuwait-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:03, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:03, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jordan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Qatar-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:05, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The content of this article was split from Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen per the discussion on that talk page, as it was very large. I don't think an AfD process is the best way to deal with this if you're objecting to the name. The support is mostly the selling of military equipment, which is certainly notable and worthy of being documented in Wikipedia. Would you consider withdrawing your AfD and we can see if the issues can be resolved otherwise? Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:05, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Its too large because it is rambling about all over the place, talking about arms sales, intel, votes in congress. Its a badly written POV fork.Slatersteven (talk) 11:07, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you mean the article it was split from, if you can get the size down then we could possibly merge this article back in, but these are not grounds for deleting it. Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:46, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is it is such a mess nuking it and starting for scratch would seem to be the best idea.Slatersteven (talk) 11:50, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The connection between the article contents and NATO is really coincidental. Might be better off being split up into separate United States involvement in the Yemeni Civil War and United Kingdom involvement in the Yemeni Civil War articles? --RaiderAspect (talk) 11:17, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe but I also think much of this is not even about involvement in the war.Slatersteven (talk) 11:18, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Slatersteven, I am not going to assume bad faith but the editor who created that article was opposing this split. It could be that he named it NATO involvement so that it gets deleted. The consensus in the talk page was to split the article to Western involvement in the Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen or foreign involvement not NATO. In fact, there is not a single mention of NATO in the article discussion.--SharabSalam (talk) 11:55, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which is irrelevant, as there are more problems here than just the name. We almost have a list of every US action (for example).Slatersteven (talk) 11:58, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Slatersteven, the U.S. involvement in the war against Yemen is widely covered in the media. The name is almost the only problem.--SharabSalam (talk) 12:56, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It may well have been, that does not mean that every incident or comment needs to be here. This article suffers from huge bloat about trivial or irrelevant matters that really have nothing to do with actual US intervention.Slatersteven (talk) 13:03, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Slatersteven, you can discuss this in the article talk page. This isn't a deletion reason. The foreign involvement is well-sourced and the controversies surround it are all well-sourced and notable. I am going to split the article and add this stuff to the new article. I also don't understand your merely subjective argument? How are these trivial? I don't think they are trivial and I am a Yemeni and I have much contributed to that area.--SharabSalam (talk) 13:31, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They are trivial because they tell us nothing about intervention, they are just a catalog of incidents. Please do not create another POV fork.Slatersteven (talk) 13:34, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy delete (ec) Looks like WP:Pointy. The consensus in the talk page was to split to Foreign involvement in the Yemeni civil war not NATO.--SharabSalam (talk) 12:01, 29 December 2019 (UTC)~~[reply]
Delete as has been said this is more to do with standard arms sales from some countries and not direct involvement in the war by either them and certainly not NATO. Appears to cobbled together to make a point but but nothing shows any direct connection in military action and could be considered misleading. MilborneOne (talk) 11:59, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and note per WP:HEY. I have changed the title to Foreign involvement in the Yemeni Civil War and added the other parties involvement. As I said above there was no agreement or even a mention in the talk page to split the article to NATO involvement. The editor who created this article was opposing the split and this split seems like WP:Pointy just to make it hard to split the article to the foregin involvement. I have fixed the issue by adding the Arab coalition involvemnet and adding the allegation of Iranian involvement so I think the issue is now fixed. The main article was over 400 Kilo bytes. This split is needed. Just like we have Foreign involvement in the Syrian Civil War or Foreign involvement in the Spanish Civil War.--SharabSalam (talk) 14:12, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note it is not good practice to change the name of an article while the AfD is still open. MilborneOne (talk) 15:10, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MilborneOne, I remember Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russia investigation origins conspiracy theory when the article was going to get deleted just because of its name and the editor changed the title while the AfD is still open(the editor is an admin BTW). Changing the title per the split discussion in the talk page to avoid the deletion is an improvement. The editor who created the article probably wanted it to get deleted which is why he created it with such POV title so that any attempt to split the article would be refused because of the previous deletion.--SharabSalam (talk) 15:23, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 14:59, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith in others, as you can see from the discussion the article has a lot more issues than just the use of NATO in the title. MilborneOne (talk) 15:26, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All this does in reinforce my view this article is a POV fork to make a point.Slatersteven (talk) 15:28, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which I have fixed. In any case, there was no discussion or proposal to split the article to NATO. This itself is disruptive editing when there is a split discussion and somone goes and split the article regardless of the discussion and without even mentioning the title in the talk page. What the editor did was absolutely disruptive.--SharabSalam (talk) 15:30, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All I would suggest reasons for delete until a decision has been made as to what this fork is supposed to be about.Slatersteven (talk) 15:34, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Slatersteven, I feel like you arent well-informed about the subject you are talking about? the foregin involvement in the war against Yemen is well-sourced and there are tons of coverage about it in the media. The U.S. support for the Saudi-led coalition has made a lot of controveries. A lot of U.S. politicians have been accoused of being puppets in the hands of Saudi rich kings. Also, in France there are leaks etc and invastigations google it, and in the UK there is a court decision to ban arm sales to Saudi-led coalition but yet the arm sales continoued despite the court rule google it. Note that all of this is not yet in the article and I wasnt able to add it to the previous article because it was already above 400 kilo bytes.--SharabSalam (talk) 15:44, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is a an obvious POV-Fork. Despite ostensibly being about "Foreign involvement" in the civil war, there is not one word in it about the support the Houtis are gettign from Iran. It seems this was purposely created to bash one side. Here come the Suns (talk) 16:25, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there is, but it is not couched in quite the same way.Slatersteven (talk) 16:28, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Slatersteven That just means the title is wrong, because the content only concerns American and British involvement. The problem is clearly the title, not the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:00, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Delete due to lack of neutrality, per Wiki's article: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view Factlibrary1 (talk) 17:47, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question @SharabSalam: You have multiple times now claimed I have opposed the split. Can you show where I have expressed opposition? If you cannot do so, please withdraw these claims. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:00, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Onetwothreeip, first, tell me when and where did you discuss the split to NATO involvement?--SharabSalam (talk) 21:21, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you're referring to the title itself, I didn't discuss that. I split the article to a neutral title, and further discussion can take place regarding what the title should be. There was consensus to split the article but significant disagreement on the title. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:28, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Onetwothreeip, the NATO involvement was a neutral title?--SharabSalam (talk) 21:45, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in the context of disagreement over the title. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:47, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Onetwothreeip, notice that you havent voted keep or delete. Doesnt seem strange?--SharabSalam (talk) 22:30, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think the AfD should be abandoned entirely. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:49, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Messy Keep The essential problem we have is that people have written a ton of content about UK and US involvement in the Yemeni Civil War. The content isn't exactly perfect either, but its got decent sources behind it so I don't think it rises to WP:TNT levels. We can't put it back in the (already lengthy) main article, the level of detail would be seriously WP:UNDUE. Calling it NATO involvement was outright wrong. Now its been renamed Foreign involvement, which is at least a notable topic. There's still a bunch of NPOV, UNDUE and scope problems (what do we do about Saudi Arabia's involvement?) and I don't believe this is the right solution. However the article has had its current scope for >2 days. No prejudice to renomination if it doesn't improve. --RaiderAspect (talk) 04:53, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As most of the article could be pruned as it is about arms sales and nothing to do with the "foreign involvement" the few lines that are left could be added to the parent article but it would be easier just to delete this misleading mess. MilborneOne (talk) 11:11, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination has not mentioned any policy-based rationale for deletion. Subject meets WP:GNG and content issues should be resolved on talk page. Shivkarandholiya12 (talk) 08:11, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How about the fact that the content is misleading and has nothing to do with "involvement" per WP:BOLLOCKS. MilborneOne (talk) 09:53, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wp:OR was mentioned. I thne go on to point out I think it is a wp:POV wp:fork.Slatersteven (talk) 10:21, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Saudi/Iranian involvement in the conflict is easily established by reliable sources. Under the current title (which has been changed from "NATO involvement" to "Foreign involvement") we have a clearly notable subject about which it is possible to produce neutral, encyclopedic content. Cleanup should be handled the usual way. Dartslilly (talk) 20:35, 4 January 2020 (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 19:43, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney Talker[edit]

