Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 July 23

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 22 July	24 July >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 22:51, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Natasha (entertainer)[edit]

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

Not enough reliable sources covering this subject. Andise1 (talk) 20:16, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:18, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:18, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:26, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:26, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article would greatly benefit from additional sourcing, but it would appear that WP:NSINGER is met based on "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart." and additional coverage. Alansohn (talk) 20:51, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete The keep vote above cites the fact that she charted meets WP:SINGER, but there is no source that verifies which R&B chart she made. A word search of her recording name, real name, and title of the song turned up nothing on Billboard. I'm unaware of a search functions for Cashbox or other RS charts, but in absence of a source that rules out WP:BADCHART, there's nothing that backs up the claim. Her own website states the song charted but, again, does not specify which chart, only that the video for the song has 3 million views on YouTube. Otherwise, the artist was signed to a notable label, but dropped without any apparent success. Two articles are cited as sources. One is a dead link, the other a local paper. I did turn up a "next big thing" puff piece in Vibe [1] that indicates some measure of hype, but without accompanying success that indicates she "made it," I don't think she is encyclopedic worthy. A google search for additional possibilities turns up a few hits that are mirrors of this wikipage, as well as reference list or two noting her career as a model. Unless more sources can be found--or clarification on which chart she made--it's a no vote for me. ShelbyMarion (talk) 22:11, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 22:21, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per ShelbyMarion's arguments, and also no indication that she has significant success. This is 2019, her supposed 4 songs were 2007-2010. She does not stand the test of time. Her YouTube channel has no activity since 6 years ago. She apparently never had a breakthrough and isn't doing music any more, so why should we expect her notability to increase? starship .paint (talk) 05:24, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. MBisanz ^talk 22:50, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Darksiders characters[edit]

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

Article fails WP:LISTN. Would have considered merging, but all of the content is based on refs that simply wikilink to other Wikipedia articles. MrClog (talk) 22:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 22:19, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 22:19, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and trim into the main Darksiders (series) article, which argubly can do with a bit of narrative premise and characters. Not all the characters will survive this, but certainly most of them. --Masem (t) 22:30, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Masem, I have considered merging, but none of the content seems properly sourced. --MrClog (talk) 22:37, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have enough time with the series as a whole to be able to comment, but we certainly can turn to reviews of the games to establish characters, or for example this Polygon article can be used to briefly describe War. I'm talking one or two line descriptions on the frachrise page, along with brief plot summaries of each game. Also keep in mind: information that is not transformative from primary fictional works do not need to be sourced (but if they can be, they should be), but that information should be as concise as possible. In terms of this list, the whole set of characters from Darksiders is no way notable on their own, and thus just relocating that to a notable video game series is reasonable. --Masem (t) 22:51, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I would also not be opposed to the TNT/REFUND idea given that 1) there's past copyvios in this history and 2) none of the text is really "unique" and certainly not pulling from non-primary sources. It would be different if there was some unique secondary coverage included, but there really isn't. --Masem (t) 14:40, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TNT. If someone wants to create a sourced version then let them do it in a draft and resubmit._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:26, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge' with Darksiders (series), it has room in it there so no need for separate articles. Dream Focus 04:42, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Would you also agree to the proposal below? --MrClog (talk) 20:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No. Just replace the article with a redirect and tell people to merge over whatever they want to exist in the other article. Be able to check the history and see if anything else is worth saving. No need adding extra steps to the process. Dream Focus 21:23, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(comment by nom) Because the text needs some work before it should be included, I suggest deleting it but WP:REFUNDing it if an editor volunteers to work on it in their userspace. — Masem and Zxcvbnm agree on doing this. --MrClog (talk) 06:40, 24 July 2019 (UTC); edited 21:47, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and refund per above. Sergecross73 msg me 02:25, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The policy arguments on the delete side make a substantial case that the sourcing here is extremely thin. Furthermore, the one keep vote even noted there was a significant amount of non-notable material here. Taken together, the policy arguments are much stronger in favor of deletion. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:29, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of LGBT history in Alberta[edit]

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

Content fork of Timeline of LGBT history in Canada, with no clear reason why a separate province-specific list is needed. This comprises far too many events that aren't important or noteworthy at all, including the founding dates of gay-straight alliances at individual high schools, the sexual orientations of unsuccessful and therefore non-notable individual candidates in provincial legislature and city council elections, municipal proclamations of local Pride Weeks (and not just the first time, either, but the annual repetition of every time, even long after such things have become entirely uncontroversial and routinely expected), minor fundraising galas, the hirings of non-notable individual contributors to Calgary's local LGBT publication, and other such unencyclopedic WP:TRIVIA — and while some events are genuinely important (e.g. Vriend v Alberta), virtually all of those are already reflected in the Canada timeline, and if the national timeline is actually missing any genuinely important Alberta events, those can easily be added to it. Furthermore, I can find no evidence that any other Canadian province or American state has its own dedicated LGBT history timeline as a separate topic from the national one, and there's no credible reason why Alberta should stand out as a topic of special treatment denied any other state or province. There's simply no need for this to be forked out from the national Canada timeline at all. Bearcat (talk) 17:40, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:40, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:44, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So I feel like you don't understand the significance of queer and trans and two-spirit history and don't understand that of the many many entries in the main Canadian LGBT history page take place in Toronto and Montreal exclusively. Only eleven of the events from this article are featured in the heavily Ontario and Quebec centric main article. This means there is a dearth of regional representation, which this article is aiming to combat. LGBT history happens outside of two cities and we have to have this kind of representation out there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klaas89 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a gay man myself, so kindly stuff your presuppositions about what I do or don't "understand" the significance of in your nearest garbage can. Trust me, I've got way more to teach you about queer history than you'll ever have to teach me. (Just as a frex, if you think I've got some kind of bias against non-Toronto topics, you might want to take a gander at who started our articles about the Calgary, Edmonton, Regina, Saskatoon and Winnipeg Prides, most of the LGBT film festivals across Canada, western-based queer/trans writers like Michael V. Smith and Raziel Reid and Colin Thomas and Janine Fuller and Persimmon Blackbridge and Casey Plett and Amber Dawn and Nancy Jo Cullen and Debra Anderson and Carellin Brooks, and activists like Delwin Vriend and Jim Egan.)

If there are any important events missing from the Canada list, you're more than free to add them to it at any time. But kindly note that "important events" does not include the sexual orientations of unsuccessful candidates for political office who aren't historic firsts, the annual relisting of every city's local pride festival anytime after the first, the establishment of individual high schools' local GSAs, non-notable people joining the staffs of non-notable magazines, LGBTQ organizations simply changing their names, the opening or closure of every individual Priape location as a separate entry from the bankruptcy of the Priape chain as a whole, every individual grand marshal of every Pride parade every year, and on and so forth. Too many of the things listed here are entirely unimportant trivia, and the ones that are genuinely important enough to be noted are all either (a) already in the Canada list, or (b) easily addable to the Canada list if properly sourced as significant. Nobody said "queer history only happens in Toronto and Montreal" — for starters, Toronto and Montreal don't have their own dedicated queer history timelines separate from the Canadian one either, the only thing they have is more people actually adding stuff to the national list than other cities or provinces have yet (and I personally add west-based events to it all the time, if they're properly sourceable as significant). It's not a reason why Alberta needs its own Alberta-specific list; it's a reason to contribute to the improvement of the national list with additional properly sourced entries about notable events. Bearcat (talk) 18:38, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looking through RS, I find enough historical info to justify this article passing GNG as well as enough specific to Alberta to justify this page not being merged to the Candian LGBT timeline page. There are multiple sections in these books here, here and here specific to this topic. There are also many RS news articles covering historical LGBT events in Alberta with discussions of their lasting impacts. As for other provinces/states not having their own articles, that is not an indication of whether this particular article passes wikipedia guidelines. Instead it just means that articles for other provinces may likely pass GNG as well and be welcome additions to wikipedia if someone were to make them. Rab V (talk) 23:32, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do want to agree with Bearcat though that I think some entries on the timeline as currently written may not be notable enough or may need more support from RS. But as a whole, that is better solved by editing the article since there is enough on this topic to justify the article not being deleted. Rab V (talk) 23:39, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 22:09, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bearcat and WP:Indiscriminate. It was stated that "There are multiple sections in these books here, here and here specific to this topic." Actually only the latter two of those books have table-of-contents level sections about Alberta specifically, and they each only have one. Of those, the first is more about activism than history, and the other is just part of a chapter and appears to be just about how Catholic schools in Alberta have addressed LGBT students. In no way is there significant coverage of LGBT history in Alberta as a topic in its own right. I don't see any justification for having separate articles on LGBT history for every province, state, city, etc. -Crossroads- (talk) 14:14, 29 July 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. MBisanz ^talk 22:49, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

4-Ethylamphetamine[edit]

