Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 February 21

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 20 February	22 February >

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 redirect to List of recurring Monty Python's Flying Circus characters#Gumbys. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:38, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gumbys[edit]

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

MY BRAIN HURTS! No Inadequate references. Tagged as needing references since 2012. My own searching finds mostly Monty Python fan sites and other non-WP:RS. The one WP:RS I found was an article in The Telegraph, but that's essentially an interview, and doesn't really have anything on which we could base an article. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:30, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the article is based on the content of the show. That's all readily available as a primary source. Are you saying some of the shows have been lost? Or are you arguing that there are just not enough secondary sources, as per WP:PLOT? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:36, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:13, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:13, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nomination claims that the article has no references when it had two references. It is therefore apparent that the page in question has not been properly read or understood. The search for sources was likewise inadequate. There are, in fact, excellent sources out there for this and the page just needs work per WP:iMPERFECT. Andrew D. (talk) 00:41, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated my nomination to indicate that the references, while not zero, are inadequate to show that this meets WP:N distinct from Monty Python as a whole. Yes, I know, AfD is not cleanup, but after seven years and no improvement, I pretty much assume it's never going to happen. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:14, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith is presumably talking about the banner tag but that is useless clutter, contrary to our core policy of WP:V which expects citations only for quotations and controversial statements. The article has had thousands of readers in that time but the lack of specific complaints and {{cn}} tags indicates that the readership has been reasonably satisfied with the stated facts. There was a brief query about the Steve Jones matter in 2007 but notice that an editor added cited content ten years later. So, we see that it can take more than seven years for an issue to resolve and so RoySmith's assumption is evidently false. Of course, to get the article to a uniformly good state would require much more effort but 99% of our articles are less than good and that's accepted because no-one is paying for this work to be done. The topic is entertaining but far from vital. By raising this matter, the nominator is diverting editors such as myself from more pressing and important topics such as the decline in insect populations and biodiversity loss. This topic is a lesser priority and so this discussion should be speedily closed to avoid further waste of time and effort. Andrew D. (talk) 18:21, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Monty Python's Flying Circus Putting aside the logically flawed WP:HARMLESS argument by Andrew D. this article is obvious WP:FANCRUFT. There is little evidence of independent notability in secondary sources and the information can easily be contained within the parent article._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:24, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - while List of recurring Monty Python's Flying Circus characters is entirely unreferenced, I think the topic is clearly sourceable (beyond the implicit sourcing to the show itself) and notable - that page would be the best redirect target. They're certainly mentioned in books about Monty Python, such as [1]. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:48, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Keepers should identify multiple sources that include significant coverage (not just mentions). Failing that, merge to List of recurring Monty Python's Flying Circus characters. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:57, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of recurring Monty Python's Flying Circus characters: The subject appears to have limited notability and the list appears to be the best target. I agree with Finnusertop's comment. Aoba47 (talk) 17:21, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of recurring Monty Python's Flying Circus characters. Per Aoba47. Sensible solution given lack of referencing (will also improve referencing of List of recurring Monty Python's Flying Circus characters). This article has no long-term future as standalone. Britishfinance (talk) 20:40, 28 February 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.

p.s. were there any images in that article that should be merged? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:55, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:39, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Prati[edit]

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

No significant independent coverage in reliable sources. Going through the 20 sources provided in this article will leave you with almost no information about the subject other than that they have been the executive of investment firms and that they are quoted for investment advice. I wasn't able to find anything better in an internet search.

Additionally, this article was moved to draft by MER-C with the message Article created by blocked sockpuppeteer that has hallmarks of covert advertising. Needs review at WP:AFC. only for it to be moved back to mainspace 10 days later by a brand new account. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:26, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:14, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:14, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this spam, and salt because the spammers show no signs of giving up easily. MER-C 10:22, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, trivial promo piece. Wikipedia is not a Florida newspaper. Kierzek (talk) 16:57, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, and as failing the significant coverage test. The sources are shallow (a mere listing), local, or unreliable (prwire, businesswire). Bearian (talk) 20:03, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt given lack of RS and previous deletions. --DannyS712 (talk) 21:13, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Not even borderline. Protect and salt title "Richard Prati (businessman)" as well; we have a very determined sock here. Britishfinance (talk) 22:20, 28 February 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) DannyS712 (talk) 00:39, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sanchari Mondal[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR due to fewer major roles that she starred in and nothing else. Sheldybett (talk) 21:34, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 21:53, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 21:53, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 21:53, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 21:53, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 21:53, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some references. Multiple acting credits. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:14, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passes WP:NACTOR with multiple roles in notable productions and now has reliable sources references added to the article so it does need to be deleted in my view, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 14:44, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NACTOR Lapablo (talk) 18:46, 22 February 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:39, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Donald W. Martin[edit]

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

Wholly unsourced article. I am not finding any indepth independent coverage. OK, he was named to the American Philatelic Society Hall of Fame but, looking here it is not a particularly exclusive honour. I am also not seeing any tangible achievement in the field of philately. Fails WP:BIO. Just Chilling (talk) 21:42, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:14, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Draftify. Sole link given as reference is broken. Can't find any single RS (outside of sites that are really copies of his Wiki article). Could also just Redirect to American Philatelic Society Hall of Fame, where he is listed. Britishfinance (talk) 21:26, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:26, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett (talk) 21:31, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 21:54, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 21:54, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ,or can be put in draft, not enough sources, Alex-h (talk) 09:04, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - having searched for sources, I've found nothing about this Donald W Martin - several others, including a computer science professor/author who may actually be notable, but not this chap. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:06, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of sources. PhilKnight (talk) 04:33, 1 March 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:50, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nao Fujita[edit]

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

Not Notable person per Wikipedia:BIO. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 16:11, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I uncovered no good sources online. 66.198.222.67 (talk) 16:46, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:20, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:20, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question for nominator @CAPTAIN MEDUSA: Given that the subject may meet WP:NACTOR#1, what do you think of the verifiable roles listed in this article as well as other language Wikipedia articles on this subject, which you presumably reviewed as part of WP:BEFORE? Bakazaka (talk) 00:51, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bakazaka: I did a Google search about Nao Fujita and I couldn't find any sources about her, also article doesn't cite any sources only IMDB and Anime News Network's encyclopedia that's is the reason why I request for deletion. --___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 16:02, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@CAPTAIN MEDUSA: WP:N is clear: "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article". So that's not a valid reason for deletion. Could you please respond to the question about WP:NACTOR#1? Bakazaka (talk) 16:17, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bakazaka: Her article on Japanese wiki have sources, however most of the sources have dead links and any of the sources listed only mention her name on the movie listing websites. The sources only mention her name nothing else. --___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 16:26, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@CAPTAIN MEDUSA: We seem to be talking past each other. Focusing on the subject, do you think she "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" (WP:NACTOR#1) or not? Bakazaka (talk) 16:35, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bakazaka: She has some roles in notable film however her name isn't mentioned in any of the articles. --___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 16:53, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@CAPTAIN MEDUSA: If she has significant roles in multiple notable films, then she passes WP:NACTOR#1. Bakazaka (talk) 17:09, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article lacks adequate sourcing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:58, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:10, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep probably. I do see sources which confirm some roles she has voiced in anime (on Anime News Network, as news items, amazingly). If there are sources that confirm the roles she has voiced in live-action films, then she is certainly notable, per WP:NACTOR#1. I expect there are sources, in Japanese, even if the sources currently in the Japanese Wikipedia article are dead or unreliable. It would be good if someone who reads Japanese could search. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:38, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 12:25, 14 February 2019 (UTC)·[reply]

Delete I don't see any notable roles in notable productions. Of the ones listed only The Promised Neverland has an article here and she has a supporting role (not main character) in that one. So she would not meet WP:ENT. No sourcing provided to indicate otherwise. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:00, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reasons same as RebeccaGreen. We could work on this article to expand it.
Sincerely,
Masum Reza^talk 12:48, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 20:37, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep agree with RebeccaGreen. Hninthuzar (talk) 12:23, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some of the roles are notable, therefore the person passes the subject specific notability guidelines for voice actors. Dream Focus 17:07, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although I'm prepared to be convinced otherwise. For the keep !voters, what are her multiple significant roles? For every notable production it always seems like she's playing a bit role. For example it looks like she played Asta in Black Clover...but only during the scenes when he was 6. She's in Granblue Fantasy… but only as villager C. I can see that she works regularly, but she feels like the seiyuu equivalent of a session musician. As I said though, I'm prepared to be proved wrong. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 19:11, 28 February 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:51, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sumit Baudh[edit]

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO and/or WP:GNG.

He is an academic but fails WP:NACADEMIC comprehensively. Being an associate professor is not remotely notable and I spot no reviews of his works/scholarship across journals et al. Working as Research-fellows et al doesn't count either.

Now, the aspects of Dalit activism et al:-

There are news-pieces about Sec-377 decriminalisation in India; wherein he serves as (sort of) a spokes-person for a NGO, working in the field. Not a single news piece covers him in any minimal manner. Just a one-line byte and that's all.

Incidentally, Hard news' is not a RS.

He writes opinion-columns over Indian express but that's coverage by him; not about him.