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

A promo piece for subject of the article that lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources hence fails WP:GNG and doesn’t have any award hence fails ANYBIO furthermore a WP:BEFORE conducted by me shows nothing significant other than his Instagram page. Celestina007 (talk) 09:54, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:54, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:54, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:54, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:COMEDIAN. A Google search of him only bring up interviews he conducted; it doesn't show independent coverage of him. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 15:09, 29 December 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 19:43, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chowk.com[edit]

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

No significant coverage in WP:RS. Poor Alexa rank. Fails WP:NWEB. Defunct website. Störm (talk) 19:48, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:10, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:10, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:10, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral: (Due to pressure from nom., admin and closer) *Keep: Per sources on previous AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chowk.com which our nom. seems to have conveniently ignored. I'm fascinated what happened to the 2nd nomination. I'll try to work the citations on the article at some point if I get time. Beyond that point I'll shut up.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:50, 14 December 2019 (UTC) Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:43, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Djm-leighpark, do you have any WP:RS or are you in habit of commenting keep because you like it. Störm (talk) 16:48, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is ridicous to present this at AfD without having links to the previous AfD's. I suppose at least there was an indication this is the 3rd discussion ... though it might be the fourth.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Www.chowk.com (30 May 2005) Result Keep
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chowk.com (30 August 2012) Result Keep (displayed above)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chowk.com (2nd nomination) (17 August 2017) Result Keep (Nom. seems to have withdrawn AfD ??? )

Once notable always notable isn't it. Of course sources have now linkrotted from that era. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:06, 14 December 2019 (UTC) Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:34, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, you can re-nominate if you think article is not upto policies of WP, and somehow survived AfD way back when WP policies were not tough. Störm (talk) 17:10, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The nom. has previously been commented as doing WP:VAGUEWAVE when nominating AfD. Can the nom. please explain the problems with defunct website and enumerate and explain with specific figures what is meant by poor Alexa rank. Part of the issue with WP:NWEB is that the article fails to explain the historical significance of the site ... my impression is of reading the article is there is a reasonable attempt of the article to set the historical context. WP:RS seems sated by previous WP:AfDs and would the nom. please explicitly contest the sources presented there. If nom. does not do this within 48 hours I suggest moving to speedy keep if this is not reasonably attempted by that time. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:46, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When the website was active then recorded alexa rank was 5,543,926 in October 2016 which is poor by any standard and it shows that site had a poor following. Now, when the site is defunct, there is nothing on Alexa rank. Störm (talk) 16:53, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You joined on 29 January 2017, but still we have to explain everything to you like a newbie. Please, familarize yourself with WP policies. Störm (talk) 16:57, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah now depends on a glass being half full or half empty. If there be 1,500 milllon websites say, and even 200 million active, that rank of 5million puts it in the top 3% does it not. And poor is a poor word and an emotive word here, it is not necessarily a competition. And be pleased explaining why you are choosing the 2016 Alexa rank when I presume the site was in the old-age stage of it lifecycle. On the May 2005 AfD an Alexa rank of 47,000 was mentioned, albeit unsubstantiated. Be pleased explaining this all to me. Of course I am hoping you have contacted the people from those previous AfD's now you can called their judgement to question? I present all the sources on the article and presented by the keepers at previous Afd's for consideration (Excluding any self referencing its own website). As you will have considered them during your WP:BEFORE you should have considered each individually so it should be simple to present each individually here so you are not simply doing a WP:VAGUEWAVE. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:29, 14 December 2019 (UTC) I presume you are now accepting satisfaction WP:NWEB as you have not mentioned it. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:31, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No source discusses website in-depth which we need per WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 18:06, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately still a WP:VAGUEWAVE answer. Specifically list here the sources/links you've considered. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:27, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

courtesy ping to Störm, as Djm-leighpark raises valid arguments. —usernamekiran(talk) 15:25, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notability not being temporary explicitly has a carve-out for AfD discussions: While notability itself is not temporary, from time to time a reassessment of the evidence of notability or suitability of existing articles may be requested by any user via a deletion discussion. This article needs to demonstrate notability per WP:NWEB, WP:NCORP, WP:GNG or some other applicable notability guideline. So far this is lacking, however a single participant arguing delete is also not a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:41, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: Am I the only git idiot enough or maybe with the nous enough to sort through dead links and bring existing sources to this site? I've done the minimum on the article to switch on url-status=dead where necessary. Can you please do a temp-undelete on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chowk.com (2nd nomination) for me, it almost certainly contains nothing useful but I'd like to know the page creator anyway. I'll sift through the existing AfD sources over the weekend as no one else can be arsed to do it. There's also a little precedents news sites in tricky areas are sometimes given a little slack by the community. Tough luck at WP:ARBCOM. Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:37, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Djm-leighpark, the page creator was Störm. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Dredging through the AfD's I believe the following sources have been presented at the AfD's

Staff (17 October 1999). "World: South Asia - Pakistan: The view from cyberspace". BBC.
Press Trust of India (22 May 2009). "Indians, Pakistanis in pursuit of peace at chowk.com". Financial Express.
Jyoti (12 March 2002). "A borderless internet is bringing ordinary Indians and Pakistanis face to face". Rediff.