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

4-Ethylamphetamine does not appear to be a notable chemical compound. (All chemicals must meet WP:GNG to be included.) Although there are a few auto-generated database listings for this chemical, a Chemical Abstracts search turns up no sources in the chemical literature about this chemical compound. As far as I can tell, all mentions of "ethylamphetamine" refer to the related compound N-ethylamphetamine instead. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:32, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:32, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So @Edgar181:, I'm not an Orgo expert, but isn't 4-Ethylamphetamine simply an isomer of N-Ethylamphetamine, or Etilamfetamine? Utopes (talk) 23:21, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Utopes: 4-Ethylamphetamine and N-Ethylamphetamine (etilamfetamine) are isomers in the sense that they have the same molecular formula (C₁₁H₁₇N), but each has a different arrangement of atoms. As such, they are considered different, distinct chemical compounds. There are also more known chemical compounds with the same molecular formula. Some are notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article and are listed at C11H17N; many others are not notable enough to have Wikipedia article. I'm proposing that 4-Ethylamphetamine falls into the group that are not notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. -- Ed (Edgar181) 10:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. Comment. Of course 4-Ethylamphetamine and Etilamfetamine are different compounds. My very best wishes (talk) 01:57, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's a meaningless argument for keeping an article. One article merely being a different subject than another article isn't a reason to keep it. Articles must meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. ChemNerd (talk) 14:26, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can keep it as a derivative of more notable 2,5-Dimethoxy-4-ethylamphetamine. My very best wishes (talk) 15:11, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I think that's a meaningless argument for keeping an article. I could imagine hundreds of different derivatives of 2,5-Dimethoxy-4-ethylamphetamine. What would make any of them worthy of a Wikipedia article? ChemNerd (talk) 15:18, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As a simple analogue of amphetamine, this specific compound does appear in a number of studies/publications, such as [2], [3],[4] and others (not in the abstracts), and therefore can be kept. My very best wishes (talk) 15:33, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to two out of three of those papers (de Jong et al and Katagi et al), you are mistaken. The compound mentioned is actually N-ethylamphetamine, not 4-ethylamphetamine. In the third paper (Caspar et al), 4-ethylamphetamine gets barely a passing mention in a listing of many chemical compounds. I don't see how that establishes notability. ChemNerd (talk) 15:54, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I found mentioning of specifically "4-ethylamphetamine" (not N-ethylamphetamine, 2,5-Dimethoxy-4-ethylamphetamine, etc.) in this sources using Google Scholar (there were more such sources) and did not check the actual articles. But whatever. The compound is not terribly important. My very best wishes (talk) 19:49, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Through a search of the scientific literature, I can find nothing to suggest that this chemical meets Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. ChemNerd (talk) 14:26, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 22:09, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per the arguments of ChemNerd and Edgar, who are demonstrated subject experts.--Smokefoot (talk) 17:56, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I found one other literature hit for this structure (by SciFinder structure search): doi:10.1002/ps.2780440406 discusses its synthesis. I don't currently have full-text access to that article to know if it's just a bunch of analogs or reaction examples vs actually discussing the this specific compound in any notable way. ~~So hold for a day or two while I look for a library with it.~~ DMacks (talk) 18:07, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In this paper, a few dozen target chemical compounds were prepared. 4-Ethylamphetamine appears as an intermediate in the synthesis of just one them. I'll email you a copy of the paper. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:58, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- delete per that mere passing mention. DMacks (talk) 18:26, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete It just appears in literature as a one-liner or part of a generic statement with R=C2H5, so we don't need a whole article either. We can leave it so that Wikidata can record index and registry numbers if that is all that's known. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:26, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW, subject to re-creation if and when it becomes notable. Bearian (talk) 13:29, 30 July 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. Fenix down (talk) 21:16, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rachid Bachiri[edit]

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

Article about former footballer who made a total of 2 appearances France's fully-pro Ligue 2. Although this appears to satisfy the bright-line of WP:NFOOTBALL, it does not because there is longstanding consensus that a footballer who played a minimal amount in a fully-pro league but comprehensively fails WP:GNG does not actually satisfy NFOOTBALL (see e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phakamani Mngadi). All of the online coverage in English- and French-language sources is routine (I added a reference to the article that dedicates a single sentence to his post-retirement appointment as a scout - which was the best I could find). Jogurney (talk) 20:24, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:29, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:29, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:29, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:43, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per previous consensus, player fails WP:GNG regardless of NFooty. Govvy (talk) 20:54, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NFOOTBALL also doesn't pass WP:GNG. Meeanaya (talk) 05:43, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. soccerway has 0 caps and transfermarkt has 1 cap for 12 minutes. NFOOTY is merely a presumption of notability, and fails WP:GNG regardless. Icewhiz (talk) 07:05, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG; there is consensus that scraping by on WP:NFOOTBALL but failing GNG is insufficient. Giant Snowman 08:29, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as others have said it is time to rid Wikipedia of low quality unmaintanined bios of footballers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:57, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Lakes Book Project[edit]

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

Notability unmet and sources are shady. Sociable Song (talk) 19:35, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:08, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:09, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this PROMO for a 2013 project started by an SPA [5] that failed to garner WP:SIGCOV. Delete per WP:NOTPROMO, WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:57, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with others. Goes per WP:GNG MaskedSinger (talk) 04:25, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agreed with all of the above. starship .paint (talk) 05:26, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom: lacking reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 13:30, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:57, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Cooley (artist)[edit]

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

The biographical article is not notable. Sociable Song (talk) 19:05, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:10, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:10, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:10, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:10, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:10, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:11, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:11, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:11, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete cannot find sources.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:31, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacking in reliable source. Barca (talk) 22:24, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. Hunted for mentions, but didn't find anything beyond an IMDB entry for three short films of absolutely no notoriety he wrote, filmed, directed with no one else notable. 136.57.207.196 (talk) 04:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - found nothing on him and nothing for Neptune Films other than a facebook page and vimeo channel. Does not meet notability criteria. Netherzone (talk) 04:27, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Could not find any references as well. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:52, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW, no reliable sources, and run of the mill producer. Bearian (talk) 13:40, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:56, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Canonfire![edit]

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

Article is about a website with 6,640 unique visitors per month (per Similarweb) and is sourced entirely to itself. This has been the state of affairs for the last 14 years, during which no RS have emerged. My final, pre-deletion WP:BEFORE searched newspapers.com, JSTOR, Google News, and Google Books and was still unable to locate any RS. Chetsford (talk) 18:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:01, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:01, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I also cannot find any coverage of this website in independent secondary sources. I also reviewed the sources presented in the original AfD and none of them demonstrate notability either - forum posts, for instance. I'm happy to review any sources presented, but based on the previous AfD I'd be exceptionally wary of any !votes which claim notability without referencing any sources. SportingFlyer T·C 19:09, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'll normally go pretty far to save an article . . . but there ain't no savin' this one at least based on what I can see from my WP:BEFORE. Just coverage on forums and the like or brief mentions elsewhere. I'd also support merging with World of Greyhawk just to WP:PRESERVE but the site really just isn't notable. FOARP (talk) 20:41, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was also unable to find any reliable sources discussing this website. The prior AFD that resulted in Keep did so on the claim that the site itself could be used as a source to pass the GNG, which, of course, is not a valid argument at all. It does not appear to have ever been notable enough to either keep as a stand alone article, nor merged into any other article. Rorshacma (talk) 16:33, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:56, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shikha Khanduja Kaul[edit]

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

Doesn't appear notable. Creator and the only other significant contributor are both SPAs. The award doesn't seem to be notable either. No result for "times of India Sikha Khanduja". Mirrors and social media only. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 18:38, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 18:38, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 18:38, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 18:38, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:51, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non notable author, fails WP:GNG also. Meeanaya (talk) 05:44, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete:No reference in WP:RS. Fails WP:Notability—Harshil169 (talk) 09:16, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Practically all OR, supported by a single non-RS source (Merinews, which "allows anyone to share news, opinion, analysis, reviews, photos and events"), started by a SPA whose single career edit was creating this article, extensively nurtured by another SPA Nitijain5 (whose only edits are to this article), ORPHAN, etc. To soapbox here just a bit, this article was prodded shortly after creation (it looked like this), but was deprodded (and detagged) by an experienced editor, who added this knowingly unacceptable source. This sort of behavior only makes more work for other editors. Agricola44 (talk) 16:41, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR, fails WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:25, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable writer. After adding at least 5 living people whose articles are under discussion for deletion to the category living people just today I am beginning to wonder how many articles we have on living people that are not currently in that category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:39, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON and lack of good sourcing. No real impact yet; her single award is local and minor. Bearian (talk) 13:42, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of good sources; even I researched a lot on Google. Not yet a single reliable source to prove notability of her. Awards are local and paid. Lekkala R Reddy (talk) 16:23, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of newspapers in the Philippines. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:56, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of newspapers in Zamboanga City[edit]

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

Extremely short list. I think it should redirect to List of newspapers in the Philippines which already has the two entries. – Anne drew 18:20, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. – Anne drew 18:20, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. – Anne drew 18:20, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:53, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per nom. I'd be happy to just get this done without letting the AfD drag on. Ajf773 (talk) 19:31, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:08, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom starship .paint (talk) 05:27, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
'Redirect per WP:CHEAP and WP:SNOW. Move on. Bearian (talk) 13:47, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 18:09, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Urban Romantic[edit]

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

Improperly sourced. There is only one source, which brings its notability into question. Also, the "source" is an Amazon-like retail website that was simply selling the album, which is now out of print. JimmyPiersall (talk) 17:36, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 17:37, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:19, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added its sourced chart history; it meets WP:NALBUM, "The single or album has appeared on any country's national music chart." (Disclosure: I am the original article creator.)