Now his art-works:-

This and this review just covers the broader event and name-drops Sumit as a participant (along with several others).
This is more worse; being a list that contain hundreds of names without any more info.
The Tribune piece devotes trivial coverage to his performance, over an event; that they covered. Hardly; a significant review of Sumit's performance.
A three-line review of Baudh's sound sculpture in the context of a broader event. ∯WBG^converse 13:12, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 13:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 13:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 13:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 13:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 20:36, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete as WP:TOOSOON. I really want to support its inclusion, but the coverage is too shallow. We almost always delete an article for an associate professor, with very rare exceptions. As as artist, he's never shown in a major art venue, although the Frieze Art Fair comes close. I'm sorry. Bearian (talk) 20:09, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete as no enough sources to prove his notability for inclusion here. almost all the sources mentioned as citations in this article are actually produced by him only, like his statements, events which he was part of or his publications etc. QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} 12:50, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Oppressor. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:39, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As Blood Flows[edit]

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

This demo album fails WP:NALBUM Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:42, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:15, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:35, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 03:15, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not enough coverage , Alex-h (talk) 09:07, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Fails NMUSIC - redirect to Oppressor#Demos (while removing the wikilink there to avoid a circular redirect) GirthSummit _(blether) 17:57, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Oppressor - plausible search term. PhilKnight (talk) 05:03, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn as Carlotta actually does have impacts. I will attempt to make a decent article for the storm during the next couple weeks. (non-admin closure) Noah^Talk 16:37, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Storm Carlotta (2018)[edit]

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

Had no notable impact whatsoever (no damages or deaths). The storm was not long-lived or notable in any other manner. Carlotta simply does not deserve its own article. Noah^Talk 19:38, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 21:14, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Redirect No significant damage, but the article title is still of good use. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 22:01, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:15, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to 2018 Pacific hurricane season#Tropical Storm Carlotta Nate • (chatter) 01:14, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into season section per lack of notability, keep current title as a redirect. ~ KN2731 {t · c} 03:45, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Has anyone done any searches for mexico flooding or similar? My suspicion is that NHC may have missed something.Jason Rees (talk) 23:42, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jason Rees: Looks like a flooding event that fits the timeframe caused deaths, but I can't verify if the two are connected. Noah^Talk 04:47, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Janus v. AFSCME. As the biography of a living person notable due to a single event, there is consensus to redirect. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:02, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Janus[edit]

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

An article on this person was previously redirected to Janus v. AFSCME, but a user has since expanded the article with links about Janus himself. However, this separate article accomplishes little more than a promotion of Janus's work history and current advocacy, none of which has received media notice to confer notability. Janus was involved in a notable court case, and all verifiable information on his involvement is already covered at Janus v. AFSCME. Recommend either deletion of this title or a permanent redirect to the case's article with protection against reversion. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:29, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:30, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:16, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:16, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Janus v. AFSCME would be the best.TH1980 (talk) 03:21, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree: please see next point -- Aboudaqn (talk) 16:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (Article author): I have asked whoever started this Deletion request by specifying shortcomings in the "Mark Janus" entry via that entry's Talk page. Instead, this person is willing to take up everyone's time and push back and forth by inserting "Deletion," when this person could be spending same time by specifying any shortcomings. I do not think this Stub entry has shortcomings per Deletion notice. For anyone who disagrees, again, please specify nature of shortcomings, and I will happily address. However, I find the very idea that a person very visible in a major 2018 SCOTUS decision could possibly be worthy of deletion for a Stub article! Aboudaqn (talk) 16:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Author comment. Erroneous call for "Deletion": Responding to the reason cited for deletion, "Deletion" does not apply to what this person is claiming, namely a lack of "balance." Further, this person clearly did not read entry carefully -- because there are highly critical statements about Janus from unions including AFSCME (of Janus v. AFSCME). Had this person merely collaborated, rather than bully and threaten me, we would not be here, wasting time. Instead, we could all be expanding that Stub, etc. Aboudaqn (talk) 17:07, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Author comment. Non-collaboration by Deletion nominator: The Deletion nominator has refused to collaborate directly with my open, inviting requests for specification. I find this reaction non-collaborative and ask that others join me in having Deletion requester stop spending time negatively on "fighting" and start spending time in addressing my own collaborative requests. Clearly, this Stub entry has plenty of newspapers/news citations to merit that it remains. Frankly, I suspect the nominator is simply too embarrassed to admit that she/he mis-read or under-read the entry and now cannot "back down" and collaborate instead. Please help me convert this person into a positive contributor to Wikipedia. Aboudaqn (talk) 16:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Author comment. Threaten rather than collaborate: After asking for the "plaintiff" in this "case" against an entry for Mark Janus, I asked the plaintiff to work directly with me on the Talk page of "Mark Janus" to specify any issues. As is so common with complainers on Wikipedia, this person decided not to collaborate. Instead, this person threatened me with the following entry on my own talk page " Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to remove Articles for deletion notices or comments from articles and Articles for deletion pages, you may be blocked from editing." This is non-collaborative, unnecessary, and time-consuming for the complainer, for me, and for everyone this complainer drags into the Deletion debate. Had this person bothered to specify issues and allow me time to address, then I would have respected her/his decision to escalate for Deletion. But when I show myself responsive, welcoming, and collaborative, only to receive her/his threat, well, that is a turn-off for Wikipedian contributors such as myself. Please address the Plaintiff. (Sadly, this is not the first time I encounter someone who would rather engage in tug-of-war to get her/his way rather than collaborate: sadly, a number of Wikipedians exhibit desire to appear authoritative rather than as equals) Aboudaqn (talk) 16:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Author comment. Stub: This is a "stub," folks -- please feel free to add! Aboudaqn (talk) 16:25, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Aboudaqn was the user that expanded the page from a redirect to an article --DannyS712 (talk) 16:31, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: And DannyS712 is the person who has nominated Stub for deletion Aboudaqn (talk) 16:50, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Aboudaqn A few things. First, you really need to read edit summaries, warnings and deletion notices. Second, I have never, ever, so much as touched this article until today when you triggered several filters for improperly removing an WP:AFD tag which very clearly and explicitly states he article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed in big bold letters. You're not new here, so there really is no excuse for edit warring to remove a deletion discussion. Third, stop with the legalese. I'm not a plaintiff, I'm not even an interested editor and I certainly didn't nominate this article for deletion, as you can plainly see above. And I left you an edit summary and warning the second time clearly explaining what you needed to do. I expect you will strike your last comment as it's not even remotely true and you're well into WP:NPA territory now. Thanks. Praxidicae (talk) 17:02, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you. I have made the change to DannyS712, as you request (and welcome the correction).Aboudaqn (talk) 17:20, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would be grateful if you would reply to my other points, too -- even better, please either specify actual deficiencies, and, best, simply collaborate and help make this Stub into something more. Again, had DannyS712 and now you taken a collaborative approach, none of us would be here, and Mark Janus might somehow already be a better Wikipedia Stub or fuller entry. Aboudaqn (talk) 17:20, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Aboudaqn I explained everything I did in full. You however are still failing to grasp what anyone here is saying and are still wrong. Danny isn't even the nominator and so far as I can tell, has not touched the article aside from maintenance to this AFD. I suggest you strike all of your personal attacks regardless of who they are about as not only is it against policy, they are utterly unfounded and no one wants to start their weekend off at ANI. If you want to talk collaboration, I suggest you read the helpful links you've been given and the responses to your many inquiries. As far as "this person hasn't bothered to specify issues" you're also wrong, as it's explained in the AFD, this very page you are commenting on, why the nominator, who is neither myself nor DannyS712, believes this should be deleted. Praxidicae (talk) 17:25, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Praxidicae: Yes, indeed Friday, and I do not see (1) where you replied to issues above, e.g., call for Deletion was incorrect in first place (2) nor do I understand still how Stub is deficient when it (a) it has plenty of News and Newspaper sources and (b) exhibits balance. So, please specify clearly specifically what you would like to see added to improve -- better, make the improvement yourself, as I do not see deficiency, and so close out this whole issue yourself. Or, would you rather suck up time like this, not make the changes, and so let this Stub die rather than contribute to the common good? Gratefully -- Aboudaqn (talk) 18:04, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - PS: All I'm getting here from instructions like "go read" is "go get me a rock... get me another rock." Again, why not save time and effort and say exactly which rock is in mind? Better, put that rock right where you want it yourself -- faster! Aboudaqn (talk) 18:19, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Janus v. AFSCME. Even though the subject has received additional coverage for his employment subsequent to the case, that information is only of interest because of his participation in the case. So, while the subject may be notable, placing information in needed context is a better service to readers than creating a standalone article (see WP:NOPAGE). The additional information about the subject's subsequent employment already exists in Janus v. AFSCME as the single sourced sentence it merits. Bakazaka (talk) 21:17, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to case. That is the notable subject, not Janus.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:05, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from Nominator - Ahem...This sure has turned into a bizarre discussion. I was the person who nominated the article for deletion, as can be clearly seen above. Praxidicae and DannyS712 merely reverted some improper edits by Aboudaqn that violated Wikipedia policy. As the nominator, if I have been accused of "refusing to collaborate" with Aboudaqn's requests, I have not been on Wikipedia since yesterday because I have a job and a life and such. The reasons for my nomination are clear in my original comment and nobody is required to satisfy Aboudaqn demands just because he/she wants the article to survive and doesn't even know who should be yelled at for doing what. Now it's time to let the consensus process play out. You get one vote, and so does everyone else. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:11, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per status quo antebellum; recent additions verge on the unencyclopaedic and the promotional. Incidentally, I have de-bolded some of Aboudaqn's text above in the interests of WP:BLUDGEON: we get the picture. ——SerialNumber54129 18:39, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Author comment. counter-Deletion requirements satisfied: This Stub now includes citations from books, newspapers (including the New York Times), magazines, Google Scholar. It also adds details from Janus' earlier life and career, as well as his career after Janus v. AFSCME. Aboudaqn (talk) 19:50, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Janus v. AFSCME - Janus is not notable himself, but he is know for his role in "Janus", so the redirect is useful --DannyS712 (talk) 19:55, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Janus v. AFSCME. His notability outside of this case is "contrived" at best (and the text does not seem appropriate for WP). Britishfinance (talk) 20:17, 28 February 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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 19:26, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LLH Hospital[edit]