In the current article the Chowk and Alexa articles will not count for notability etc and the ZNET citation is of seems only passing. The following citation on the article remains:

Cemendtaur, A.H. (26 July 2005). Akhtar M. Faruqui (ed.). "Community". www.pakistanlink.org.

The problem is that while the nom. by default has claimed to checked these out a consistent failure to spefically identify the sources means I am reliant on WP:AGF that the nom has actually had the both the WP:COMPETENCY and also put in the effort to actually check them out as required by WP:BEFORE before the nom. did the WP:VAGUEWAVE.Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:BEFORE D.1 also expects a google books check. Yet at the top of that list for me there is Transforming Education for Peace edited by Jing Lin et. al. [18]. The whole of chapter 10 is devoted to Chowk.com.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:00, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: I observe little discussion in the over 48/72 hours since I have explicitly presented the sources that should have been considered per WP:BEFORE. I observe the nom while on WikiBreak per their talk page has made (a small number) edits in the last 48 hours but has chosen not to return here and I see no evidence of the informing of previous AfD participants whose judgement was to a degree explicitly questioned by the nom. being informed of this discussion. While these sources in my view are sufficient for WP:GNG (and certainly not to be dismissed by a nom. on WP:VAGUEWAVE and would also note the google scholar link here shows page after page of references of Chock.com content being used in citations to support other credible reports and discussions, matching WP:WEBCRIT (i[WP:NWEB]]) #1. I therefore call discussion to be closed keep. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:54, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Djm-leighpark, my rule of thumb is I make one administrative action per AfD. Since I relisted I will leave it to another sysop to close. However, I will note while there is no minimum length of time after a relist to close, they normally get closed a week or so after relisting so it probably won't be until then. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:02, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and request: I previously closed this discussion, and reverted it after feedback that it was inappropriate. I am awaiting confirmation that it is still appropriate for me to comment/make my thoughts known. I request that the discussion not be closed until I receive that answer (from User:Barkeep49 or another admin). Thanks and best, Mdaniels5757 (talk) 08:30, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Mdaniels5757: Hi. Yes, you can comment/make your thoughts known in this AfD like you just did. —usernamekiran(talk) 08:37, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Usernamekiran is correct. You may comment and !vote. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:59, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Withdrawing from corrupted AfD where log of a close then relist was violated. Anyone notice how the previous constributors to the previous AfD's had their viewpoint scummered but were not informed of the new AfD?. Anyway I'm I'm out of this.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:47, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:45, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nomination accuses the document of 4 things, each of which are not correct or irrelevant. First, the statement "No significant coverage in WP:RS" is false. Djm-leighpark examined the prior AfDs and Google Books and found reliable sources, including a book chapter. (Störm should have found these in a search required by WP:BEFORE). The statement "Poor Alexa rank." is true but misleading: the site was defunct at the time. When the site was operating, per User:Djm-leighpark the rank was 47,000 (not that Alexa rank is required by WP:NWEB anyways). Third, the statement "Fails WP:NWEB" is also not true: the site "has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself" (it passes WP:GNG for the same reason.) Fourth, although the website is defunct, that does not make it non-notable. Finally, I apologize for my erroneous closure, which I reverted because of thoughtful and helpful concerns brought by Barkeep49. It was not my intent in doing so to pressure Djm-leighpark into withdrawing their helpful comments, and I presume Barkeep49 did not intend to do so either. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 16:16, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Alexa ranking was only someone's memory, and could have been global or national. The content of the BBC source was disputed at a previous AfD. The Press of India may relate to a tweet. And is the book author independent? 109.157.77.207 (talk) 13:42, 31 December 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 19:42, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Santino Barnard[edit]

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

Does not seem to be a notable actor (yet). Child actor with just some minor roles, no leading roles, references just to imdb and personal/social media sites Denniss (talk) 09:36, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:19, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete when your "know for" role is in a work that lacks an article, especially when we are taking about a work about Superboy/Superman (well, I think it is that Superboy, I could be wrong) who is such a hugely major character, this is a sign the work is not at all notable, the role is not adding to the "multiple" significant roles in notable productions, you are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:47, 30 December 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 19:42, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhism and Racism[edit]

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

Not much to warrant an article, and I am not seeing that much in WP:BEFORE, through I think there is scope for expansion. But in the current form it's a stubby mess that's close to WP:TNT level. Thoughts? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:19, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:19, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:19, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Userfy if the creator wants to develop it. It's possible the subject is a notable one, but there's negligible substance here now. For such a loaded topic, that's important. Thus better to have nothing than what's there. I will say that the one source it does cite may be notable enough for an article on its own. I found these if someone wants to start that (in which case this could be redirected, I guess): [19] [20] [21] — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:46, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per Rhododendrites' arguments. Though he/she only provides one source, I am confident that Buddhist studies have at least some coverage of this subject, since Buddhist studies are filled with studies about social problems. So the subject is notable, though the article is not much yet.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 17:11, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely WP:OR and either way it is redundant. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 16:26, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please expand, शिव साहिल. Why is the article OR or redundant?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 09:29, 4 January 2020 (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) 10:28, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amin Mahmoodi[edit]

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

Non notable actor who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails gng & WP:NACTOR Celestina007 (talk) 09:18, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:18, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:18, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:18, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:18, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:18, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:09, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per nom. - MA Javadi (talk) 22:45, 31 December 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 19:42, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shan Baig[edit]

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

Non notable actor that falls short of WP:NACTOR & WP:GNG Celestina007 (talk) 09:13, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:13, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:13, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:13, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:13, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of sufficient coverage in reliable media.NotButtigieg (talk) 15:10, 3 January 2020 (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) 10:29, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shikha Chabbra[edit]