Note, this AFD and the substantially simultaneous AFD for Jack Thomas (academic), another article I created, appear to have been made in retaliation for my reversion of the nom's most recent unsourced addition of trivia to List of references to Cleveland in popular culture. Both articles were nominated immediately after his repetition of the edit and comment about it on my talk page; and in neither case did the nom notify me of the AfD. That being said, I created this article over a decade ago, when I was not as adroit about Wikipedia ways, in particular about sourcing, and do not object to deletion of an article that doesn't merit inclusion, whether it originated with me or not. TJRC (talk) 20:41, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per TJRC, meets WP:NALBUM. Meeanaya (talk) 05:46, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - though it could use some more sources from pro reviews and the like (if there are any). Significant chart placement in Japan makes the case, and the AfD nomination is suspect anyway. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:03, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 13:27, 30 July 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. Ixfd64 (talk) 17:21, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eva Lwow[edit]

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

No claim of notability other than having a notable grandchild. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:42, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:42, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:42, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:19, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Let's just say we need to nip this in the bud while we still can before this "family member" thing that goes on on this website gets out of hand any further (I'm looking at you, Beatles). Also, Geni is a gigantic BLP violation that should have never been included. Trillfendi (talk) 22:49, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, couldn't find any references other than genealogy. 136.57.207.196 (talk) 04:14, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 16:10, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being the grandmother of a notable person does not make one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:54, 27 July 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 Guillaume Delisle. MBisanz ^talk 22:48, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Map of Iran at the end of the Safavid period[edit]

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

A useful image for various articles, but not a stand-alone article topic. References are about the Safavid dynasty and not the specific map. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:40, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:20, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Would it be better to rename the article to Gilom Dileyslay and focus on Dileyslay, his works, who also was a well travelled Cartographer. Govvy (talk) 20:34, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, Gilom Dileyslay would be a lot better topic for an article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:51, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:29, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:29, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In fact we already have an article on the mapmaker: Guillaume Delisle. The spelling Gilom Dileyslay doesn't seem to be used anywhere besides in connection with this image. It's probably a bad transliteration from French to Persian and back. So yes, let's delete this article because this specific map isn't individually notable, and the title isn't likely to be useful as a redirect. – Joe (talk) 09:02, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Joe Roe: I wasn't sure about that, but it does seem to make sense to be Guillaume Delisle, is there nothing from this article to merge before it gets deleted? Govvy (talk) 14:28, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think so. It's essentially an extended caption, describing very basically what the map shows. – Joe (talk) 07:53, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and repurpose as an article on the cartographer. However this may well have been a significant map in its time. if he was in fact Guillaume Delisle, then a merge is requisite. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:32, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Peterkingiron: The map was definitely made by Guillaume Delisle. It says so in the legend. So what would we rename it to? Or what would we merge? – Joe (talk) 07:56, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, As required by the nom. I have worked on the article again and added some RS for the map itself. The article now passes notability and I request that it can stay. Alex-h (talk) 21:22, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see any references about the specific map (rather than about the period), nor any reason why this is a good topic for a stand-alone article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:34, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After some thought, I am not sure we need this article. I feel it be better to improve Guillaume Delisle with a bit of information about the map there. I did think of Safavid dynasty but that is already expansive. Govvy (talk) 13:32, 27 July 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. Ixfd64 (talk) 17:27, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Salmi[edit]

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

This is a violation of WP:NOT - a rambling article that doesn't make clear why or how the person is notable. Many, many uncited claims suggest this is an autobiography. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:54, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:54, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:54, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:21, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:21, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:21, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Article appears to have been created by an SPA. Moaz786 (talk to me or see what I've been doing) 20:04, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is indeed a long and rambling article — I'm only mildly exaggerating when I say it comes close to documenting each and every individual time Salmi ever sneezed. It's so absurdly long, in fact, that it pulls off the truly impressive trick of citing 83 footnotes and yet still somehow featuring incredibly long passages of completely unreferenced text — in far too many places, as well, it doesn't just describe what he did, but delves into directly quoting everything he or somebody else said about it verbatim, which is not how you write about people's activities in an encyclopedic manner.
Yet, in all this length and detail, what it fails to do is demonstrate that any of his activities were encyclopedically noteworthy: attending city council meetings to lobby for a city to declare itself a nuclear-free zone is not a notability claim; activity in student government is not a notability claim; being a non-winning fringe party candidate for political office is not a notability claim; writing opinion pieces for hyperlocal community weekly newspapers is not a notability claim; and on and so forth. If he just recently wrote and published a book, even that isn't an instant notability freebie either — passing WP:AUTHOR is a matter of winning major literary awards and/or showing evidence of noteworthy literary critics reviewing the book in media, not just of stating that the book exists — but the book is almost certainly the reason why after 35 years of activity this article is suddenly happening now: this is almost certainly an advertorial attempt by either Salmi himself or his publisher to boost his public profile and sell more books by misusing Wikipedia as a publicity platform.
As for WP:GNG, that isn't just a matter of counting up the footnotes and keeping anything that surpasses a certain arbitrary number: reference bombing is a thing, and it's a thing this article is definitely guilty of. Among these 83 footnotes, I count far too many tabloid newspapers, community and neighbourhood hyperlocals, "quote of the day" sidebars and glancing namechecks of his existence in articles which aren't about him to any non-trivial degree, none of which are types of sourcing that constitute support for notability — and once you discount all of those, the relatively few remaining sources that are actually about him to any non-trivial degree are purely local coverage in the Vancouver dailies in non-notable contexts. The notability test is not just "anybody who's gotten their name into the media X number of times for any reason whatsoever" — it tests the sources for their type and depth and geographic range, and for the context of what they're covering the subject for, so it is entirely possible for a person with 83 footnotes to still fail GNG even as a person with just two or three footnotes passes it.
Publicity-seeking is not how you get a person into an encyclopedia — and even if he actually were notable, this article is so badly written that it would still have to be blown up and restarted from scratch anyway. Bearcat (talk) 13:16, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HOAX, not that it meets this usual definition of WP:HOAX, but this is clearly a case of Salmi having a laugh at Wikipedia. Here is a typical headlines about a Salmi stunt: Vancouver Sun: Godzilla strikes back: Funster Brian Salmi is happy creating a bit of chaos in the mayoral elections, his mischief as monstrous as his nickname. Just to clear things up, some text: "A man who used to call himself Godzilla then later legally changed his name to Sa Tan to sound like "satan" is accusing the Yukon government of defaming his character. According to e-mails [Tan] sent to Yukon Supreme Court last week, he was asked by the department to review and revise a briefing note for Economic Development Minister Jim Kenyon on a proposed Alaska-Yukon railway. In Tan's recent political endeavours, such as bringing the Rhino Party to the Yukon and organizing public meetings against the city's smoking bylaw, Tan has gone by the name [Brian Salmi]." I suspect that we could have an article about Salmi. But this one is pretty clearly a Salmi stunt and, as Nom says, this is a violation of WP:NOT.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:15, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nom. This is a violation of WP:NOT --SalmanZ (talk) 20:29, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Inadequately written article. Fails to demonstrate the significance which does not qualify for notability claim WilmA.OliveR (talk) 06:35, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is among the 4 worst articles I have ever seen, and that is saying a lot. I have never seen an article try so hard as to mention the awards something the subject only watched got.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:37, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus that notability is met by virtue of the position. (non-admin closure) MarginalCost (talk) 17:23, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Blunden[edit]

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

Notability concerns. No independent references about this firefighter. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:27, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:27, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:22, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Probably keep - I would agree that the article could be improved, but internet searches do turn up some news and other results, though less than I would expect. In terms of notability the key issue is whether the post he holds makes him notable. I would lean towards suggesting that it does. I certainly do not think it could be argued that the office of Chief Fire Officer of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service is not notable. In this position, he is in charge of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service which is now the only fire service in Scotland and is the largest unified fire brigade in the United Kingdom. It is also a post of national significance as it is directly under the Scottish Government. Of course he has only been in the post a relatively short time, and I think this is a factor in why the coverage of him in the media to date has been relatively limited. Dunarc (talk) 22:49, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would also say that someone holding a position of head of the fire (or police) service of a country of 5 million people should be presumed notable. I have just been looking at similar pages (eg Dany Cotton, Cressida Dick, the heads of the London fire and police services) - they have been in their positions longer, so there is more news about them (though not all yet reflected in Dany Cotton's article ....), but as the position has ultimate responsibility for deployment and decisions regarding the whole of the service, I would suggest that it is similar to WP:MILPEOPLE #3, "Held the top-level military command position of their nation's armed forces (such as Chief of the General Staff), or of a department thereof (such as Chief of Army Staff)". (Probably there are guides somewhere to the relative ranks of para-military services like police and fire, compared to military services?) RebeccaGreen (talk) 06:17, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:56, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Chief fire officer for the whole of Scotland. Clearly notable per common sense. Unfortunately there are no guidelines about the notability of police and fire officers, but I agree with User:RebeccaGreen that WP:SOLDIER or something similar should probably apply equally to other uniformed services. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:17, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:54, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sagarmatha English School[edit]

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

Not notable school. ~SS49~ {talk} 15:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:30, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:30, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:22, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usedtobecool (talk • contribs)
Delete no indication of notability starship .paint (talk) 03:36, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the only sentence is self-contradictory. ^^^Thanks Starship.paint. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 03:44, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. - MA Javadi (talk) 16:52, 30 July 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 only a matter of numbers, but the "delete" arguments are uncommonly weak. They basically only allege WP:NPOV problems, but do not indicate why only deletion (rather than editing the article) can resolve these problems. Neutrality, on Wikipedia, does not mean treating both sides in a controversy the same, but, rather, reflecting the views expressed in reliable sources. No substantial argument is made how the article is deficient in this regard, or how, if it is, this cannot be remedied by adding other reliably sourced points of view rather than by deleting the article. This applies also to the supposedly deficient coverage of similar issues in previous administrations. This perceived deficiency will not be remedied by deleting this article. Sandstein 07:37, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trump administration migrant detentions[edit]