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

not separately noable, my merge to the main firm was reverted by an editor working only on that firm and its subsidiaries DGG ( talk ) 09:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 09:14, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 09:14, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 09:14, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 09:14, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 09:14, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable enough for it's own article. It does not pass WP:GNG standalone. Skirts⁸⁹ 17:05, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:13, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. I also note that much of it makes no sense; see its discussion of "weqaya". It's only 11 years old as an institution, just one of many hospitals in the region. The sourcing is terrible. Bearian (talk) 20:14, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment, have just added this afd to architecture afd list as the building looks pretty impressive, anyway its very shiny, "yes coola, we know that as a wikikit you like shiny things. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:26, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Shininess notwithstanding (Sorry coola!), I can't find much in the way of independent CORPDEPTH-level sourcing indicating notability. The article itself looks promotional - services offered, awards won - not that that's a deletion criterion, but the article would need improvement and the sources don't appear to be there to do it. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:17, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 16:04, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

M. Santhi Ramudu[edit]

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

Not a notable person. His name hardly appeared in the citations or references provided. The sources provided in the article do not show how he meets WP:GNG. The article looks very much like a promotional effort (just like most of the sources quoted are). Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promotion. MRRaja001 talk 8:56 am, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This nomination was previously subject to procedural errors, and was only properly opened today
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 04:27, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 04:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 04:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 04:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable, fails WP:GNG. Skirts⁸⁹ 17:06, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 18:58, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: let's analyse the sources...

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
http://www.appecma.org/officebearers.aspx	? 404	? 404	? 404	? Unknown
http://www.fcnindia.org/	No immediate link.	? Unfamiliar with publication.	Doesn't mention him.	✘ No
http://rgmcet.edu.in/chairman-desk/	? 404	? 404	? 404	? Unknown
http://www.srcpnandyal.com/Chairman-Awards-Achivements.php	Part of the Santhi Ram / Santhiram group which he founded.	? Unfamiliar with their work.	By virtue of affiliation.	✘ No
https://jntuadap.ac.in/chairperson/09/RGIT	? 404	? 404	? 404	? Unknown
http://www.smart.ap.gov.in/myvillage/jsp/supervisor/villageprofile/villageprofile.jsp?state=1,AndhraPradesh&district=8,Kurnool&constituency=105,Nandyal&mandal=571,Nandyal&panchayat=10501,Polur&selectionkey=panchayat&back=index	? 404	? 404	? 404	? Unknown
https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/andhra-pradesh/engg-colleges-launch-placement-website/article7751396.ece	Newspaper.	Seems reliable.	Mentions him once, it's about the launch of a website.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

...overall a clear WP:GNG failure. SITH (talk) 19:13, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that a source should not be dismissed as a 404 without attempted fixing at internet archive, archive is, and webcite, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 15:19, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteI had a look for sources giving better coverage, but I'm not finding them. Lots of hits where he's mentioned in passing ("Thanks go to honourable Chairman M. Santhi Ramudu..."), but no significant coverage of the man himself. Fails GNG GirthSummit _(blether) 19:29, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I did not find the significant independent coverage required to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 17:41, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I cannot see enough for notability here. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:51, 25 February 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) SITH (talk) 09:55, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

13th Asian Film Awards[edit]

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

"The ceremony was held on March 17, 2019..." This is the very definition of WP:CRYSTAL. SITH (talk) 18:52, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:02, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:03, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:03, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CRYSTAL. The Asian Film Awards are notable, and the 13th ceremony has been mentioned here. Furthermore, there is hardly a possibility that this ceremony won't happen. WP:CRYSTAL #1 says, "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." I see no reason to doubt this, and the nominations are useful to show until the ceremony itself takes place. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An accidental mistype of past tense where future tense should be is not the basis for a deletion of an article (it looks like they merely copied the lede/infobox/cats from the 2018 article, but forgot to change some past tenses). Quickly fixed, event is happening. Nate • (chatter) 01:12, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If the nominations are out, its cancellation will be more notable than the actual event, keep either way. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 08:59, 22 February 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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 19:26, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Julien Noah Solomita[edit]

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

Non-notable vlogger who's primary claim of notability is dating someone famous and as a result, almost all coverage of him is related to that (and questionably coverage at that.) Also a protection evasion of Julien Solomita Praxidicae (talk) 16:25, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 16:40, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 16:40, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 16:40, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 16:40, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete it's a little misleading to claim that Solomita's primary claim is just that they're dating someone famous (Jenna Marbles), as they also co-host a podcast with said famous person. That having been said, the podcast, the Jenna & Julien show, does not appear to be itself notable (this was all I could find), so delete still feels like the correct decision. If that podcast were notable, I would vote to redirect there. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:48, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, neither subject nor podcast seem notable. Hughesdarren (talk) 21:20, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SIGCOV. gNews search [2] produces a mere handful of few mentions. Sources on page don't add up to notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:40, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per a WP:BEFORE search, I couldn't find anything that would count as a reliable source other than him being listed as a finalist in the Shorty Awards and how he helped another youtuber gain followers with his girlfriend. I also don't see that he's known with his middle name; I think that's because Julien Solomita is salted. Subject does not pass GNG. --Kbabej (talk) 18:14, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. 300 million hits and is only RS is the depreciated source The Daily Mail, where he only gets passing mentions. At least, unlike many other you-tube stars he does get Daily Mail coverage. When will the penny drop regarding the disconnect between "millions of faked hits" and being a ghost in even the media-obsessed RS. Britishfinance (talk) 12:29, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 15:56, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alessio Picciarelli[edit]

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

WP:BLP1E. Club is bankrupt, fields seven "real" players and a physio, loses 20-0, and is expelled from the league, with the physio banned for one year. Which makes this a clear WP:BLP1E (he is not a pro player, he won't play in a professional team ever again in all likelihood), and a purely negative one to boot. Fram (talk) 14:12, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 16:46, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 16:46, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 16:46, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:BLP1E indeed. Ineligible physio takes the field (since the club couldn't field the minimum required players - seems like you need at least 7 to play - they fielded a bunch of teenagers and still couldn't get enough players on) - questionable whether this counts as a cap. Coverage of Picciarelli limited to this event (and not all that much of this). I would also suggest that this incident suggest that not all teams in Serie C are fully professional all the time (to wit this club in this match at least) - and thus should be struck from WP:FPL. Icewhiz (talk) 17:00, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:03, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to A.S. Pro Piacenza 1919#2019 bankruptcy as possible search target, and mention him there. Certainly doesn't merit a standalone article. Giant Snowman 11:05, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I really don't see the point for a redirect I hardly think anyone will lookup this guy by name. Fails, WP:GNG. Govvy (talk) 11:56, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect per GiantSnowman. Definately does not merit a BLP per WP:BLP1E (and a pretty minor BLP1E at that). Britishfinance (talk) 12:26, 28 February 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:32, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Advantage Lithium[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. A search returns trade listings and no WP:SIGCOV before generic articles on the advantages of lithium batteries. PROD contested by a WP:SPA IP. Cabayi (talk) 09:23, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 09:24, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 09:24, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 09:53, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom, for failing WP:NCORP. Ifnord (talk) 17:12, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. This is a puff piece more than anything.TH1980 (talk) 03:24, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I read NCORP above, and it fails. HPlilly (talk) 20:18, 25 February 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 15:28, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clare Ward[edit]

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

Not notable. The sources I've found all relate to her appointment as CIO of Kenya Airways WP:BLP1E. The sources cited are Business Daily which clearly states "Briefs & Press Releases" at the head of the article, LinkedIn (WP:UGC), and a speaker bio from an upcoming conference (presumably self-penned). Cabayi (talk) 09:07, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 09:07, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 09:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 09:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:07, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is essentially a CV. I couldn't find any articles dealing with any significant past actions, and while there are numerous mentions of her taking her current position, they are either more statements about the airline's personnel than of her, or simply puffery. LovelyLillith (talk) 01:14, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per LovelyLillith, smacks of self-promotion and a vanity article. W C M_email 12:24, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Bio-spam for a non-notable executive. Britishfinance (talk) 12:24, 28 February 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. FWIW I've used OTRS here, but I don't consider myself any more involved than I would on an AfD about Excel or microwaves. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:17, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS[edit]

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

The article currently has no citations outside of the infobox (and the infobox itself only cites the official website). The text itself is very badly written as well. Quick google doesn't turn up any RSes. Gaelan 💬✏️ 08:48, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As written, it does fail WP:N. But I found a few sources that suggest keeping is warranted: 1) dedicated academic conference paper 2) [3] another highly related, seems to be in a journal ([4]) 3) [5] academic theses on the topic. There seems to be a bit more on GScholar, overal, the academic treatment of this is likely sufficient for keeping. The nom should Google Scholar, not just Google, in the future. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:06, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:34, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. My Google Scholar search for OTRS along with "change management" has over 100 hits. [6] The article may be poorly referenced but it's certainly notable. Ifnord (talk) 17:16, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly has real world notability and plenty of coverage exists. --Michig (talk) 08:26, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is certainly notable. Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 21:53, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but cleanup. There appears to be a German-language O'Reilly book on this software, which is clearly non-trivial coverage. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:44, 24 February 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 15:28, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Buczek[edit]