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

Subject of article is an actress that fails WP:NACTOR and lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources hence fails WP:GNG. Furthermore article claims subject has won numerous awards but no evidence of this can be found.Celestina007 (talk) 08:22, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 08:22, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 08:22, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 08:22, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 08:22, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 08:22, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - This is a copy of Shikha Chhabra and does not even have the right name (it's Shikha Chhabra). FYI, the other page is also up for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shikha Chhabra (2nd nomination)). Achaea (talk) 12:33, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even in Hindi, I am only see passing mentions, blogs, and unreliable sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. None of her credits appear to notable works themselves. Fails even the lowest bar we can set for notability. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:25, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not finding anything, SPA creator whose draft versions of these articles were repeatedly declined. --valereee (talk) 14:53, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails both general notability criteria, and notability criteria for actors. Also per Val. —usernamekiran(talk) 20:24, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.NotButtigieg (talk) 15:09, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. - MA Javadi (talk) 21:20, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails NACTOR and GNG Dartslilly (talk) 20:55, 4 January 2020 (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. Tobrother's opinion makes no sense and is discounted. Sandstein 19:42, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Debarati Dasgupta Sarkar[edit]

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

This page was created for a musician in India, but she appears to not meet our general notability guidelines. I've PRODded this one, but the creator of the page took down the prod after making some modifications to the page. Quick Google search does not turn up anything to meet GNG, and the only link on the page itself is a search for "Indian Idol" on Times of India - and this link does not meet muster in the slightest. -- Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 08:08, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I edited my opening. I apparently don't understand homonyms. =D --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 08:08, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:06, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:06, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable singer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:56, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why the article be deleted. If someone contributor is there to correct, then why he is not correcting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobrother (talk • contribs) 08:36, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- NOTE - The author of the article placed their comment at the very top of this AfD; I've moved it down in keeping with formatting. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:13, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Tobrother, the reason I'm recommending this for deletion was explained in my opening in here. To answer your question, read that. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:13, 2 January 2020 (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) 10:29, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shikha Chhabra[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article has been previously deleted, and created as a draft which has been rejected multiple times at AfC. It can't be returned to draft because the draft still exists with important rejection history. Searches fail to return anything other than the usual raft of social media sites. Fails WP:NACTOR Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:45, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Maybe you'll find notable sources in some Indian language. Maybe it is more suitable for the Hindi wikipedia?Pancho507 (talk) 07:51, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, Pancho507, I suppose there's even a case for saying this is the English Wikipedia and not the Indian Wikipedia in English! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:10, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:06, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:06, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:07, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails both general notability criteria, and notability criteria for actors. —usernamekiran(talk) 14:20, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG, cannot find any sources to confirm the information on the page, and awards/nominations seem to be for the films, not her personally. Only has roles in 2 small productions according to IMDb, so fails WP:NACTOR. Also, FYI, there's a duplicate page at Shikha Chabbra, which is also up for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shikha Chabbra. Achaea (talk) 12:38, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a copy of Shikha Chabbra, also up for deletion. SPA creator, drafts of these articles were repeatedly deleted. --valereee (talk) 14:56, 30 December 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. Nobody apart from the nominator supports deletion, and since we do not vote here, the opinion by Parksbows counts as much as any other. Sandstein 19:41, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PEPA (organization)[edit]

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

very local environmental group, no general notability DGG ( talk ) 10:42, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:51, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:51, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't see myself eligible to vote because I've created the page and my opinion might look biased, so I will humbly accept the opinion of the other experienced editors here. Yet, I wish to comment why I created the page: 1) It looks like the organization is more than 100 years old (under different name but still has the legacy) and its actions over that period of time seemed significant to me. Unfortunately, not all of the sources were accessible because many of them were archived in the old newspapers and libraries. I found what I could online, if anyone has access to other sources and wishes to help this project, I would appreciate it. 2) PEPA caught my attention because this organization has been fighting for a long time for the green environment and better Earth - all for the benefit of the future generations and I find during this dark time of ecological nihilism from many governments, this type of organization will have additional weight and significance for many good people among Wikipedia editors. 3) The organization (based in Purchase) never claimed its actions were local - it claims to be a US environmental agency eager to protect the rights of the US citizens. I believe that for at least part of its actions seem to have an impact across several US states, so it is for at least regional or multi-state.(New England?) 4)I replaced the link 11 with more appropriate one. If anyone wishes to help with more suggestions and links, you are more than welcome.--Parksbows (talk) 20:55, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:27, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I note that Parksbows is allowed to submit a recommendation here notwithstanding that they created this article. However, they are incorrect to say that PEPA "never claimed its actions were local". From the "about" page on its website: "The Purchase Environmental Protective Association (PEPA) is a 501 (c)(3) nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting the environment and preserving the character of our community. By monitoring development proposals and informing the public on local environmental issues facing Purchase and the local area, PEPA’s involvement and documentation of the historical, cultural, and natural features of its unique landscape serves as a vital resource to the community." (Emphasis added.) Technically, the organization's activities might extend into New England because New England includes Connecticut and Purchase, New York is very close to the Connecticut border, but I would not consider it a regional or multi-state organization. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:31, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi, Metropolitan90! I’m glad that someone have finally commented here. I’m allowed to comment thanks to the Wikipedia rules (and I’m even allowed to vote but I do not want to abuse this rule) and I think it is right because I can explain here the reasons behind the article’s creation. I find that Westchester County Airport initiative in collaboration with the other environmental organizations (the links are in the article) is a good indication that PEPA is not a local agency by the nature of its actions. Westchester Airport was supposed to have millions of passengers a year and thousands of airplane flights and every major international airport has a global effect. This fact puts PEPA’s initiative far beyond local and one state organization (not a small state I must confess). Another case, the New York state’s lawsuit in the Supreme Court was widely discussed by the newspapers. And here is the New York Times’ article from 2004 https://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/02/nyregion/footlights.html which speaks about PEPA’s history (87 years old agency by 2004) and its involvement with PepsiCo in the previous years. As I already told before, not all the sources were available to me and some of the sources about the organization might be found in the libraries and archives of the newspapers of the New York State. Let's hope that 2020 will be a better year for our planet's ecology! Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays everyone!!!--Parksbows (talk) 21:47, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:15, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:01, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Judging the sources given, it meets WP:ORGCRIT. The article could do with cleanup though. – DarkGlow (talk) 17:05, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep local environmental advocacy organization that has gotten some significant news coverage.NotButtigieg (talk) 12:39, 3 January 2020 (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 Oliver Fish. There is consensus to not keep this article, but there is no consensus to either delete or merge it. Redirection is a compromise, allowing content to be merged from the history if desired. Sandstein 19:36, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Fish and Kyle Lewis[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Now that's new. Not only we have a separate articles about fictional characters (twins) Oliver Fish and Kyle Lewis but we also have this article about them as a duo. Three is a bit too much, wouldn't you say so? References don't seem to support the notability of the duo (fails GNG). Delete or make into a disambig between those two (through KL is in such a poor shape that I prodded it anyway...)? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:01, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:01, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article duplicates the content of two different articles. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 06:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A notable couple in maybe the longest running soap opera on tv. Nom says they are prodding the very article this content would be merged to! If the content should be kept, it should; and the only debate is where to keep it, it is; then this was never a good AfD subject.