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

This is just a NPOV COATRACK disgrace of an article. If one truly wanted to make an article worthy of an encyclopedia, one would have need to TNT this and perhaps have a history section and mention OBAMA and his detention center and deportation. As it stands now, it just seems like yet again, another Trump article for the sake of Trump article. I get that we need to bash Trump, I do, but the bias in this article is just too heavy handed that I think even for Wikipedia it's too much. It's as if illegal immigration suddenly started with President Trump. I think we need to stop with these Trump articles. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:53, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:53, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:53, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as the author of this article recently found out, there is already an article in mainspace called Immigration detention in the United States. I am not sure why we need another article when this one already covers the subject, had someone done a little digging. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now - I’m not a fan of articles on recent events. But, it’s difficult to see how this affair is not going to stand the test of time. We can always look at this later and see if it should be deleted/merged. Although, Trump articles are so large, merges can be prohibitive. Also, I really think the AfD filing should have shown less bias itself. O3000 (talk) 17:09, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ per nom. I agree with the article creator that there is room for an article of this kind, which there are plenty of RS for, and even though there exist many other articles in this genre such as Trump administration family separation policy, Migrant deaths along the Mexico-United States border, Operation Streamline etc. But according to this source (for example), the current president and his administration can simply not be the primary focus of this topic, although they do figure big in it. Let the article come back in another form under a generic name about border detentions spanning back 20 years, and include in it sections about each president and administration's policies since then for the sake of NPOV. StonyBrook (talk) 19:51, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Newsweek link you provided wrote: While conditions were poor under Obama's administration, some things appear to have grown worse during Trump's tenure. This source has now been cited in the article, and another source linked from it was also cited, with a new section on Trump administration migrant detentions#Comparison with past administrations. starship .paint (talk) 00:21, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's an improvement. But it doesn't address the fact that these detentions have been occurring on the watch of previous presidents, who are all sworn to secure the national borders. Isn't it better to have one article on their collective border enforcement records instead of the present one, Obama administration migrant detentions, etc? This source could be the starting point for Bush administration migrant detentions. StonyBrook (talk) 00:50, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@StonyBrook: - if there were few sources on each administration's detentions, such that the article topic would not pass the WP:General notability guideline, but that collectively sources covering all administrations combined would pass the general notability guideline, then one article would be better. Right now the number of reliable sources (50, potentially more) on the topic easily establish that this is a noteworthy standalone topic. I read the NPR link you provided, I don't think there's a very strong link. The man said: once they're released, is that it takes years to hear their cases. - but this article is about conditions before release. starship .paint (talk) 01:03, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I get your point. But it does also say The arrival of single adults, as he says, across the border is not unusual compared to prior surges that occurred during the Obama administration. If your premise is that something extraordinary is happening with individual migrants under Trump, I don't see it. StonyBrook (talk) 01:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@StonyBrook: - this article isn't Migrant numbers during the Trump administration. This article is chiefly about the detentions (not the migrations). Thus far, the sources I've seen are focusing on the detention conditions, which I believe, is the noteworthy issue here. starship .paint (talk) 01:18, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Also, to reply to your earlier point, we can have both this article and United States migrant detentions, but someone has to work on that.~~ Oh, I just found out that Immigration detention in the United States exists. So that's that. starship .paint (talk) 01:22, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Changing my vote to keep after re-reading WP:SPINOFF. Trump article being diverted off the parent seems to be okay so long as the multiple sources are presented neutrally. Some work remains to shore up the parent article to reflect past and present general trends. StonyBrook (talk) 02:02, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete also agree this is a NPOV COATRACK. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 20:57, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Explain yourself, Stefka Bulgaria. So, per the essay WP:COATRACK, this article is pretending to be on Trump administration migrant detentions, but is really on what other topic exactly? starship .paint (talk) 23:48, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Much of this article could be salvaged for other articles if made to comply with NPOV. This topic itself is not worthy, though the topic of America's detention centers in general, maybe, though not my call there. Jerry (talk) 22:00, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So, topic with 50 reliable sources present is not worthy. How does the article not comply with NPOV? starship .paint (talk) 00:53, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This article should probably cover the use of detention camps by * all * relevant administrations instead of just one. I see no reason why there should be an article for just one president just because he got more media attention than the previous one. Jerry (talk) 01:45, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@JerrySa1:, Immigration detention in the United States exists. There is a reason why there should be an article for this particular president, because media outlets are reliable sources too, and there is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, per WP:GNG. Also, the attention is not exclusive to media outlets - the U.N. has commented, the Prime Minister of U.K. has commented, various lawmakers have commented, and the administration's officials have reacted. starship .paint (talk) 01:57, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for a number of reasons, one of them being the essentially POV-y title. Drmies (talk) 02:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Adding all this information to the main article on migrant detentions would be WP:UNDUE. The rationale for deletion is completely bereft of any Wikipedia policy based arguments and is purely WP:IDONTLIKEIT, as the subject of this article was widely covered in the news media and is notable. WP:NOTCENSORED so we don't need to protect Trump by limiting the number of articles about him. If the detentions under Obama were truly worthy of their own page then go and make one - that has no bearing on this page._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:21, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- You know, ZXCVBNM, one of these days some admin is going to start leaving warnings for those who infer "IDONTLIKEIT" without giving a valid reason for it. The rationale is clearly not "bereft of any Wikipedia policy based arguments"--COATRACK is an argument. And censorship simply doesn't apply here. Look up WP:AGF, will you. Drmies (talk) 14:39, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Coatrack disgrace of an article" isn't a policy based argument. There was no evidence offered as to why it was a coatrack article besides "Obama did it too". So, no, it doesn't have any cogent policy based arguments._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:06, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't think NOTCENSORED means what you think it means. Also, can you please read the first paragraph in the background section and let me know if it makes sense to you?Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:11, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      @Sir Joseph: - I've rearranged it, let me know if you still can't understand. starship .paint (talk) 03:14, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the content of the page has been improved, but the subject itself is flawed. As noted by others, the content present here could be merged into several other already related articles and the title isn't the best. 136.57.207.196 (talk) 04:24, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Migrant Detention has been an ongoing issue - it's not a Trump one. If one wants to do the issue justice - go out of your way to be neutral. Being partisan will only do these important issues a huge disservice. MaskedSinger (talk) 04:38, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@MaskedSinger: - the article makes no attempt to hide that it is an ongoing issue. As you can see from Trump administration migrant detentions#Comparison with past administrations, we have mentions of the administrations of Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr, (and Clinton, after this statement was made), Bush Jr, and Obama. starship .paint (talk) 04:41, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Starship.paint: - What about the rest of what I wrote? MaskedSinger (talk) 04:45, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@MaskedSinger: What about it? You asked me to be neutral, but haven't elaborated. Perhaps the article seems negative because the sources themselves are negative on this issue. You implied I was partisan, but haven't elaborated. Instructions are unclear. How have I been partisan when I've added responses from Republicans, such as Trump, Pence, Graham? I noticed I missed the Clinton administration. That's been added now. starship .paint (talk) 04:49, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Drmies. Cassianto^Talk 12:54, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sir Joseph and Stefka Bulgaria: - mind explaining (other than just claiming) exactly how does this article violate NPOV? starship .paint (talk) 13:11, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a separate subject about the recent and currently ungoing campaign of detentions. This is a separate campaign because Trump administration expanded the scope of rapid deportations. There is a plenty of sources. It could be merged to Immigration policy of Donald Trump but the latter article is already too large. My very best wishes (talk) 19:39, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to elaborate, there's no question migrant detention as an issue is notable, and the Trump Administration's stance on this immigration issue is also notable and a large enough topic to be covered, but there are existing topics for those. There is nothing in this article which doesn't fit in another article. The inclusion of comparison to past administration's is fine to expand the topic, but then why an article for "Trump Administration"? (I understand it was likely added to address NPOV concerns from others.) From the standpoint of an encyclopedia meant for a wider audience, a subsection in migrant detention, or a results section in the existing policy page is probably more warranted for what's contained here. My suggestion is that having one clear topic which covers an issue across time and administrations, rather than a specific Wikipedia page for what will end up historically as just one controversy among many is a much cleaner approach than multiple overlapping articles. With the current article name, it's going to be limited to information which really belongs elsewhere. 136.57.207.196 (talk) 22:01, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - (1) topic easily passes WP:GNG (60kB, 83 reliable sources including 15 academic ones). Merging it into Immigration detention in the United States (85kB, 104 sources) would result in WP:UNDUE weight on this topic, so it's a valid WP:SPINOFF. (2) Concerns were raised (as was WP:NPOV) about past administrations' doings, which have been addressed with a 800+ words section on Trump administration migrant detentions#Comparison with past administrations, with nine comparisons with Obama's, three to Bush Jr, two to Clinton, two to Reagan, one to Bush Sr, and one to Carter. (3) Concerns about POV-y title can be addressed if someone actually suggests a better title, there's no need to delete the article if you can move it. Migrant detentions under the Trump administration? (4) I made attempts to discuss COATRACK/NPOV above, so I won't repeat them. I've taken steps to remedy the article based on concerns raised on this page, but I can't do more without explanations and specific examples of problematic parts. starship .paint (talk) 09:01, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: delete !voters have asserted the article violates NPOV but have provided little detail as to which aspects are problematic and why. Easily passes GNG. Merging seems inappropriate due to the size of potential target articles. – Teratix ₵ 06:06, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's not against a "neutral point of view" to write about a subject people don't like. The article is long, well-cited, features photos, has an entire section comparing this to past administrations. No coatrack issue here if the title of the article is "Trump administration migrant detentions" and that's what it covers. This is obviously an ongoing issue and we'd be lying if we pretended this hasn't garnered significant attention. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 13:38, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep I agree with points made by My very best wishes, Starship.paint, Nice4What. There are a number of related ongoing court cases where more information we be published. Extraneous content can be deleted in the future if necessary to trim the article.Oceanflynn (talk) 17:26, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep The article should be kept. The immigration policies are major issues and the immigration policies of the Trump Administration should be forked out to separate pages. There may be an argument for merger with family detention, but there should not be a deletion.Theoallen1 (talk) 03:19, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject meets WP:GNG, the article shows significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, including comparison with other administrations. I believe it presents the information in a neutral manner, and if there are any questions about that, that is a matter of content not a reason for deletion. RebeccaGreen (talk) 02:17, 31 July 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. Ixfd64 (talk) 17:17, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PaperCut MF[edit]