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

Deleted as vanity bio few years ago, recreated with some new refs/content, but it seems to still fail WP:CREATIVE. Since the last bio was deleted, he has gotten one new documentary out, and received a minor Japanese award. Neither of those seem to push him into being notable - no in-depth coverage, not (even) major reviews of his works, no indication he is considered influential in the field, and so on. WP:TOOSOON, a bit less so than 5 years ago, but still notability fail. Thoughts? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:43, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:31, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:31, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:31, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there's not a single reliable source for this BLP. Bearian (talk) 20:23, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:44, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Jon Levy (behaviorist). (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:52, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The 2 AM Principle: Discover the Science of Adventure[edit]

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

Hasn't received substantial coverage or reviews, only book by a barely notable author. JesseRafe (talk) 21:11, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:15, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Has potential for a merge, so Selective Merge to Jon Levy (behaviorist); a functional WP:ATD that would improve the suggested merge target article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:45, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. No storng feelings eitherway here except that the book has been mentioned in some decent quality tier 2 (maybe tier 4 in one case) sources Fortune, Observer, Times of Israel, New York Post, and Vogue. Certainly no New York Times or Washington Post type references, but these are still popular widely-read sources. Would a casual reader expect to see an article on the book in WP having read about it in these sources. Probably yes in my view. Britishfinance (talk) 20:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 01:21, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 04:35, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I too have no strong feelings here, but in the interest of trying to obtain consensus, I'll agree to the merge mentioned above. The book does not achieve notability under WP:BK but there is an argument that it meets WP:GNG. Still, in the absence of sourcing evaluating the book as a book, the author's page is the best place for it. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 18:14, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Jon Levy (behaviorist) per Xymmax suggestion. Beefs up Levy's article (e.g. one good WP article is better than two minor ones). Britishfinance (talk) 20:22, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Breathometer. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:48, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Michael Yim[edit]

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

Outside of Breathometer, the subject is not notable. SueDonem (talk) 00:43, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 00:59, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 00:59, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 00:59, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett (talk) 09:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Shark Tank makes him notable. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 22:00, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- So anyone who has ever appeared on Shark Tank (or any game show for that matter) passes WP:NBIO? SueDonem (talk) 22:35, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not like the sources used just mentions about the company. His appearance together with his entrepreneurship makes it significant enough to keep. Couldn't find any specific notability guideline in WP:BUSINESS though. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 18:53, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Every "contestant" on Shark Tank is ostensibly an entrepreneur. So should every Shark Tank contestant pass WP:NBIO? SueDonem (talk) 23:44, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 03:47, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I would say "Merge into Breathometer", but I don't think there's any valuable content here that's not already present in the Breathometer page. All significant coverage of Yim is in the context of covering Breathometer (with the possible exception of the Geekazine reference, which appears to be of low reliability as a source). May warrant a dedicated article in the future if more is written about him as an individual, or if he becomes involved in additional notable projects. Colin M (talk) 04:43, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Breathometer. I disagree that the Shark Tank appearance alone or in combination with the available sourcing makes him notable. There still is insufficient reliable sources for a biography. I do think that it is reasonable for someone searching for him to end up at his product, so I have a slight preference for redirecting as oppossed to deletion, but this can be deemed a delete !vote by the closer if needed to obtain consensus. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 17:56, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Breathometer (and also consider as Delete by closer if needed). Per Xymmax suggestion. Britishfinance (talk) 20:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Breathometer#Company history. I just merged some of his bio there - don't think there's anything left that should be there. Coverage is too closely affiliated with one company - not independently notable so merging makes the most sense for readers. This is a variation of WP:BLP1E that should be called BLP1C where IMHO a bio of a living person (BLP) requires more that one company (1C) to pass notability. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:52, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 15:57, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Elliott Hagen[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines (WP:NRU) and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Allied45 (talk) 08:43, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 08:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 08:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 08:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - played for Bay of Plenty in ITM cup - qualifies under WP:NRU criteria 2. 2nd reference in the article shows that. noq (talk) 12:21, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passes WP:NRU as confirmed by reliable sources in the article Atlantic306 (talk) 20:26, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:12, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I beleive he has enough coverage and passes WP:NRU.--SalmanZ (talk) 18:10, 24 February 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. This isn't a very strong keep given some of the arguments, but I think the discussion has worked its way into a consensus that this is notable and worth keeping.

On a personal note, there are some good examples of editors earnestly working hard here, which always brightens my morning to see. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:41, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ram Saran Verma[edit]

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

Simply does not meet WP:GNG. Was deprodded without rationale or improvement. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:39, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:40, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Padma Shri awardees are usually deemed to be notable people, having fulfilled the criteria of WP:ANYBIO point 1. There also exists a good number of sources in regional language sources - [7] and [8] in Rajasthan Patrika, [9] in News18 India, [10] by Aaj Tak has a section on him - all of which were published before he got the Padma Shri. His award was also covered in Rajasthan Patrika ([11]), in News18 India ([12]), in Dainik Jagran ([13]), in Oneindia ([14]). A farmer in the heartlands of rural India is not bound to get anymore press coverage from the mainstream English media in India, and therefore I believe this should stay. Jupitus Smart 17:27, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draftify. If the Padma Shri award does make a BLP notable on WP then draftity (as one source and one line is not enough; the article needs more work). If the Padma Shri award is not sufficient to make a BLP notable on WP then delete, as I cannot find any other sources that would prove GNG. Britishfinance (talk) 16:32, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Expanded. Probably should stay now. Jupitus Smart 19:32, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Unfortunately the new text adds noting new of real notabililty beyond the Padma Shri prize (e.g. the guy is looking after 150 acres??). If getting this Padma Shri award is not a WP notable event (I have no idea how to assess that), then this is still a delete. Britishfinance (talk) 01:06, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not sure where anyone would think the 4th highest civilian award denotes notability. The usual criteria is the highest award, or multiple receipts of the 2nd highest award, neither of which apply to this individual.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:27, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I tend to agree with you. The Padma Shri article says that as of 2017, 2,840 people have won the award. The List of Padma Shri award recipients (2010–2019) article implies that a lot of the winners have their own WP article, but scanning through, their notability seems justified. Britishfinance (talk) 01:12, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination since subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NPERSON. The subject is not some award but a person. -The Gnome (talk) 10:57, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or rather, Strong keep per WP:GNG sources listed by Jupitus above. Clearly, Western-oriented editors need to invest some effort in clicking on Hindi news media links and using Google translate. I'm surprised that none of the delete !voting editors even bothered to take that effort. Lourdes 13:25, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I did, and all I got were references to a rural farmer (in contrast to several other winners of the Padma Shri award, who have their own WP articles and are obviously notable). The only thing which has been presented on this AfD as being notable, is that he won the Padma Shri award. His criteria for winning the award (helping rural farming) throws up nothing additionally material to add to his notability (as far as I can see). If a farmer in the UK won a The Duke of Edinburgh's Award for improving crop yields and a few UK regional papers/one major paper covered it, it would get deleted. I am open-minded on this case (as I have shown above), but it would be great to get some facts (outside of him winning this award), and/or clarification that winning this award makes the subject inherently notable. Britishfinance (talk) 15:07, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Read my comments below. You need to use Google Translate. At least four of the sources provided by Jupitus are absolutely significant and not about the award. Lourdes 02:24, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 15:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Don't expect something out of the blue from a farmer in the rural hinterlands. He got the award for his contributions towards promoting the use of technology in farming and his activism in spreading the technical know-how to fellow farmers. Please read through WP:NOTINHERITED to understand why it is not applicable here, and why WP:ANYBIO specifically allows for winners of notable awards to have articles. The Padma Awards are handed out to a select few in various sectors, based on the nominations received from the different states of India. To be among the 112 Padma Awardees, from the 50,000 odd nominees in a country of over a billion plus people is an achievement in itself. As demonstrated above he has however been receiving press even before he got this award, fulfilling the criteria of continuous coverage. What however needs to be noted is that a farmer receiving the Padma Shri is not a matter of interest for the mainstream media in India as it does not have much news value, but I believe that Wikipedia should be above such biases. And as always, the other Indian editors who frequent WP:AFD are in hiding for fear of damaging their future WP:RFA's. Bah. Jupitus Smart 16:12, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is about the fact-base forWP:GNG. As I have asked above - is getting this award sufficient to make someone inherently notable on WP? If that is the case, then he is a keep, but I saw no evidence that this is so? Having read the WP article on this award (several times), there are concerns that not all awards have been merited. He could be the local plumber, but if he is getting mentioned in major sources, then he has notability. This guy is not. Do you see the concern? I can only go on what I can see. I (despite being called otherwise), have tried to translate sources but I get nothing significant. However, you have the knowledge of this area, so help us understand if this award should make someone inherently notable (maybe we could list it into the GNG guidelines), and/or, give us at least one major RS that nails his notability (I could not find any I would regard as a major RS). Sorry, but I hope that makes sense. Britishfinance (talk) 16:47, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What would you consider as a major WP:RS. He has multiple articles about him on major newspapers (for context Dainik Bhaskar which has an article on him, sits on top of the List of newspapers in India by circulation as is Rajasthan Patrika which is 8th on the list). There is a clear case of WP:GNG being met even without me having to harp on the notability of being a Padma awardee. If you are insinuating at being mentioned in an English language publication that you may be familiar with for a newspaper to qualify as WP:RS, then I am afraid that I don't have any to show, apart from the few paragraphs on Outlook and India Today. Jupitus Smart 17:39, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - all of the press is about him winning the award, so WP:BIO1E would apply.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:33, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I consider your comment of "all of the press is about him winning the award" stereotypical of the English-bias. I'm not calling it irresponsible, because you probably are writing this as you don't have Google Translate. If you click on the links provided by Jupitus, reliable sources all, at least four do not talk about the award and discuss the farmer at length. So please don't give such comments unless you've done some work investigating. This is an encyclopaedia where we have global readers (the maximum growth is from India) and such articles of notable personalities adds to the repertoire. You need to move out of the English bias in your future deletion discussions. Lourdes 02:23, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, back to the award, ("come on coola, not again!":)), some editors suggest that as it is the 4th highest civilian award that is not high enough ("The usual criteria is the highest award, or multiple receipts of the 2nd highest award.."), and that as there are 2840 recipients that is too many for it to be notable ie. hitting the WP:ANYBIO bar, i note that the CBE is the 3rd highest award British award and is generally seen as meeting notability, also 2840 recipients out of a population of over 1.2billion (1/400,000) looks significant to me, if there are enough sources covering Verma, then he also meets WP:BASIC, there is, so he does, keep. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:17, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As of right now, I am leaning towards calling this a Keep but am relisting in hopes of a more solid consensus... either way.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:10, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have edited the article to further draw out what I think are the notable items from Jupitus Smart's new references. Once half of me still feels that his noterity is at a state-level (not country). However, Jupitus has provided refs from a range of mainstream Indian RS-sources (which is getting to GNG), that span a range of years (not just at award time), and the Padma Shri award seems material, and Coolabahapple has made some good points. At this stage, I will leave it to others to make the final decision either way. Britishfinance (talk) 01:38, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you for the editing and appreciate the npov judgement about the individual. Lourdes 09:05, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lourdes: thanks for that - appreciated. Britishfinance (talk) 16:02, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Padma Shri by itself does not mean the subject is inherently notable. Compared to the top 3 civilian awards, this has been awarded to quite a lot of people. However, for people who are awarded Padma Shri, it is highly likely that they have attracted some amount of attention at local level (district/state)--DreamLinker (talk) 16:25, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is some coverage in the regional Hindustan Times (Lucknow edition). I have some snippets below