Perhaps instead a RfC to see what is the best outcome for all three subjects? Gleeanon409 (talk) 10:32, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This should definitely be merged with Oliver Fish because of the large overlap, but I am not sure which one shall be the merge target (the prodded Kyle Lewis has major PLOT issues and therefore seems out of the race). Since the characters' sexuality and relationship seem to be the reason why these characters are discussed at all by reliable sources, my argument would be to only leave this duo article up, or (one step further) merge it altogether into a parent article (I'd say One Life to Live storylines (2000–2013), if it wasn't ALLPLOT and hence AfD-prone itself). – sgeureka ^t•c 14:20, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are rare cases where a fictional couple is notable, such as Superman and Lois Lane. However this involves a couple who have existed in an active publication comic book for 81 years, who were shown on a date (well as Clark Kent and Lois Lane) in the very first iteration of that comic, whose marriage in the comic in 1996 was coordinated with their marriage on a TV show, who have been portrayed in at least 4 live action TV series (including the Arrowverse), 4 different live action films, and multiple animated TV series. That is the level of saturation you need to justify an article on two individuals who already have seperate articles, we do not have that here by any stretch of the imagination.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I do believe this content should be merged with the Oliver Fish and Kyle Lewis pages and that a standalone page for the two of them together isn't necessary; though I also think the PROD that Piotrus added to Kyle Lewis should be removed at least until a merge can be attempted. If at that point it still appears Kyle Lewis isn't notable, an AFD discussion can be held at that point. Gleeanon409 suggestion about an RfC about all three subjects might also be a good way to go here... — Hunter Kahn 15:50, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge, probably with Oliver Fish. The rise and fall of gay storylines on soap operas is an interesting reflection of changing cultural attitudes towards LGBT people in America. Toughpigs (talk) 21:09, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article should not become a redirect page, as it would be impossible to know which character the reader is searching for. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 19:19, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - simply a conglomeration of two existing articles. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:15, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given that one of the articles has been deleted, some more discussion on what should be done would be good.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:47, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Loving the gay representation I see before me, but a section on individual character articles would suffice. – DarkGlow (talk) 17:00, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A section where? Do you mean merge instead? Gleeanon409 (talk) 18:15, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete outright on the basis of the nomination and the comments above. This is the sensible choice, instead of merging or redirecting. -The Gnome (talk) 00:25, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Gnome: Why delete, rather than merge? Toughpigs (talk) 01:13, 4 January 2020 (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. I agree that Luther Aragones's comment is not clear. It also does not quite address the notability concerns and the rebuttals haven't been addressed either. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:24, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adolfo Lora[edit]

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

non-notable youtuber. All the sources I can find are WP:CHURNALISM (like freepressjournal.in and thestatesmen article), the rest are interviews/passing mentions or otherwise unreliable. Possibly a case of WP:TOOSOON Praxidicae (talk) 15:32, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable youtuber.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:37, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should take it into account and not be deleted, remember that it is a piece of article that has this material. I have also added more references to it.--Luther Aragones (talk) 18:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Luther Aragones Your comment makes no sense. What should be taken into account? What material? Praxidicae (talk) 18:16, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Praxidicae I am not contradicting myself in what I say. I referred to the material, say the article created, which is a piece of information and especially to evaluate the references added. Although taking into account this article there are many others that if they have any three references, this one has even more. Some are in an interview as he has said, but in the same way information about him. That is why I consider that it should be taken into account when applying this template.--Luther Aragones (talk) 00:32, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:43, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:45, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources either are not WP:RS or WP:IS (interviews). Subject fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG.07:39, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete It's easy to become successful on Youtube if you make the kind of content that most people want. Pancho507 (talk) 07:55, 29 December 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 19:34, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Berke[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to be notable at all. The only relevant Google result is this very article, suggesting a lack of reliable sources (or sources, period) about Berke other than the mere five already cited in the article. Also worth noting that not only is there a conflict of interest here, as the article was created by the late subject himself, but according to this comment he made, he apparently "want[ed] [his] story to mean something after [he was] gone" and "hope[d] [his] little notoriety as a transgendered person [would] help [him] to be heard on [his] way out from this world" - not a very good reason to create an article on yourself, wouldn't you agree? Vaporgaze (talk) 14:38, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Vaporgaze (talk) 14:38, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:59, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:59, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:00, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This all is at best local human interest level coverage. Nothing here justifies having an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:08, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The sole vote is basically a WP:PERX which fails WP:ATA.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ミラ P 22:38, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject was detailed in an Associated Press article, had two pieces of coverage that, while local, were still outside of subject's relevant geographic area of Colorado and Florida, and appeared on an MSNBC documentary. ミラ P 03:29, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:46, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete needs more widespread news coverage. Plus, every single one of us will be forgotten, sooner or later. Pancho507 (talk) 08:07, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Low level human interest story. There have been many instances of changing gender and then reversing it, I'm sure this qualifies as anything out of the ordinary. With the article created by the subject and the comment left on the Jbhunley's talk page it sounds like he was desperate to be remembered, best to use other websites for that kind of thing. Mattg82 (talk) 00:45, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete AfD's like this are always tough as I understand the want to establish the legacy of those who have passed, but Wikipedia not a memorial and the coverage of Berke is not at the level necessary to establish GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:25, 4 January 2020 (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. No prejudice against speedy renomination per relatively low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:35, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Overcast[edit]