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

Article topic looks to be a WP:NCORP/WP:NSOFTWARE failure. The article cites a number of sources—many of which are WP:PRIMARY—but none are particularly in-depth as mandated by WP:CORPDEPTH; many are basic profile articles hosted by listing websites. A WP:BEFORE search turns up more of the same type of source and a large amount of press releases, which are also considered to be inadequate by NCORP. Information on the product (same name as the company) is lacking. SamHolt6 (talk) 15:44, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SamHolt6 (talk) 15:44, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:23, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:23, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete Not all software is notable. This is very minor, not innovative, not widely used and (despite being some years ago) has had no lasting influences. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:09, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article as is, does not indicate that the subject has satisfied WP:GNG. starship .paint (talk) 05:30, 30 July 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. Ixfd64 (talk) 17:31, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dan DeBono (politician)[edit]

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

The subject of the article does not appear to meet Wikipedia's notability standards on the basis of WP:SOLDIER, WP:NPOLITICIAN, or on any more general basis. He currently appears to be a mid-level staff official in the Department of Transportation. Fiachra10003 (talk) 14:50, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:51, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:51, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:51, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:51, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Aside from the fact that this person does not meet the notability criteria, there are some POV issues with the article("comes from a patriotic family"- according to who?). The page creator seems to be a supporter or possibly a campaign worker. 331dot (talk) 14:55, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being in SEAL Team and non-elected candidate in politics, fails WP:NPOL, WP:SOLDIER] and WP:GNG. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:05, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the promotional tone of the article could of course be fixed (it could also be seen as violating WP:NOTADVOCACY), but the article subject seems to be a clear WP:NPOL failure as they lost their respective election race.--SamHolt6 (talk) 15:09, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unsuccessful Congressional runs generally do not confer notability. Cosmic Sans (talk) 15:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they did not win — the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding office, not just running for it. But nothing else stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to establish that he would already have qualified for an article before being selected as a candidate, it's written more like an advertorialized campaign brochure than an encyclopedia article, and it's referenced almost entirely to his own self-published campaign material. And as always, the fact that a couple of pieces of campaign coverage exist in the local media is not a free pass over GNG for an unelected candidate either, because every candidate in every district can always show a couple of pieces of campaign coverage. Bearcat (talk) 15:59, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication that DeBono passes any notability standard, especially NPOL. Best, GPL93 (talk) 04:00, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: generally do not confer notability. --SalmanZ (talk) 21:14, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unelected candidates for congress are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:45, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:53, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Megan Abrigo[edit]

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

Article about a model whose main claim to fame seems to be that she held case #6 on Deal or No Deal and was there for five seasons. No credible claim of notability made. Slashme (talk) 14:21, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:38, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:38, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:38, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:38, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:57, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete is also Daniel Tosh's ex, but notability is not inherited. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:01, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:23, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:52, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Conquest (gametype)[edit]

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

A game type particular to the Battlefield series. Nothing here that can't just be mentioned in the Battlefield article, and it's not referenced. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:26, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:26, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Battlefield (video game series)#Development history where the mode is mentioned.--64.229.166.98 (talk) 18:25, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and do not redirect. "Conquest" is a fairly generic name that is used across multiple different games (eg Unreal[6] or Hearthstone[7]) and is not specific to the Battlefield series. This makes it too vague a term to serve as a useful redirect. Lowercaserho (talk) 04:27, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Lowercaserho. The subject of the article does not have the sourcing needed to establish notability, and the term is too generic to make a useful redirect. Rorshacma (talk) 16:10, 30 July 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. Lourdes 16:21, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hallelujah Day[edit]

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

Seems like a non-notable song. ~~Previously deleted and is back.~~ Fails WP:NSONG. A redirect, maybe? William2001^(talk) 01:15, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to emphasize that while NSONG does mention being ranked on a national chart, it also makes it clear that the chart alone cannot be the sole indicator of notability. Thank you. William2001^(talk) 12:48, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:17, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:17, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:26, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The previously deleted article was about a holiday, not a song. Uncle G (talk) 08:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Uncle G: Thanks for letting me know; I guess I relied too much on the page curation notices. I still think that the song doesn't meet WP:NSONG. William2001^(talk) 21:33, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~Redirect Passes NSONG as the song definitely charted on accepted national list in Austria (and perhaps other countries). As the nomination was off the failed SNG, will thus presume notability. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:25, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to redirect in light of the work Aoba did below. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:03, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

keep: song ranked #12 on a national chart [8], passes #1 of WP:NSONG Ceethekreator (talk) 12:38, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Barkeep49 and Ceethekreator: Thanks for your suggestions. I agree that the song is ranked #12 on the chart, but according to WP:NSONG, I don't think that itself makes the song notable (it may be notable). I would like to see some significant coverage on this song. Thanks. William2001^(talk) 18:58, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We're talking about a song from 1996 so notability establishing sources might only exist offline. This is part of the reason that the presumption of notability from a SNG has some value in my mind. I admit I have not done a full look into finding sources that may exist online. But I did invest effort into establishing that it meets NSONG such that I can say it "Seems like a notable song. Passes NSONG. An article for improvement, maybe?" I'm very open to the argument that something which nominally passes a SNG is not actually notable, but as you didn't understand . However, I don't see you making that case especially as you didn't address the fact that it charted on a chart recognized by NSONG in your nomination. I am more than willing to change my !vote in an AfD based on evidence but from the evidence I'm seeing suggests notability. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:54, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:NSONG per peak 12 on the national chart. BabbaQ (talk) 12:14, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your !vote, but again, NSONG makes it clear that ranking on the national chart itself is not sufficient. From NSONG: "Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts. (Note again that this indicates only that a song may be notable, not that it is notable.)" William2001^(talk) 00:32, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a high ranking song on a national chart. Even within the Top20. Sorry, but this is a clear cut Keep article per Wikipedias own standards set in guidelines.BabbaQ (talk) 10:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Born in Africa (Dr. Alban album). Charting is one sign of a song's notability, but it would still need to receive coverage from third-party reliable sources. I disagree with the keep votes because the chart information could easily be merged into the parent article about the album. Offline sources may exist, but I could not find anything through Google or Newspapers.com. It is a valid search term so I think a redirect would be better than outright deletion. Aoba47 (talk) 01:46, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Aoba47, thanks for doing this search. I don't have time at the moment to do my own search but this does provide evidence that a redirect might be appropriate. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:18, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. Just trying to help out. Aoba47 (talk) 03:48, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That it could be merged is a POV. Wikipedias own set guidelines are very specific here. This is a high ranking song on a national chart. BabbaQ (talk) 10:17, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is not correct. The following sentence is taken directly from WP:NSONG: (Any of the following factors suggest that a song or single may be notable enough that a search for coverage in reliable independent sources will be successful) and one of those factors is chart placement. The guideline is saying that chart placement may indicate that a song has received coverage from reliable independent sources, but it does not present chart placement as an absolute indicator of notability by itself. Here is another sentence from WP:NSONG (Notability aside, a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album), and that further proves that notability is proven entirely by coverage. If the chart placement is the only information about the song available in sources, then it would fall under the "articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album" part. Apologies for the long response, but the above statement is not accurate to Wikipedia policy. My merge vote is grounded entirely in policy and not POV (as the above editor falsely claims). Aoba47 (talk) 14:52, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per ongoing disputes on both sourcing and interpretation of NSONG
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 09:55, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May I just point out that the article passes WP:NMUSIC, High (top20) Charting/peak at national chart trumps all POV. I still say Keep after review of article and this discussion.BabbaQ (talk) 18:33, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I literally just explained in my message above how the NSONG Wikipedia policy directly states that chart placement alone does not fully account for notability so again your POV claim is false. Aoba47 (talk) 22:25, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe the article is notable, then I would encourage you to find and list sources here that cover it to prove that it had received enough coverage for an independent article. I could not find anything, but I would be more than happy to change my vote if sources are produced here. Aoba47 (talk) 23:22, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 13:04, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my Keep !vote. The song reached Top20 in the official chart (place 12). And are well sourced and within WP:NMUSIC.BabbaQ (talk) 08:36, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - such is my vote until actual reliable source coverage beyond chart listings are provided. If even one is provided, then ignore my vote. starship .paint (talk) 04:15, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - has anyone been able to view Finnish/Swedish/Austrian entertainment industry periodicals from 1996, and come to the conclusion that the topic was not discussed? Are they available online? If not, then this is a textbook case of why we have notability guidelines other than GNG. It seems likely the song was discussed by independent, reliable sources *because* of the song's success on national charts. Across multiple countries. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:17, 31 July 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 as blatant vandalism. ... discospinster _talk 13:43, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hamish Murray and his Chromosome Heist[edit]

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

Fails to meet NFILM requirements. Possible it might gain reviews (or other source of notability) in the future, but a case of WP:TOOSOON at this point. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:59, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:59, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Short film is real, released, and has not gained notability just yet. The film will not gain reviews as it is a short film and will not gain any sources as it is a film made for private use which is planned to gain some sort of notability in the future. 123.243.90.147 (talk) 13:41, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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 Snow keep.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:17, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Hoyt[edit]

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

I was unaware that this page existed until its proposed deletion was removed by what appears to be a WP:CANVASsed editor on another page. After spending time reviewing the page and attempting to google the author I believe the original proposer may have been correct that the subject has not demonstrated notability.