[15] A digital harvest for reaping profits, Hindustan Times (Lucknow) 1 Jan 2016 Richa Srivastava. Snippet LUCKNOW: Ram Saran Verma, a leading farmer of Barabanki, wakes up to the beep of his mobile phone each day. The rates of the day’s green grocery market drop into his inbox and the planning for the day begins...Verma, recipient of multiple awards, including the prestigious Innovative Farmer Award, by the department of science and technology...A hi-tech farmer, Verma already has his own website, which is regularly updated with new experiments carried out by him in cultivation of banana, potato and tomato...It is for his innovative farming tricks that a number of other cultivators of the area too adopted his style and have grown manifold profits. The article is entirely about him. It is somewhat of an interview as well, but it definitely shows that he has received attention
[16] Hi-tech farmer gets a pat on the back, Hindustan Times (Lucknow) 2 Dec 2012 HT Correspondent Snippet LUCKNOW: Ram Saran Verma, a hi-tech farmer from Daulatpur, Barabanki whose innovative farming transformed his life, was felicitated by the Lucknow Management Association for his achievements. LMA conferred Verma with the ‘Creativity Innovation’ award at its convention on Saturday. From an ordinary kisan to a hi-tech farmer... The language is a bit PR-ish, but shows that he has received attention in 2012 as well.
[17] Fibre-rich red banana debuts in UP Hindustan Times (Lucknow) 29 Dec 2015 HT Correspondent Red banana, a rich source of protein, fibre and low on sugar content and grown mostly in south India, has been successfully cultivated in the state...said Ram Saran Verma, the farmer who experimented with the new variety. Saran planted about 1000 saplings of the new variety in Daultapur village of Barabanki way back in 2012.... Short article about a new type of banana cultivated by him

In Hindi there is quite a lot of coverage about him (like for example [18] from Economic Times Hindi). I am usually cautious with Hindi sources as many local newspapers are susceptible to sensational journalism. However, the Hindi sources linked in this AfD are the better and more reliable ones.--DreamLinker (talk) 18:30, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the above references. I am convinced by the fact that he has received coverage for an extended period of time. While some of the coverage (particularly in Hindi) seems to be a bit of marketing, it doesn't deny that he has genuinely received interest. The Padma Shri means his efforts have been recognised.--DreamLinker (talk) 18:42, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the Padma Shri, which, if anything, passes WP:ANYBIO. In the year that the subject was given that award it was given to less than one in 12 million Indians, which makes in a much more exclusive award than, say, a British knighthood. It doesn't matter how many awards in India are even more exclusive. And it has been suggested above that his notability might only be state-wide rather than national. I don't accept that because this is a national award rather than a state award, but even if I did he would be notable in a state which would, if it was independent, be the seventh most populous country in the world. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:30, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus seems to be in favor of keep. Renaming etc. can be discussed outside AfD. Tone 16:00, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jeanne-Françoise de Coeme, Lady of Lucé and Bonnétable[edit]

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

Is a person who lived during the 16th century. But there is nothing notable about "her". She was a heiress and connected to royalty via marriage.Daiyusha (talk) 02:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:22, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:22, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:22, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. of historical interest. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:26, 21 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Delete notability isn't inherited, mother is clearly notable as the mistress of the French monarch. This person, no. W C M_email 12:37, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The rather non-notable daughter of a notable royal mistress. Her daughter also seems of rather imited notability, other than inherited from her husband. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:24, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is not an easy subject to research. Many older sources use the spelling "de Coesme(s)", and some use "de Coisme(s)" (eg [19]); some omit "de". During her 20-year marriage to François de Bourbon, she was known as the Princess of Conti (eg [20]) (also spelled Conty, eg in [21]), which of course was a title used by other women before and after her. The statement in the article that "Her mother required the intervention of the King and Pope Pius V to ensure that she regained the succession to her father's estate of Bonnétable." is not found within the single source cited, which suggests that other sources are available - but I haven't yet found any which refer to this. There may well be sources that are not online, or not fully viewable online - this source [22], from 1946, has results on 10 pages for "Jeanne de Coesmes", but snippets of only 3 are visible. This source [23] from 1940, has 5 pages where her name appears (it discusses her letters), but again, snippets of only 3 are visible. This book, Henri IV [24], is the source for the French Wikipedia article [25], but there is no preview of the book online. Many sources do only provide genealogical information, but the 1940s sources do appear to have more coverage of her, and there may well be more about this 16th century noble/royal person, who was literate and the heiress to an estate. RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:05, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your good work RebeccaGreen. Hninthuzar (talk) 16:17, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per historical significance. Although, as per the comment above, finding sources is difficult, she is listed in a lot of geneological and academic works under various name spellings. She was not only a daughter of the French king's mistress, she was a Princess of the Blood via marriage, which makes her a high ranking member of the House of Bourbon. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 17:31, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per xanthippe and Willthacheerleader18 as historical interest and a member of the royal House of Bourbon. We have tended to keep royalty; she was a princess by marriage. Bearian (talk) 19:31, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree pr above, and IMO, she was a Princess of Conti by marriage, which makes her a high ranking member of the House of Bourbon. So, she was a member of the notable royal family, which meet GNG. Hninthuzar (talk) 11:32, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added more of the resources that I found to the article. I believe there is evidence that she was notable at the time she lived (eg Nicolas de Montreux dedicated a novel to her), and historians have written about her since - not just about her ancestry, marriages and descendants, but about her as a letter-writer, and, I think (if we could see more of the sources), her role at court. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:20, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment should the article be moved to Jeanne-Françoise de Coësme / Jeanne de Coësme in order to correct spelling of the name and do away with her birth titles in the title. She held multiple titles, so I feel it would be best to have her just by name. Thoughts? -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 15:48, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Most sources don't use 'Françoise' in referring to her, and French Wikipedia uses 'Jeanne de Coesme' (without even mentioning variants of the surname). So 'Jeanne de Coesme' as the name of the article might make more sense. The Wikidata needs reconciling too - the English article links to one Q number, while the French and Italian articles link to a different Q number. (Not sure what that's actually called, but hopefully the meaning is clear!) RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Editors who are interested in this discussion for deletion may also be interested in this lady (became royal member by marriage). Sita Dev (talk) 02:47, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

on that point. Johnbod (talk) 21:46, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I will close this as a keep since there have been some renamings going on while this was running. I let the editors deal with the redirects manually. Tone 16:03, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The new Sears[edit]