Not a notable publication; not encyclopedically relevant.--NL19931993 (talk) 01:23, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:41, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:42, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NOTCLEANUP and sources do exist WP:NEXIST. Notable. The CBC covers it Lightburst (talk) 02:51, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find any RS to support its notability!--Saff V. (talk) 06:33, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 23:04, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:44, 29 December 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) 10:23, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All My Love, Alec Brock[edit]

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

Proposed deletion removed. No evidence found that this book meets General notability guideline or WP:NBOOK. As yet unreleased book lacking significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, merely affiliated websites, promotion, personal blogs, YouTube and commercial/cataloging websites that indicate existence, not notability. Article appears to have been created by the author of the book. It's possible the book may gather sufficient coverage once released, but for now it appears too soon for an encyclopedia entry. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:02, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:40, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The book has not yet been published, no justification for an article this soon.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:16, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I also didn't manage to find any coverage of the book in independent, reliable sources. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 07:28, 4 January 2020 (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:00, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Corey Campbell[edit]

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

Poorly sourced promotional piece by a WP:COI editor. Only one reference is in any way valid, and it's a minor mention. By the description in the article this guy is just getting known, mainly in Texas. Most of the rest of his "career" is "aspiring." So, at best, WP:TOOSOON unless substantial sourcing can be provided. JamesG5 (talk) 03:55, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article fails GNG. Let's walk through the references to display this. This article mentions him in 2 sentences, certainly not significant coverage. This article is an interview which is WP:PRIMARY. This isn't even an article but an image. And lastly, this is again, not an article. Overall, COI issues and fails GNG. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 04:07, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:38, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:38, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:38, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:54, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per HickoryOughtShirt?4. Not nearly enough significant coverage. Best, GPL93 (talk) 03:38, 5 January 2020 (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. The "delete" arguments are less numerous and weaker. The "delete" side argues that this was not an actual or serious assassination attempt. That may or may not be so, but it is not relevant for inclusion according to our policies and guidelines for articles about events. These rules are based on the amount, quality of an event's coverage in reliable sources, and its lasting importance. While there may well be arguments against keeping the article on these grounds, the "delete" side by and large does not make them. They also allege BLP problems, but these seem to be largely an issue of the title accusing the man concerned of attempted assassination, of which he was not in fact convicted. This can be remedied by renaming the article, and deletion is not required to resolve this problem. Sandstein 19:28, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Attempted assassination of Donald Trump[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Mention of this was recently removed from Donald Trump. While there is media coverage, this doesn't appear to be a serious act and politicians are constantly confronted with random threats. This wasn't a serious threat similar to Attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan. This was just some wish by a random guy, which has been built up via the media desire for buzz and clicks. ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:38, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 03:30, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 03:30, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - needs rework/expansion though to be Assassination threats against Donald Trump rather than just attempts, an expansion of List of United States presidential assassination attempts and plots in the same way that Assassination threats against Barack Obama is. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:41, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:08, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:08, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It may not have raised much of a fuss in the US, but it apparently did in the UK, enough to call for a change in the law. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:22, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Clarityfiend, I am curious if there were only calls or an actual change in the law. It should be covered if this article is kept. No comments on the merits of the AfD. Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBig Xrayᗙ 22:58, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems to cover WP:GNG. Sources looks ok.BabbaQ (talk) 09:12, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the article is comprehensively sourced and has clear notability given the extent of media coverage. The nominator's rationale does not refer to any of the reasons for deletion. McPhail (talk) 15:27, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This was not an assassination attempt, per the sources, the prosecutor, and the later words of the perpetrator after his psychotic episode subsided. If there's significant content it could be merged into relevant articles about mental health, jurisprudence, or other suitable subjects. Otherwise, mentions in the press do not describe an assassination attempt, and the same article could be written about thousands of non-notable prosecutions, all sourced about as well as this one. SPECIFICO talk 15:39, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- This is entirely inaccurate. At his trial, Sandford stated "I tried to take a gun from a policeman to shoot someone with, and I'm pleading guilty". McPhail (talk) 15:53, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - While that might confirm his intent, does this rise to an actual "assassination attempt"? Best case, this should be trimmed and listed in an article that outlines "threats" to Trump. This really seems to be a case of WP:UNDUE for this case that hasn't risen to any level of major focus by the media or even Trump himself. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 16:09, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - The incident received extensive coverage in the UK media. WP:UNDUE does not apply here - it is about balance within an article. McPhail (talk) 16:20, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - Nonsense. And don't mislead editors who are not fully familiar with the sources and the facts. He did not plead guilty to attempted murder. He was convicted of having had possession of a firearm. No assault. No attempted anything. You think perpetrators of attempts on the life of a US political figure get 6 months in minimum security? All the initial coverage as an "assassination attempt" was revised and discarded. The only issue the media ultimately covered here is how to treat a psychotic young Aspergers guy who had a breakdown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs) 17:19, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Sandford himself said, under oath, "I tried to take a gun from a policeman to shoot someone with". McPhail (talk) 17:29, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Not all shootings are murders or even attempts, and most murders are not assassinations. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:26, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        