Of eleven sources on the page, all but one source back to either Archive.org remnants of her old personal website or to her husband's website.
The final source on the page is a podcast.
Some of the content appears plagiarized from other websites or promotional materials from the publisher such as book jacket author bio text. The text of the Writing section appears copied verbatim from fan site https://www.risingshadow.net/library/author/567-sarah-a-hoyt.

I am starting this discussion in hopes that these issues can be reviewed and the article appropriately addressed in whatever form that takes. Imadethisstupidaccount (talk) 12:49, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:53, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:53, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:53, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:54, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While it's clear that the article needs some dressing up, Sarah Hoyt is a fairly well-known author. She is definitely notable. I'll see what I can do. The article should be kept. Sam Paris (talk) 13:04, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Frankly you can't be serious, she won the Prometheus Award in 2011. https://www.tor.com/2019/04/08/40-years-of-the-prometheus-award Stephen W. Houghton II 135.84.167.203 (talk) 13:21, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Hoyt is a well known author, Dragon award winner (as it says on the page), Prometheus award winner (as it says on the page). There should be no question that the subject is notable. The page may not be widely sourced -- I'll see if I can find some material to add to the links -- but the page should clearly be kept. (Note: I went back and added some external references to improve the page) User:rodkinnison5 —Preceding undated comment added 13:24, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has an entry in the Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, which is an excellent reference work. Andrew D. (talk) 14:36, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep She has won two awards, which may establish notability. And some press coverage [[9]]. The article needs work, it is too hagiographic and over reliant on primary sources. But she does seem just about notable.Slatersteven (talk) 15:03, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As others have noted, the awards listed in the infobox are sufficient to establish notability. Deli nk (talk) 15:19, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This author and editor is obviously notable and well-established. desmay (talk) 18:04, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I am not personally fond of Hoyt, she easily meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. Simonm223 (talk) 18:46, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify The current sources are abominable. Trillfendi (talk) 22:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I like this suggestion from Trillfendi. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 01:56, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close and open a Peer review instead. AfD is for nominating articles for deletion, not for asking articles to be improved. --letcreate123 (talk) 01:43, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep obviously notable author. There are far less notable articles throughout the wiki. 107.77.215.170 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:46, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, (what is all this white fluffy stuff?) easily meets WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG as brought out by above editors, another waste of time for afd editors, how many times does it have to be said - article content does not determine notability, it really doesn't matter how badly written an article is, if the subject is notable, then, they're notable, i note that even prior to the article being prodded, it stated that Hoyt has won the Prometheus Award (PA) - (see here), this alone means that she meets WP:ANYBIO, so if the nominator had been bothered to going to the PA article they would have seen her name there, not only as a winner but also as a finalist on multiple occasions, as for this afd being reinstated by Bbb23 (see here) (after being non-admin closed by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (see here)) with the comment "you cannot do that", um yes they can, having a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How an AfD discussion is closed and WP:NACD, this is almost a text book case of an afd being closed early ie. editor is experienced, uninvolved, registered; and the outcome at the time was a slamdunk "keep" (4 of the 6 editors specified "keep", the other 2 while not specifying "keep" testified to Hoyt's notability). Coolabahapple (talk) 02:40, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, this nomination of the AfD appears to be without even minimal foundation. Sarah Hoyt is notable enough to have received multiple awards and national press coverage over the years. It looks like the article has already been improved a bit with better sources, which is really what needed to happen. 136.57.207.196 (talk) 03:54, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am saddened to see that there is obvious WP:CANVASsing going on here but I also see good arguments regarding the notability despite it not having been sourced before in the article. My question is which option is most likely to craft a good article back. Is it the WP:DRAFTIFY process suggested by Trillfendi or the WP:Peer Review option suggested by Letcreate123? I am fully willing to rescind my nomination to whichever of these is the best option as long as consensus can be agreed to on what will most likely make a good article. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 04:09, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

6YearsTillRetirement, why did you add the bogus signature" Imadethisstupidaccount" to your nomination, instead of using your actual account signature?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:25, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see now Imadethisstupidaccount was required to change their user name to 6YearsTillRetirement.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:59, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, from above "I am saddened to see that there is obvious WP:CANVASsing going on here.", 6YearsTillRetirement, that is a pretty serious accusation, please provide details that this has indeed happened, otherwise please retract. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:11, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ps. not that i would ever do this (oh really, coola?:)) but while aspersions are being thrown around, some editors might find it strange that a brand new editor ie. 1st edit made on 22 July 2019, is jumping right into afd nominations....? Coolabahapple (talk) 07:33, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See [10]. Multiple individuals including one now banned for some incredibly vile harassment are WP:CANVASsing for this and other articles. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 12:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When there's a concerted effort to purge conservative SF writers, you can bet there will be a backlash. -- Jay Maynard (talk) 15:42, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well there isn't, no matter how many times you tell that ugly, false, inciteful and hateful lie. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 15:45, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The article itself is lacking and could use a rewrite or two, but the author has won multiple significant awards (as indicated in the infobox) and has received significant coverage. AaronCanton (talk) 07:47, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
6YearsTillRetirement, you were quite right that the article needed work and you brought up legitimate concerns. But I think notability has now been established clearly enough that there is every indication that the article will survive AfD. Would you be okay with a speedy close now? Improvement of the article will hopefully continue and discussion of it can be taken up in other forums. Haukur (talk) 08:50, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Trillfendi, you were right that reliable sources were lacking. But some good work has taken place since then and will hopefully continue.[11] Would you be okay with closing the current discussion? Haukur (talk) 08:50, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Haukurth: Not to be impolite but I am not ok with a speedy close. I don't think a request for consensus on what will be the path forward between WP:DRAFTIFY or WP:Peer Review is really too much to ask, so that whatever the consensus is it can be implemented in a reasonable time frame? 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 12:38, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I don't think you're being impolite. But I do think we'd be better off ending the discussion, which seems to be further riling people up. A speedy keep by you withdrawing the nomination would have been the simplest way but failing that we can probably get an admin to do a WP:SNOW close. I would have but I'm too WP:INVOLVED. Haukur (talk) 16:05, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep or WP:SNOW Keep. The Prometheus Award and Dragon Awards and write up in The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction are more than enough to satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (people). Edgeweyes (talk) 12:50, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notability clearly exists.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 13:22, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep What will it take for a conservative author to be considered notable?! Every AfD like this just cements the notion that there's a purge of politically incorrect writers going on. Sarah is a multple award winner, never mind having a large body of work and selling consistently well both in traditional publishing and self-published forms. If Wikipedia were truly NPOV, this and other AfDs for conservative writers would be speedy closed. -- Jay Maynard (talk) 15:41, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this has nothing to do with the author's political views, no matter how many times you tell that ugly and inciteful lie. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 15:46, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the one doing the inciting. The ones going after conservative writers are. -- Jay Maynard (talk) 15:58, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmaynard: & @6YearsTillRetirement: - Enough. The two of you cut it out with the hostility and accusations. Try and discuss the deletion like mature beings without flaming each other or throwing nonsensical politics stuff into the mix. The matter at hand is "does the article subject meet the notability guidelines?", not "what is the political alignment of the subject?". This is not a battleground. --letcreate123 (talk) 16:14, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

REQUEST As I said to @Haukurth: above, I am happy to rescind this nomination once the next step - either WP:DRAFTIFY or WP:Peer Review - is agreed on by consensus. Will those who responded PLEASE INDICATE THEIR PREFERRED OPTION? 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 16:10, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, let's do WP:Peer Review. Haukur (talk) 16:15, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. MBisanz ^talk 22:46, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Ibrahim Mostafa[edit]

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

per WP:MASK, this article is one of most "fake notability" in Wikipedia, the Facebook page of "We are all Khaled Said" is high notable subject and received awards and all events is true but this man isn't belong to this page nor part of the team, he just created a page with same name he pretended to the media that he is one of them and this isn't true, Wael Ghonim (the founder) ,AbdelRahman Mansour (the co-founder) and Mostafa Alnagar are the only founders and admins (Wael Ghonim's book) , they never mention him anytime and his name is never listed, no third party source about that, all information in the newspaper are interviews with him, the situation in Egypt in 2011 is messy and disordered and the information was conflicting and he exploited that, he deceived Deutsche Welle then he made his fake glorious, in Arabic Wikipedia we investigate about this article and the sources and delete it.