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

The "new Sears" as the page is currently titled, is not notable in and of itself. If not deleted, the page should be merged and/or redirected to Sears. Meatsgains^(talk) 19:34, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 20:41, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 20:41, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Sears. Fails WP:NCORP. Edwardx (talk) 21:54, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator stated that the page is titled "new Sears". I have moved the page to Transform Holdco LLC to reflect its correct name. The editor above stated that the article "fails WP:NCORP" but did not state why/how they believe this to be the case. This article clearly meets the notability criteria for companies because it meets the five criteria set out in the relevant policy, namely that there is significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable secondary sources. Some of these sources are included in the Transform Holdco article already. Others are available (published by CNBC, Business Insider, Philadelphia Business Journal, Marketwatch) by searching for the company in Google. Chrisclear (talk) 16:39, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge into Sears. The page is Transform Holdco LLC, which is more appropriate than "the new Sears." There are definitely source available to warrant the page's inclusion. Gargleafg (talk) 01:44, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BigRed606 (User talk:BigRed606 ‘’’Keep’’’ I see nothing wrong with this article, plus we can always expand it on a later date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigRed606 (talk • contribs) 03:09, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:03, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Company seems notable enough and more information can be added as it grows older, however the article seriously needs to be wikified; so many inconsistencies (especially the infobox). There's likely enough notable sources around to expand it, as well. MikeM2011 (talk) 12:59, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sears, and mention the acquisition in the lead. The only coverage of this company has been about its acquisition of Sears. Notability is not inherited from subsidiaries. Press releases and brief announcements of acquisitions do not meet WP:ORGDEPTH. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:04, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect. I fully get the point of this article – it is holding a large amount of assets that in themselves are very notable (high profile large US retailer etc). However, this is just the legal shell and is not going to be inherently notable long-term - it will either get broken up, sold, re-floated as a new name etc. We can come back and break it out again if it gets restructured as such. There is a strong change that the brand "Sears" is dead (e.g. associated with old stores, and that any new entity will avoid using it. Britishfinance (talk) 12:22, 28 February 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. Very erudite discussion that doesn't arrive at a consensus about whether this is a real topic or original research. Sandstein 15:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mizrahi Hebrew[edit]

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

Unsourced OR / POVFORK of Modern Hebrew / Sephardi Hebrew. A word of explanation - Mizrahi is a (mainly) Israeli term for non-European (Askenazi) Jews. Outside of Israel, these were separate communities with separate secular languages (e.g. Judeo-Persian, Judeo-Yemeni Arabic, Judeo-Arabic languages, Judaeo-Spanish) and liturgical Hebrew variants (e.g. Yemenite Hebrew, Sephardi Hebrew). In Israel while Mizrahim are defined as a label - they do not have a separate dialect. Per this source - "Generally speaking, Modern Hebrew lacks dialects, though there are sociolects, ethnolects, relgiolects, and many other varieties of the language". Note that the Hebrew Wikipedia lacks an article on this subject (as it does not exist!), and that current cross wikis are either stubs or rather clear translations of our enwiki article. I will note that some sources do refer to a minor accent variation, common among many first and second generation Mizrahim, that has a more proper or stressed prounounciation of the guttural ח and ע (this is covered in Modern Hebrew#Pronunciation]).Icewhiz (talk) 20:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:04, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:04, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:04, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the article doesn’t claim there’s a dialect, just a distinctive pronunciation system. There are sources provided so I’m not really clear why it’s dscribed by the nominator as ‘unsourced.’
Keep. (Or maybe merge with something??) While there may not be proper dialects in Modern Hebrew, this article refers to the pronunciation of Biblical Hebrew among Mizrachim. It seems to be in the same vein as Sephardi Hebrew and Italian Hebrew-- while these are not really dialects present among Modern Hebrew speakers, it is possible to have well-sourced articles about different groups' liturgical pronunciation systems. Gilded Snail (talk) 21:27, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Gilded Snail:, see Sephardi Hebrew that much of this article is copied from. Note that some Mizrahim use a totally different systems, in particular Yemenite Hebrew - the division is not per Mizrahi/non-Mizrahi lines. The present article is factually inaccurate to the point of even perhaps WP:HOAX (in particuar the assertion that Sephardi Hebrew is disjoint).Icewhiz (talk) 22:17, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly distinct and well-sourced. It is not exactly controversial that traditions of Hebrew that developed in the Iberian Peninsula (Sephardic) maintained major differences from traditions of Hebrew that developed in Egypt or Iraq or Yemen (Mizrahi). It's not just the more emphatic pronunciations of heth and ayin, but also often teth, sadhe and qoph and a distinction of ghimel from gimel. Just because these varieties may have become scarce among Mizrahim in Israel today, does not mean they are not historically distinct up until the mass-evacuations of Jews from Arab countries in 1948, and may still be distinct among the few Jews who remained in the other countries. That event was an attrition of culture as much as it was a humanitarian crisis; it is commonplace for people trying to adapt in a new society to lose traditions that previously made them distinct, especially when those traditions are stigmatized and devalued by the establishment and hinder newcomers' ability to succeed. - Gilgamesh (talk) 03:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Much of the assertions abpve are false - e.g. gimel is different only in Yemenite Hebrew - which is completely different (and actually closer to Ashkenazi is some respects) from Sephardi Hebrew (which in the 500+ years since 1492 - merged with Hebrew in North Africa). The distinction between Sephardi Hebrew (Iberian only in name) and most of the Hebrew varities spoken in what is termed in Israel as Mizrahi - is non-existent. Our article which states Sephardi was different - is unsourced OR.Icewhiz (talk) 04:42, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And lest I be accused of OR:
"Sephardi Hebrew, that originally marked the speech of the mass immigrations from Arabic-speaking countries. Their transfer of consonant distinctions from Arabic made their speech ethnically distinctive. Equally important, their ..." "Sephardi+Hebrew"&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjOk4iqtbrgAhVRDuwKHcwvDkQQ6AEIKzAB#v=onepage&q="Sephardi%20Hebrew"&f=false