        If that's all you've got, McPhail, you haven't got much. "Someone" is not Trump (did you miss that?) and your argument is only a little stronger if he referred to Trump elsewhere. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:18, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Following his release from prison, Sandford stated: "My friends had said Trump needed to be stopped. They said he was going to destroy the country — but it was the voices in my head which were telling me to kill him. Then one day I saw he was speaking in Las Vegas and I decided to drive there and do something myself." He also stated "The voices were telling me I needed to do a practice run before trying to kill Trump." McPhail (talk) 20:00, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        That source is a News Corp. tabloid not suitable for such content.See "The Sun" at RSN. SPECIFICO talk 04:12, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per my comments on the last AfD from three years ago: "Has received consistent coverage since it happened, enough so that the BBC aired a documentary on it six months later." We could argue about the seriousness of the attempt but that is totally unrelated to notability.LM2000 (talk) 16:17, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The documentary was not about assassination. SPECIFICO talk 17:20, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - The documentary is titled "The Brit Who Tried to Kill Trump". The BBC introduce it with the line "In June 2016, Michael Sandford, an unassuming 20-year-old from the quiet town of Dorking, Surrey, attempted to assassinate Donald Trump.". McPhail (talk) 17:29, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Tabloid garbage, promotional and primary for the documentary. Look at what you linked for a BLP discussion. Seriously? Here's the article that describes the documentary. It is about mental health, not assassination. [23]. SPECIFICO talk 17:40, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The incident passes WP:GNG and the article is well-sourced. No policy-grounded reason for deletion. — JFG ^talk 17:27, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well sourced article; didn't raise the needle in the US but seems to have been big in the UK. I do think a move could be useful however, perhaps Attempted attack of Donald Trump (2016), or Attempted attack on Donald Trump (While many sources call it an assassination, many more simply call it an attack, and it doesn't seem to rise to the level of many other assassination attempts). Other suggestions welcome. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:32, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- That's reasonable. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 21:40, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Well sourced, meets GNG, had an entire documentary created about it. If reliable sources are covering this, it deserves an article, so this needs to stay. Jdcomix (talk) 22:09, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jdcomix: Please examine the sources. The "whole documentary" was not about any assassination. It was about mental health, social services, and the courts. And it was just a cable/internet show that was slapped together and has vanished from public view. Like a segment of "Dateline" or "60 Minutes" in the USA. Also, if you'll look at the print media citations, they're all from the time immediately after the incident, before the facts were known and the charges were reduced to almost nothing. There has been no ongoing coverage or discussion of this inceident, because it's not notable. SPECIFICO talk 23:50, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I'm not opposed to renaming the article, but it's received enough coverage to keep the article. I'll probably start a move discussion on the talk page tonight or tomorrow morning when I think of a name. Jdcomix (talk) 23:52, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re-name. I think that the topic is keep-worthy, but the title just seems wrong. It's really very much different from the Reagan example. I haven't quite come up with a proper move target, but I think something along the lines of an "incident", or something like the examples given just above by CaptainEek, would be much better. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:27, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Possibly the title of the article could be changed, but the topic is notable, received extensive media coverage and has multiple reliable sources (The New York Times, Miami Herald, The Daily Telegraph, The Guardian, BBC News etc.) Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 00:05, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Re-name if kept. - Neither he nor anyone else was charged with or convicted of attempting to assassinate Trump or anyone else. But Wikipedia noneless uses a headline which unequivocally says there was an attempted assassination. I thought we were better than this. Moriori (talk) 00:10, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename. "Attempted assassination" is inaccurate and belittles actual attempted assassinations of presidents like Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, Harry Truman, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Teddy Roosevelt, all of whom had guns fired in attempts to kill them, and several of whom were wounded. In conclusion, this was a notable incident but not an actual attempted assassination. Worth noting is that attempted assassination of the president is a specific crime. Lynette Fromme was convicted of this though she never fired a bullet, and served 34 years in prison. This guy was not charged with attempted assassination, served six months on lesser charges, and was deported. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:34, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It may be more or less innocuous if it's properly renamed, but all the BLP disparaging descriptions of the incident would also need to be removed. Is it really notable when the only press coverage occurred right at the time of the incident and before the facts were understood. Many of the cited sources do not reflect the later descriptions of what happened. @McPhail: - Why did you create this article? What do you feel is notable about the incident? What brought it to your attention? I am not understanding your devotion to the current narrative in this article. SPECIFICO talk 02:48, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well sourced; no case for failing WP:NOT has been made. Not overly concerned about the name; in my ENGVAR "attempted assassination" is a reasonable description; but would prefer a rename or move discussion to be held on the article Talk page. How are we for precipitation of the frozen kind? - Ryk72 ^talk 02:44, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this should probably be WP:SNOW closed at this point. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:42, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We should resolve renaming, redirect, etc. No rush. SPECIFICO talk 15:59, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re-name if kept. Morimori is on the right path. Despite being relatively well-informed about that person's public events, the first I heard about this being considered an "assassination attempt" was when I learned of the existence of this article. The US Secret Service is very sensitive about attempts on the life of the chief executive of the US, & unless they label an event an "assassination attempt", I find it hard to consider that event one. And were it not for having an effect in UK public affairs, I'd go as far as question this event's notability. People get ejected from public events all of the time for various reasons. -- llywrch (talk) 17:17, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for sheer WP:BLP reasons. This entire article exists to accuse a named, otherwise-unknown living person of a major crime that he has not even been charged with, much less convicted of. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:26, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep Article easily passes WP:GNG, WP:EVENT and WP:SUSTAINED (albeit the longer term coverage was mostly in the UK). Sorry, and while assuming good faith on the part of the OP, this is not a close call. I strongly suggest a speedy close. Discussion of a possible name change can be carried out on the article talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:05, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
obvious delete The characterization of this as a serious assassination attempt is patently untrue and there's no "balance" to be achieved between political mouthpiece conservative sources and the rest of the world. On top of it the thing reeks of a certain kind of recentism since it was forgotten about in the US almost as soon as it had happened. The BLP angle is also considerable. Maybe a new article could be written with a more accurate focus on the UK ramifications, but this version of it needs to be gotten rid of, without a redirect. Mangoe (talk) 06:02, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in your comment represents a WP:PAG based argument for deletion as all of the issues you raise are essentially fixable. See also WP:Deletion is not cleanup. The article subject easily passes our notability guidelines. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:15, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Even though all the coverage happened within a year of the event and there's no identified topic for the article after cleanup? Asking you as an experienced Admin for guidance on this. SPECIFICO talk 16:19, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The news coverage was extensive and of sufficient duration to ring the WP:N bell. And Notability is not temporary. I do agree that whether this qualifies as an actual assassination attempt is debatable. Some sort of name change may be desirable. But that is not relevant to the question of whether or not this event passes our notability guidelines, which it clearly does. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:24, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion There is no question that the article passes our notability guidelines, but legitimate concerns have been raised as to whether or not the event in question was an actual assassination attempt. I would suggest that the article subject be broadened. There were at least two incidents during the campaign that involved Mr. Trump's security. This one and another where somebody tried to rush him. The latter one probably does not meet our guidelines for a stand alone article. There may have been others. I wasn't paying close attention to this sort of thing at the time. I would suggest that this page be broadened to cover security related incidents during Trump's 2016 presidential campaign. A new name could be applied reflecting the broader focus with this title being left as a redirect. Courtesy ping SPECIFICO, Mangoe, NatGertler