another reason: per WP:BLP1E, just a notable person for one event and he has no another notable works --Ibrahim.ID ✪ 12:16, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:41, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:41, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:41, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:41, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:09, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed al-Gizawi[edit]

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

for two reasons:

per WP:BLP1E, this person is not activist, he is a normal person arrested in airport for possession of anti-anxiety pills, some people demonstrated and the Saudi court sentence him for 5 years and nothing then, not further news, just a notable person for one event.
according to WP:CRIME the person doesn't deserve a separate article. Ibrahim.ID ✪ 11:51, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Ibrahim.ID ✪ 11:51, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:45, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:45, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (without prejudice against recreation in another form) - NCRIME is sort of a stated carve-out from BLP1E, but in any case, it accurately applies that he shouldn't have an article. However the event would also be notable and this could obviously be refunded to anyone who wanted to write about it. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:42, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable lawyer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:05, 26 July 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. Fenix down (talk) 14:26, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Sendi[edit]

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

Footballer who fails NFOOTY and GNG. Recreated after PROD. BlameRuiner (talk) 09:40, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: just found out about previous AFD (different name order): Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sendi_Ian --BlameRuiner (talk) 09:43, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:48, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:48, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NFOOTY, doesn't pass GNG per my BEFORE. Icewhiz (talk) 10:25, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:58, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:34, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep. Looks well written enough to be kept. Besides, he is set to play for MLS team FC Minneapolis. Tuesday723 (talk) 12:12, 23 July 2019 (UTC)~~ — Tuesday723 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
CU blocked, !vote stricken. – Levivich 16:34, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He already plays for FC Minneapolis - for a number a years - however this team is in the United Premier Soccer League - which is a quite a bit away from MLS - very low regional tier. Icewhiz (talk) 07:13, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article about minor league, semi-pro footballer who isn't the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails all of our notability guidelines. Jogurney (talk) 20:45, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – no sources to indicate the subject meets WP:GNG – Levivich 02:44, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:28, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails both WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 16:42, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:02, 28 July 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. Several ideas have surfaced in this AfD - someone suggested a merge, another suggested moving the article to make it about an event (his disappearance) rather than a biography. I encourage people to continue discussing these possibilities on the talk page. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 18:58, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Acevedo Andrade[edit]

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

A WP:BEFORE check here turned up little in the way of references. This looks to be a rough translation of the same article on the Spanish Wikipedia, but I can't find much here or in Spanish, which I can read. Lack of sources seem to indicate he's not a notable subject - a mayor of a Chilean commune and a member of the Communist party, who disappeared. That's about the best I can find. Red Phoenix ^talk 00:04, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the same editor has done both the English and the fa:لوئیس آسودو آندراده translations from es:Luis Acevedo Andrade, which does contain two pointers to memoriaviva (which is not the Brazilian pt:Memória Viva). Uncle G (talk) 00:31, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:21, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:21, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If he was leader (or even a leader) of the Communist Party of Chile then he's likely to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:15, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Except there's no source to back that claim, to prove he even was. He wasn't "the" leader if the timeline on Communist Party of Chile is to be believed. There's a quick mention that says "Communist Party Leader" in one of the sources, but it goes on to call him a "member", and I also strongly believe that none of the sources used are reliable source. WP:GNG applies, especially if it can't be proven he meets WP:NPOL. Red Phoenix ^talk 13:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Yes I have translated this article to English and Persian and I think it's a worthy article to keep .thanks to Uncle G (talk) and Necrothesp (talk) , I'll try to find more sources. --SalmanZ (talk) 14:53, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although I'm certainly willing to reconsider this if SalmanZ's promise to find better sources actually pans out with better sources. Leading a political party (if he really did that, which seems to be up for debate) would certainly be a valid potential notability claim if it were properly sourced, but it's not an instant notability freebie that exempts a person from actually having to have enough real media coverage to get over WP:GNG — but of the two sources here, the one that contains content about him is unreliable and the one that is reliable doesn't even mention his name at all, so we're batting zero for establishing that he would pass GNG. Bearcat (talk) 18:35, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Still remembered ([12],[13],[14]). There are dozens of online reports about the conviction of his murderers. 188.218.87.4 (talk) 07:24, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for providing the above 3 links that were helpful. --SalmanZ (talk) 21:24, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 00:37, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that SalmanZ has been hard at work at this. I have a great appreciation for that, and I see he's found sources from Chilean websites. I still have a lot of concerns. Below, I'll post a review of my reading of the sources used so far. To keep numbers consistent, I'm referring to this most recent diff as I review, and my numbers correspond to those in the diff. I'll also preface this by saying that yes, I can read Spanish and not just a machine translation:
- 1. 1 is sourced to Resumen, appears to be a Chilean website but it's hard to tell if it's a newspaper or something like that; I couldn't find a publishing company. About 1/2 a paragraph is about Luis Acevedo Andrade, and it's specific he was general secretary of the Communist Party of Coelemu, the small commune of which he was mayor. It says nothing about him being secretary of the whole Communist Party of Chile.
  2. 2 claims to be from the International Project of Human Rights, an organization that claims to be entirely self-funded. Website does not appear professional and my instincts tell me it's not a reliable source.
  3. 3 appears to be a book source, but there's little more than a 2-3 line blurb about the subject in it.
  4. 4 is a court case document, but the subject is just a line listing him as one of many people murdered.
  5. 5 is from an editorial website in Chile on social issues. Reads as a sort of reminiscence without really much in the way of factual information about the subject.
  6. 6, 7, and 8 are about the arrest of the captors decades later. 8 has some factual info but cites it from #2.
- Cannot view #9 because it's a blocked page in a Google Book but the book's certainly not about the subject himself.
  1. 10 I can't even see a mention of Acevedo Andrade.
If there is anything that could be kept here, a possibility might be a merge to Human rights in Chile or Human rights violations in Pinochet's Chile, since it's identified in these sources as a human rights issue - the trial is the best-sourced part with little about the person himself. That being said, I still don't think this establishes the notability of this particular person. Red Phoenix ^talk 03:15, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your reviewing my work. This article is in the field of human rights. but as far as Notability is concerned, I believe there are more domestic, reliable sources for a mayor of a city like "Coelemu" that passes WP: NOTE. what we need is help from Chilean community to prove Luis Acevedo Andrade's Notability. --SalmanZ (talk) 21:35, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, mayors aren't routinely considered "inherently" notable. As a rule, only mayors of major cities (like Santiago or Valparaiso) are likely to be accepted as notable on their face — but in a place with a population of just 16,000, you would have to get the mayor over a much higher bar of reliable source coverage that expands into national or international media to make them notable enough. The problem is that what you're showing still isn't really notability-supporting reliable source coverage about Luis Acevedo Andrade — you're mostly showing primary sources and glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things or people, not coverage about him. Bearcat (talk) 21:52, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:02, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep per above comments and references in article. Tuesday723 (talk) 12:16, 23 July 2019~~ — Tuesday723 (talk contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
CU blocked, !vote stricken. – Levivich 16:36, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks Tuesday723 (talk), Necrothesp (talk) and all the people in our community who will help to keep this article. what we need is help from the Chilean community to prove Luis Acevedo Andrade's Notability by some more sources. Regards. --SalmanZ (talk) 23:02, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- We still need notability established. While the work has been good, we still don't have any sources here that actually help this article meet the GNG - the one article specifically about Acevedo Andrade (and it's more about his capture, not about him personally or his career) is not a reliable source, and everything else is a passing mention. As it stands, I still think a mention in Human rights violations in Pinochet's Chile is appropriate, but I do not agree with an article because notability is still not demonstrated. Red Phoenix ^talk 03:50, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep and move to Disappearance of Luis Acevedo Andrade. The relevant policy is WP:EVENTCRIT, and specifically WP:NCRIME, which says "As with other events, media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, provided such coverage meets the above guidelines [depth and duration of coverage, and diversity of sources] and those regarding reliable sources. The disappearance of a person would fall under this guideline if law enforcement agencies deemed it likely to have been caused by criminal conduct, regardless of whether a perpetrator is identified or charged." The coverage of the arrest, charging and trials of the captors are certainly relevant to this policy. There seem to be three articles specifically about this (there are four listed in the references, but I note that "Three former Carabineros sentenced for illegal detention and kidnapping of former mayor ofCoelemu in 1974" is identical to "Condenan a tres ex carabineros por detención ilegal y secuestro de ex alcalde de Coelemu en 1974"). In a quick search, I found one other (Corte condenó a cuatro ex policías y dos civiles por desaparecidos en 1973 y 1974) which is about the court ruling on several disappearances, including this man. I'll see if I can find more. RebeccaGreen (talk) 02:51, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks RebeccaGreen (talk) for trying to find effective sources for Luis Acevedo Andrade. --SalmanZ (talk) 22:25, 31 July 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. Since this has been open for more than a day, I’ll go ahead and close this one. My reading of consensus here - editors have recommended deletion based on these articles being unsourced and amounting to original research, as well as overall problems with how the articles are written. Those favouring retention have provided sources countering these claims of notability and original resource sufficiently. AFD is not a substitute for cleanup and refinements to articles, nor do those supporting retention need to commit to implementing these changes, just prove their case sufficiently as based in policy and outside sources. That’s been done here. (non-admin closure) Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 02:45, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Vogue (US) cover models[edit]