"Certainly not a Yemenite Jew, whose accent was in many ways more similar to Ashkenazic dialects.59 In light of these many variations, it is likely that contemporary Jews defined Sephardic Hebrew by what it was not. In all its diverse intonations, this Hebrew pronunciation was unmistakably distinctive from all Ashkenazic dialects." "Sephardic+Hebrew"&oq="Sephardic+Hebrew"&gs_l=mobile-gws-serp.3...6383.12047.0.12709.10.10.0.0.0.0.160.1109.0j8.8.0....0...1c.1j4.64.mobile-gws-serp..2.7.982...41j30i10k1.0.rHF-27a0eC0
There is a distinction between Western Sephardic and Eastern Sephardic - but most Mizrahi Jews spoke Sephardic (and modern Hebrew is a "dumbed down" Sephardic - based on Sephardic, but losing Het and Ayin - which makes correct Sephardic speakers stand out).Icewhiz (talk) 04:59, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I said ghimel (soft fricative consonant) being different from gimel (hard plosive consonant), not hard gimel itself being different from other varieties' hard gimel, with the exception of Yemenite which I already knew is different in that respect. And if you're asserting most of what I'm saying is false, then are you claiming that there are no recently extant non-Yemenite Middle Eastern Hebrew traditions that pronounce teth (emphatic) differently from hard taw (non-emphatic), or hard kaph (non-emphatic) differently from qoph (emphatic), or sadhe as an emphatic fricative rather than as an affricate? - Gilgamesh (talk) 11:42, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I notified the Hebrew Wikipedia noticeboard of this discussion.Icewhiz (talk) 06:27, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. The article is preposterous. For the umpteenth time, "Mizrahi" is a label arbitrarily imposed on disparate communities which have virtually nothing in common, originally; the term became convenient, and in English Wikipedia it is anachronistically conferred on these communities as if they were always "Mizrahim". The article at question is absolutely not well sourced. The Sephardi, Yemenite etc. liturgical pronunciations are utterly distinct. They were never bundled under the umbrella term "Mizrahi". A quick survey in Google Books will reveal that (Raciolinguistics: How Language Shapes Our Ideas About Race, p. 187; The Israelis: Ordinary People in an Extraordinary Land, p. 122) the term "Mizrahi Hebrew" is very rarely mentioned, and only in the Israeli context: it is denoted as the vulgar lower-class manner of speech. As such, it falls under the definitions that IceWhiz brought above, that clearly assert that Modern Hebrew lacks dialects. Editors here should not display their own supposed knowledge (or conjectures) about Hebrew linguistics, but determine whether the concept is extant and well-defined in academic sources. It is not. AddMore-III (talk) 07:18, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You can try rebranding the Mizrahi Jews article, and put quotations around Mizrahim everytime, it won't change that Mizrahim exist as a real identity today according to the sources you provide. As I have asked multiple times, please refrain from citing sources unrelated to anything we are discussing. This article is about various pronunciation systems for Biblical Hebrew, not claiming to be a dialect of Modern Hebrew. --Gruzinim (talk) 07:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The idea of deleting this is built off the premise that this article is claiming to be a dialect of Modern Hebrew. It very plainly states that this is referring to various pronunciation systems of Biblical Hebrew by Jews from the Middle East. These pronunciations are distinct enough to deserve not to be stuffed in the same category as the pronunciation system which developed among Jews from Spain. Also, it is false that Mizrahi means non-European as is claimed in the "word of explanation." There are groups like Beta Israel and the Cochin Jews who aren't European but are also not Mizrahi. --Gruzinim (talk) 08:06, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If this is pre-Israel liturgical Hebrew, then most Mizrahim (a concept that did not exist prior to 1948 or thereabouts) spoke Sephardi Hebrew variations in prayers - which has close to nothing to do with Spain (fall of Muslim Spain, final Jewish expulsion in 1492) - just as Ashkenazi Hebrew has close to nothing to do with France (Loire to Rhine - which is the source of the name) from which Jews were mostly expelled some 100 years prior (History of the Jews in France#Expulsions and Returns) - the community moving/living through Germany and ending up mostly in Poland. Sephardi Hebrew was spoken, as a prayer language, through north Africa, the levant, and the Ottoman empire (Yemenites being the notable exception).Icewhiz (talk) 12:20, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple false assertions, you have already acknowledged in our discussions on Talk:Mizrahi Jews that the concept of Mizrahi existed prior to 1948 according to documents and censuses done in Mandatory Palestine. Jews from Iraq and Syria have distinct pronunciations from those who trace their roots to the Iberian Peninsula. Lumping them all together is inaccurate whether or not Sephardi Jews spoke Sephardi Hebrew in North Africa. That doesn't change that there are traditions from Jews who were there before the arrival of Sephardim. This Mizrahi erasure is alarming. --Gruzinim (talk) 17:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are making a hash. Mizrahi is a very modern term. You are talking about Musta'arabi Jews - not Mizrahim (which include Sephardi Jews usually). In most communities the Musta'arabi Jews merged with the Sephardi Jews into one community centuries ago. One can describe Syrian Hebrew, or Babylonian Hebrew, and even Persian-Bukharic Hebrew - but not the present mess in the article which is completely non-localized and combines communities that had little in common.Icewhiz (talk) 21:13, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mizrahi is not synonymous with Sephardi, that is just wrong. Much of the reason the term Mizrahi became popularized was because non-Sephardim (Musta'arabi Jews remained distinct from Sephardim in some countries) were tired of being called Sephardi when they had no connection to Spain outside of religious influence. As far as "Syrian Hebrew," "Babylonian Hebrew," and "Persian-Bukharic Hebrew," I don't see the point. These groups make up Mizrahi Jews, and the differences are minor compared to the differences between these pronunciations and Sephardi Hebrew or Ashkenazi Hebrew. The article currently describes the topic accurately, it is not claiming to be to one distinct pronunciation system, but rather the various pronunciation systems spoken historically by Mizrahi Jews. --Gruzinim (talk) 21:47, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Icewhiz: I agree with Gruzinim. This AfD's premise is WP:FRINGE. - Gilgamesh (talk) 04:55, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The premise is that no such Mizrahi (or Musta'arabi) Hebrew is described in sources (probably since you are connecting communities quite distant from one another). You have one source talking about Saadia Gaon and Jacob Qirqisani in the 11th century (and not using "Mizrahi Hebrew"). You have another source - Haaretz - talking about a Mizrahi or Arab accent (in this case in the common Israeli sense - including Sephardim) of modern Hebrew - pronunciation of Heit, Reish, and Ayin (one of many accents for learners of modern Hebrew as ansecond language - we could have Russian-Hebrew, Ukranian-Hebrew (different since they can say H -Hertzl and not Gertzel), American-Hebrew, French-Hebrew, etc.... All of which have 1st generation accents).Icewhiz (talk) 06:17, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Quote by Gruzinim: Much of the reason the term Mizrahi became popularized was because non-Sephardim (Musta'arabi Jews remained distinct from Sephardim in some countries) were tired of being called Sephardi when they had no connection to Spain outside of religious influence. That's your conjecture, but it is baseless. By the 19th Century, all communities in which Sephardi influence prevailed were referred to and referred to themselves as Sephardi. Iraqi Rabbis who had no ethnic connection to Spanish exiles regarded themselves and their entire communities as such (Ariel Picard, Mishnato shel ha-Rav ʻOvadyah Yosef be-ʻidan shel temurot, pp. 40-42). The Musta'arab were amalgamated by that point. And certainly, no one ever referred to the disparate non-Sephardi communities from Bukhara to North Africa as "Mizrahim" before the Israeli context. Remember WP:NOTAFORUM. Would anyone provide actual sources in support of the article, not their personal opinions? AddMore-III (talk) 06:41, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In the religious sense you are absolutely correct, but in the secular Israeli context it was seen as disparaging. The sources you provided speak on this, I don't want to delve the discussion too much away from Mizrahi Hebrew. I was just disagreeing with the characterization of Mizrahi and Sephardi as synonymous with each other. They most certainly aren't. --Gruzinim (talk) 07:59, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article needs way better sourcing. The one source I checked did not match the content at all.Jonney2000 (talk) 21:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. Pity I didn't write this before, it's important. There are two directly-referenced sources. The first, and most important for the matter, is an Encyclopedia Judaica article by uber-specialist Shlomo Morag. It does not mention the word "Mizrahi" at all. Actually, it categorizes the Arabic-speaking communities, Aramaic-speaking communities, Persian-speaking communities, and Georgian-speaking communities all together as Sephardim (and separating the Yemenite). There's also a Haaretz article, not an academic source, but it mentions "Mizrahi Hebrew" once in a completely Israeli context. The unquoted bibliography contains books which deal not with "Mizrahi Hebrew" but with the liturgical pronunciation of various communities, each dealt with separately: Yemenite, Persian and Syrian; Aleppo; Djerba; Baghdadi, and Babylonian. AddMore-III (talk) 07:03, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Here's another important source, Israeli, Jewish, Mizraḥi or Traditional? On the nature of the Hebrew of Israel’s periphery. It emphasizes that what the author hesitates to call (cf. the title; in p. 7/143, she concludes that "language of the periphery" is the best term) "Mizrahi Hebrew" is a sociolect of native Israelis, derived from an Israeli context. AddMore-III (talk) 10:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So - an alternative name for a WP:NEOlogism with a completely different meaning from the (un-sourced) premise of this article that Musta'arabi Jews had a separate (yet with common traits between far-flung Musta'arabi communities) liturgical Hebrew (spoken mainly in Synagogue) that was separate from Sephardi Hebrew (which itself has variations). Icewhiz (talk) 12:40, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:56, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note When commenting please stay on topic, cite WP:PAG when possible and above all... be brief! -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:59, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Summary:
1. Everyone here agrees "Mizrahim" exist as a defined group (there is a disagreement over whether this is just a modern 20th century term coined in Israel - or a more ancient term).
2. The disagreement is whether "Mizrahi Hebrew" exists -
  1. either as a unified liturgical Hebrew by Musta'arabi Jews (Jews did not speak Hebrew day-to-day - this would've been a synagogue / religious studies language separate from the liturgical Sephardi Hebrew which everyone agrees exists and is notable) pre-dating the Musta'arabi/Sephardi merge (a few hundred years ago). Note we do have articles on the extinct Tiberian Hebrew, Palestinian vocalization, Babylonian vocalization (as well as Samaritan Hebrew - a cousin in the area).
  2. or as a modern Hebrew dialect (or to be more precise - whether the accent of first-generation Jews from Arabic speaking countries constitutes a stand alone topic - and whether it should even be called Mizrahi (e.g. Israeli, Jewish, Mizraḥi or Traditional? On the nature of the Hebrew of Israel’s periphery prefers "language of the periphery"))
3. Those arguing for deletion are arguing that:
  1. many sources contradict the existence of a Mizrahi Hebrew (both in the modern sense, and in the ancient liturgical sense that Musta'arabi communities, prior to the Sephardi migration, had widely differing local customs and little commonality/unification as a group - the name itself is coined by the Sephardic migrants as a label for non-Sephardic locals),
  2. that almost all of the present article is un-sourced OR,
  3. and that strong sources supporting this article have not been presented.
Icewhiz (talk) 06:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Since you are making a summary, we should also include points against deletion -
The article acknowledges that it is not one singular pronunciation system, and makes that very clear from the intro.

There are differences in the pronunciation of Biblical Hebrew among Mizrahi Jews which would fit better on one page rather than creating Babylonian Hebrew, Persian-Bukharic Hebrew and a separate page for the pronunciations of Syrian Jews.