While I have no objection to their being an article on security issues during the Trump campaign, assuming that there is some source article that points to more than just one such incident (so that combining them isn't WP:SYNTH), I do have a strong objection to the current title being used as a redirect to that page. Again, this would be being used in Wikipedia voice to suggest that a living individual attempted an assassination that he has not been charged with, much less convicted of. Really, the page should be blanked even while this discussion continues. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:51, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think this was a security incident. It was a crazed kid flailing at a guard and knocked to the ground. That's all. He never got the gun, let alone did anything violent with or without it. I also question whether this had extensive or lasting coverage. One can find news reports of countless arrests and then more coverage at the time of the trial. In this case, the so-called "documentary" was a tabloid bit on a web channel run by BBC, now taken down, that dealt with mental health issues, not assassination. It's cruel that a single editor has written 90-95 percent of the text of an article that depicts this young man as a would-be assassain, and I'm stunned that the WP community is apparently content to publish this. SPECIFICO talk 17:22, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note that post-release Sandford has continued to acknowledge that his intent was to kill Trump. McPhail (talk) 19:56, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming it aligns with WP:BLP, perhaps the article should just be titled Michael Steven Sandford and then it discusses this incident and resulting attention appropriately. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 17:29, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That raises WP:BLP1E concerns. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:38, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. BLP1E would be a showstopper for an article about the young man. That said, someone trying to grab a gun from a police officer at a rally for a presidential campaign is definitely a security incident, whether they got the gun or not. I don't remember any, but if there were any incidents involving other candidates the article could even be broadened to Security incidents during the 2016 US Presidential Campaign or something similar. Whether or not the term assassination attempt could be retained in a redirect would depend on whether it was employed by reliable secondary sources. That's what we go by. Our personal opinions are neither here nor there. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:47, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there were other security incidents: Man charges security barricade at Trump rally in Dayton --ZimZalaBim ^talk 18:16, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After pondering BLP, specifically NAME and CRIME, I am inclined to think it would be best if the man's name was redacted from the article and replaced with appropriate pronouns. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:51, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think one difficulty we face is the lack of coverage once all the facts became known. Really all we have is the coverage of the sentencing at which the judge said he did not think the kid tried to commit a violent crime. Almost all the sources are from a period of confusion made worse by the kid's statements after he naively waived his Miranda Rights and the prosecutor was making inflated allegations that he and the grand jury soon dropped. SPECIFICO talk 19:59, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not an assassination attempt by far. Overall a non-notable incident not worthy of its own Wikipedia article.--Darwinek (talk) 20:57, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_White_House_intrusion should probably be deleted too, as it was clearly not an actual intrusion, rather it was merely an "undocumented visitor" 173.120.162.159 (talk) 02:16, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as the gun wasn't in the hands of the person & wasn't even pointed at Trump. GoodDay (talk) 00:31, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because of the many sources discussing the incident. The name of the article is not a reason for deletion, as it can be changed if necessary. Personal beliefs about what does and does not constitute an attempted assassination are irrelevant. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 00:34, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rename if kept. I have always thought this incident did not deserve an article, but discusssnts here make a good case for GNG based on the coverage in the UK. However the incident certainly does not warrant the title "Assassination attempt". I think the suggestion above for an article "threats against" similar to the one about Obama was excellent, and should be done if the article is kept (on which I am now neutral). MelanieN alt (talk) 17:13, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 15:08, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well-sourced, reasonably high-profile crime. Dimadick (talk) 17:30, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but merge to Donald Trump without redirect, rename if kept. I think it shouldn't have a stand-alone page per WP:NOTNEWS. This is a minor incident, and yes, of course it received press coverage, but I don't think it passes the WP:10YEARTEST. I think the amount of content devoted to this minor incident in a stand-alone article is WP:UNDUE, and the content instead properly belongs at the biography of Donald Trump (or maybe one of the child articles, like about his campaign), and so it should be merged. I do not think there should be a redirect, because this title is totally bogus. If the article is kept, I support renaming it, as it was not an assassination attempt and is not described as such by the consensus of reliable sources. The page, with this title, should be deleted, because we are giving readers the false impression that there was an assassination attempt on Donald Trump's life. – Levivich 04:19, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly notable per SIGCOV. Any such incident related to a POTUS in notable. Lightburst (talk) 04:33, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename as the largest BLP violation I think I've ever seen here -- the title virtually accusing a named living individual of a crime they have not been charged with, when a court found them guilty of disorderly conduct. Sitting here writing this, I'm tempted to boldly blank the page or redact the individual's name, but that'd probably be unnecessarily disruptive. What about "2016 Trump rally pistol-grabbing incident", or Security Incident titles as suggested above. Feoffer (talk) 12:21, 5 January 2020 (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 The Watchmen (band). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:22, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Tizzard[edit]

Fails WIKI:GNG.--NL19931993 (talk) 02:01, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:28, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:28, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:28, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Watchmen (band), the band he's most notable for. While "was a member of two notable bands" is a notability criterion in NMUSIC, it isn't one that exempts the person from actually having to have any real sources — but the only reference being cited here at all is a glancing namecheck of his existence in a 122-word blurb about one of his two bands, not a source that's substantively about him for the purposes of establishing his independent notability. A solo album also isn't an automatic inclusion freebie either, but still depends on having reliable sources. There are things here that would be valid notability claims if the article were properly sourced — but there's nothing that's so "inherently" notable that he would be exempted from having to get over GNG on the sourcing just because of what the article says. Bearcat (talk) 13:45, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:09, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:22, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 14:13, 4 January 2020 (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) ミラ P 04:23, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Hsu[edit]

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

Non notable actor failing WP:NACTOR, WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG Celestina007 (talk) 04:49, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 04:49, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 04:49, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 04:49, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:18, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:18, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:34, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This actor meet WP:NACTOR#1 - he has starred the leading role in 2019 drama Some Day or One Day [25], and also starred a main role in 2016 drama Q Series: Love of Sandstorm. He has been nominated Best Supporting Actor at the 52nd Golden Bell Awards. Idolmm (talk) 08:23, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:11, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable appearances and sourcing. Seems like an clear keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CmdrGibbons (talk • contribs) 14:15, 28 December 2019 (UTC) block evasion[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:22, 29 December 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.