It's about the various pronunciation systems of Biblical Hebrew by Mizrahi Jews, not claiming to be a dialect of Modern Hebrew.
Gruzinim (talk) 07:28, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article waffles a bit around the question of multiple pronunciations (and note that any attempt to group Sephardic/Palestinian/Tiberian/Babylonian(Yemenite) Hebrew together - varieties all spoken (and then some more!) in 11th-17th century communities - is a very wide net indeed) .... The lede states there are multiple varieties - but then Mizrahi Hebrew#Features goes on to say that the hypothetical Mizrahi Hebrew follows local Arabic pronunciation (with minor variations in non-Arab countries) - which certainly was not true in Persia, Afghanistan, Georgia, Bukhara, etc. - and probably was not true (and if true in some - then post 10-11th century) in many of the communities in the post-Arab conquest world as well (as liturgical Hebrew - everywhere - tended to preserve various archaic features). Icewhiz (talk) 07:47, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You say "but then Mizrahi Hebrew#Features goes on to say that the hypothetical Mizrahi Hebrew follows local Arabic pronunciation" but it never actually says that. It says that those pronunciations listed were specific to Jews who come from Arab countries. Even then it points out that the variations followed the Arabic dialects in each individual country. The article in it's current state is very much centered around the pronunciations of Arab Jews specifically rather than all Mizrahim. Gruzinim (talk) 08:22, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Either merge or delete and redirect (haven't delved enough into what is salvable) into Sephardi Hebrew. Correct or not, Mizrahi pronunciation is mostly used as a synonym to the Sephardic pronunciation hence should direct there. gidonb (talk) 01:49, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sephardi Hebrew has a similar amount of sources as this article, and the few sources it has notes differences in the pronunciation of Mizrahi Jews. Look at the second and third reference, they both denote the differences. It makes little sense to delete or merge this article for that reason when the current sources for Sephardi Hebrew notes and speaks of them as separate. Gruzinim (talk) 02:20, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. Morag in Encyclopedia Judaica classifies them all as Sephardi. There are the Sephardi pronunciations from Georgia to Morocco (with differences, but those belong in Sephardi Hebrew) and there is the Yemenite, which has sub-pronunciations as well. "Mizrahi Hebrew" is only used separately, and very rarely when so, for an Israeli sociolect (not to mention that "Mizrahim" is a term first applied no earlier than the 1920s, and mainly 1950s, so it cannot be anachronistically conferred on centuries-old liturgical pronunciations). Again, WP:NOTAFORUM, stick to the sources. AddMore-III (talk) 06:06, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Refrain from invoking WP:NOTAFORUM without reading what it states. You are bringing up unrelated topics (A so-called "Mizrahi dialect," when it is very clear this article has nothing to do with Modern Hebrew) and discussing other topics rather than how to improve this article. I am relating every sentence to improving Mizrahi Hebrew and when I pointed out that the few sources on Sephardi Hebrew differentiate between them that is me sticking to the sources. Gruzinim (talk) 06:50, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have tried to read the article, and above, to participate but it is outside my comfort zone. I wonder if AfD is the right forum for this discussion as it seems complicated, contentious but also, material? Needs expert input to rule on points of fact? However, I don't know what other forum would be better. Sorry I can't be more helpful. Britishfinance (talk) 12:18, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Britishfinance: I tried getting Hebrew-Wikipedia editors involved (where subject expertise might be better - but with little success unfortunately) - but yes - you are correct this is not a simple topic to assess looking in (as Mizrahi and Sephardi have multiple (some overlapping, some separate) meanings, Mizrahi Hebrew also has a modern meaning (as an accent of Hebrew), and modern references to historical liturgical Hebrew can conflate the two, add to this that at present the theory for inclusion is that this is an extinct language pre-dating the Separdi/Musta'arabi Jews (multiple different groups) merge 100-200-300 years ago - then yes.... this is not a simple topic). Icewhiz (talk) 12:42, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Icewhiz: Thanks for that. I feel WP should (or already does) a more technical/specific forum for resolving this. Having read the comments above that this merits proper examination (I can see WP:HOAX being invoked), and goes to the integrity of WP. cheers Britishfinance (talk) 13:25, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Britishfinance: I must say I don't think it's very complicated, the problem is mainly with the inflated comments' section. The article claims there is a liturgical pronunciation, or a family of such, called MH. The top source, Encyclopedia Judaica, clearly belies this statement. the term "MH" is only used very rarely (quite WP:NEO) in an utterly different context, for an Israeli sociolect. AddMore-III (talk) 15:23, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Joules (clothing). Sandstein 15:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Joule[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO, WP:NOTINHERITED – the person does not seem to be notable independently from the company he started (Joules). Sourcing primarily to his own book (as many as 10 references) and to an interview in niché media (3 refs). The remaining two references mention his name only incidentally, in the context of Joules. — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:51, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm original author of the article. Figurehead of Joules, which is a high-profile fashion company in the UK; not inherited, but guidelines say "widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field" -- I would argue that founding one of the largest fashion retailers in the UK meets that criteria. He is on The Sunday Times Rich List -- wealth is not an indication of noteworthiness on its own, but a signal of public interest. I'm seeing personal coverage / interviews -- of course in his capacity as the founder of Joules -- in Drapers, Retail Week and Management Today. He was also involved in a widely covered shareholder dispute to reacquire the company to take it private last year. Shareholder dispute covered in City AM, The Daily Mail, Drapers, and Retail Gazette. ScepticalChymist (talk) 21:07, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 21:16, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 21:16, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

resore theRedirect to Joules (clothing) (rather than the unit of measurement). Nothing to suggest the man is independabtly notable. Btw it's "criterion" not "criteria", which is the plural.TheLongTone (talk) 15:45, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:47, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - The article is almost entirely about the company and not the man who founded it, and should be redirected. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:05, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Joules (clothing), merging anything worth keeping. Not notable independently of the company. Interviews don't establish notability. Nor do actions he took on behalf of the company. Narky Blert (talk) 11:33, 26 February 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:20, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

International Studies. Interdisciplinary Political and Cultural Journal[edit]

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

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal. No independent sources, not indexed in any selective database. The long list of databases in the article are all non-selective (Baidu, GScholar), inclusive (DOAJ), or user-contributed (and borderline predatory: Index Copernicus). Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." DePRODded by article creator who added a lot of promotional material (see this version) and gave as reason "Journal has been a member of the Committee of Publication Ethics (COPE) since 2018 [https://publicationethics.org/members/international-studies-interdisciplinary-political-and-cultural-journal. The journal follows high publication and ethic standards recommended by this organization (this is why it couldn't be regarded as a predatory journal, but instead it is a legitimate scientific journal.)" However, this does not contribute to notability and PROD reason still stands. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 18:32, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 18:33, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:56, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:19, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As no justification was given by the first/second delete vote this warrants a relisting
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 00:36, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A merge to University of Łódź is also an option. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:28, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. I don't think it should be merged to University of Łódź either. Bukharin (talk) 04:12, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom. Fails NJOURNAL. QED. Britishfinance (talk) 10:20, 28 February 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. Michig (talk) 09:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alabama Symphony Orchestra[edit]

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

Non-notable orchestra. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:56, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 20:26, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 20:26, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 20:36, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO both met; - The Alabama Symphony has been hailed by Alex Ross as "one of the country's [United States] most adventurous regional orchestras" [26]. Other significant coverage in major third-party sources include this Washington Post review of a 1988 Kennedy Center concert in DC, this piece in the NYT, and certainly many others. Also, their discography allmusic, discogs include albums for Bridge Records and Harmonia Mundi. However, the article needs some serious cleaning up - I tagged it as such two weeks ago. Zingarese talk · contribs 04:05, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The entry at AllMusic is for a single album, and that album is not reviewed. Discogs is not a reliable source. Vanity records abound there. Alex Ross makes passing mention of the orchestra. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:24, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - What does the album not being reviewed have to do with anything? And sorry, but to me Ross makes much more than a “passing mention” of the orchestra. Zingarese talk · contribs 15:12, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - There are usually three steps to inclusion on AllMusic. The first is a database entry. The next is a rating. The final is a review. We usually only consider the latter (reviewed entries) as being reliable sources. Without a reliable sources (plural) the subject is not considered notable. And Ross discuses the orchestra in one paragraph at the end of the article. It is fewer than 200 words. Again, we look for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and I don't think 200 words is significant coverage which is why I called it "passing mention" so thanks for helping me quantify the issue. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep the history section is both unsourced and promotional; it may be a COPYVIO of some other source. I do see enough coverage. The Washington Post, New York Times, and New Yorker references by Zingarese are sufficient. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:52, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 00:32, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this has citations added, I would vote keep. It has a lot of very good information (not promotional) but the lack of citations makes me hesitant to vote right now. Actaudio (talk) 05:31, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added inline citations for two ASO conductors. This is a notable and major symphony orchestra, and should not be deleted. A better way would be to have copyediting done, and I have added a tag for doing that.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 04:08, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I will trim down the fluff to see if it passes. Bearian (talk) 20:45, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I editied it somewhat, and it appears to be notable due to its awards, but it still needs a lot more work and citations. Bearian (talk) 21:07, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Just noticed this article is plagiarized from their website. https://alabamasymphony.org/uploads/documents/ASOHistory_1819.pdf Actaudio (talk) 06:42, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Goodness. Thank you so much for pointing that out. I just removed the entire “history” section. Zingarese talk · contribs 15:12, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 09:54, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Crow (danger act)[edit]

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

A fan written talent show performer. The page is highly promotional and contains few reliable citations. Fails WP:ANYBIO. AmericanAir88^(talk) 00:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lots of people have been on the talent shows and gotten basic routine TV coverage from it but I don't see substantive sources about him otherwise. Reywas92^Talk 19:22, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. As a general rule, we only keep the top three participants in nationally-broadcast reality shows. For example, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jennifer_Wilson_(reality_show_contestant). Sometimes, we've redirected the article to the biggest show the performer has appeared in. He's gotton some coverage, but it's not significant, and he's never has been a finalist. Bearian (talk) 20:32, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Definitely not notable as a martial artist (which is where I found this AfD). Coverage of him is almost exclusively about his appearance on Britain's Got Talent, which is not enough to show he meets WP:GNG and seems like WP:BLP1E. I see nothing to show he meets any notability criteria. Papaursa (talk) 17:24, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 09:52, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Riviera Partners[edit]

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

Fails notability. Article is an advertisement for the company's webpage. Brian-armstrong (talk) 03:45, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 04:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 04:57, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This article had notability and reliable sources tags since March 2013. GN-z11 ^☎ ^★ 08:42, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AmericanAir88^(talk) 00:02, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 14:05, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NCORP. Reywas92^Talk 19:20, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is a puff piece, not a balanced Wikipedia article that establishes notability.TH1980 (talk) 03:23, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above; it's just a run of the mill recruitment company. The sourcing is quite shallow. Bearian (talk) 20:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not the yellow pages. None of the sources meet the criteria for establishing notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:14, 27 February 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.