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

I already had "List of Vogue Portugal cover models" deleted previously because I noticed the primary contributor relied on original research with absolutely no reliable sources cited. Now the rest of these have to go too. Hell, the majority of these don't even have articles for their market's magazine.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Trillfendi (talk) 00:03, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 01:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 01:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All unsourced and violating WP:FANSITE, zero-sourced, and a complete whiff of not reading MOS:FLAG. The external link at the end of the article is better for this purpose than we are. Nate • (chatter) 02:49, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question All this information if easily verifiable. Especially US, French, British and several other Vogue publications. If I remember, these articles do not require sourcing for publication, just that the information is available to be sourced. While being a Vogue cover model may not be what it was 10 years ago, for nearly 70 years preceeding 2010 it was a huge honor and highly presitgious. Is all that correct? If the information is easily sourcable, it is a prestigious honor for 80 years of publication, and the list has been published for years it appears. Shouldn't this be a keep? ScienceAdvisor (talk) 21:47, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There’s a flip side to that coin. This is all LISTCRUFT. Trillfendi (talk) 06:49, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly original research, listcruft. WP:LISTN requires evidence in reliable sources that these are notable as a group, which is not present and does not show in my WP:BEFORE. FOARP (talk) 08:25, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Each magazine issue is a reliable source for its own content. So long as we have the issue's date, and the model is unambiguously identifiable from it (such as by credits or cover caption), there is no OR concern and the claim that these are unsourced is simply false.
Note also there was a prior nomination including some of these lists at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people on the cover of I-D magazine, which should be linked above. One of the commenters in that discussion cited a number of sources on this topic, which may or may not give some context for maintaining some of these lists, worth considering at least.
I think there is a good argument that some of the international versions may not merit the same treatment regardless, particularly if as the nom mentions, they do not all have independent articles. postdlf (talk) 14:48, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Though it's a primary source, at least the i-D one has a reliable source for all the covers listed. Evidently, the same can't be said here. Trillfendi (talk) 22:02, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's no requirement that there be a single source that covers a whole list, if that's the point you're trying to make here (or if no such source exists for any of these lists, which I don't know). postdlf (talk) 16:09, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are a number of books dealing with Vogue covers and their models available from many publishers. The Creative Director of the M.E.T. Museum even publsihes one. You can also search google for "Vogue Archive" and see every cover ever published.. You just aren't interested in sourcing the info. Also, this certainly isn't listcruft since the information would certainly be appropriate to merge into the main article on Vogue if there weren't a 125 years of covers to consider. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 21:47, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine saying "you aren't interested in sourcing the info" to someone who has spent 3 years making articles about fashion models.... But it's not like you will do it. Trillfendi (talk) 23:07, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (procedural), this is ridiculous, 22 articles bundled together for deletion!, lets say 5minutes each to check for sources, thats about 1hour 45mins, suggest this is closed and the nominator can bundle a more manageable number, hows 6 per afd? Coolabahapple (talk) 14:28, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment , oh, and another thing can the nominator please direct editors to the part of WP:AFD that has "have to go to hell" as a reason for deletion? Coolabahapple (talk) 14:39, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing how one little grammatical typo and a lack of autocapitalization can take something so simple completely out of context. Clearly, I was referring to the other articles needing deletion just like Vogue Portugal one, I forgot the extra o in too; one of the definitions of hell is an exclamation used for emphasis. This website isn’t serious enough for me to resort to telling people to "go to hell." Trillfendi (talk) 15:08, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

oh, sorry, reminds me of Eats, Shoots & Leaves:)) Coolabahapple (talk) 15:18, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, there is the book Paris Vogue Covers, 1920-2009 (library holdings here) which looks like a good WP:LISTN source for List of Vogue Paris cover models(?) Coolabahapple (talk) 15:24, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:26, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That still leaves an entire decade out. Trillfendi (talk) 20:39, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:59, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources provided by the IP editor and Coolabahapple. The fact that one source only covers up to a decade ago does not matter - it shows that Vogue covers are notable as a topic. I'm not going to try to check and comment on all these nominations individually - it's a ridiculous number. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:03, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And I gotdamn sure wasn’t going to be sitting here the whole rest of the 22 weeks left in this year AFding each article individually when they all have the same problem. All Vogue covers are not notable just for being Vogue covers. All Friends episodes aren't notable. Typically the only consistently "notable" occasions are who is on the September issue. Anyone who pays attention to fashion is aware of that, realistically. These articles don’t even take "special" issues (e.g. Imaan Hammam’s "third" Vogue cover, Kendall Jenner's subscription only cover) or things such as Vogue Italia Beauty issues into account. As it is, the American Vogue article points out particularly notable covers over the past 127 years and it’s evidently best left at that. At this point "cover models" is a misnomer because they stopped regularly putting actual models on the cover 20 years ago, and that’s well known; as clear as when MTV stopped playing music videos regularly. In this decade, only 11 or 12 issues have had models on the cover. That amounts to only 10%. The fallacy that they should be "kept" simply because of the Vogue name doesn't cut it. The persistent problem is the original research and lack of reliable sources for each article. Trillfendi (talk) 17:25, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per RebeccaGreen. Bookscale (talk) 12:04, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Aren't the Vogue Archive's enough to source at least the US Vogue covers? I am not sure if they cover other countries.. Vogue may not be the bible it once was but for 100+ years it had huge circulation and was considered the defacto guide for fashion. Plus their circulation numbers plus the fact before the internet they sat on every shelf in every store and supermarket for virtually everyone in the country to look at. I already voted but it looks like several people have provided ways to source the info. I would think if you know the month and year you could also probably find a photo to source virtually any vogue cover worldwide through google or even ebay. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 21:53, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

eBay? A place to buy used stuff? Wow, nothing shocks me anymore. The Vogue archive may give you a few little snippets of what was in the magazine (not the main article of course) but the photographers are still being left out here. And every market of Vogue doesn't have a public archive, most Vogues except perhaps the Big Four don't even have the clout or capital to have that. US Vogue didn't even start putting fashion model's names on the covers until, what, that one off issue in 1999, and the Vogues that do put models on the cover still don't, so we're supposed to go off public's possible recognition? That ain't it. Trillfendi (talk) 23:59, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trillfendi I just went to the Vogue archives and it is every page of every issue dating all the way back to 1892. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 05:05, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:AFFILIATE, "inline citations may be allowed to e-commerce pages such as that of a book on a bookseller's page or an album on its streaming-music page, in order to verify such things as titles and running times. Journalistic and academic sources are preferable, however, and e-commerce links should be replaced with non-commercial reliable sources if available." It doesn't say they're not allowed! RebeccaGreen (talk) 05:33, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All I’m saying is if someone would have to resort to eBay that’s a red flag. Trillfendi (talk) 23:37, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's silly, but not for the same reason; it's more like citing "the library" just because that's where you happened to find a book. Just cite the book. The magazine itself is a reliable source for its own content. No one cares how you found a copy of an issue, and online convenience links that reproduce print material are just that, a convenience; they are not what you are really citing. postdlf (talk) 03:08, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said before, all of it amounts to LISTCRUFT. Every cover of every Vogue in every market isn’t in itself notable. All of the major contributors to these pages are red link amateurs and IP users who don’t know what they’re doing, some have been banned, and have no regard for policy. This is what happens when anyone can make an article. Frankly, I’m starting to believe sockpuppetry is at work here. List of Vogue Hong Kong cover models was rejected in the AfC in April (Vogue Hong Kong doesn’t have an article either) and wasn’t going to be fruitful edition to the encyclopedia anyway; let alone it wasn’t even half done and it was "undersourced", therefore a page reviewer moved it back to the draft space for that reason. And even worse, a duplicate called Draft:List of Vogue HongKong cover models 2 was created after Draft:List of Vogue Hong Kong cover models 2 was deleted. My God. Burn it down. Trillfendi (talk) 16:56, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Per WP:SNOW keep. There seems to be unanimous agreement that this is a notable streamer. (non-admin closure) _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 09:42, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disguised Toast[edit]

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

This article does not meet the notability guidelines. This article had stated no reason for creation on its talk page even when the discussion was ongoing. The only sliver of notability I could think of could have been for the award nomination the subject was up for, however, he was only nominated and didn't win it. There was no notability prior to this event as he was a moderate streamer back in the day and was growing at a usual rate. Delta fiver (talk) , 08:01 ,23 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:13, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:13, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Added some references-- it seems that the subject passes WP:GNG, considering the large number of secondary sources discussing him.Gilded Snail (talk) 16:40, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Gilded Snail has added some good references to at least leave open the argument that the topic is notable. Some nice coverage of a controversy, so not all fluff. OhioShmyo (talk) 22:17, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:RS is present to pass WP:GNG. Meeanaya (talk) 05:49, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: they are notable and have significant independent media coverage. a simple google search gives a nice list of sources here: https://www.esportspedia.com/streamers/Disguised_Toast#Interviews_and_Articles Grumpig (talk) 05:43, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: More substantial information and edits have been done to give notability, the article is better of being kept. Delta fiver (talk) (UTC) 19:37, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Per the late evidence of notability. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:53, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

26 Nathan Road[edit]

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

Not notable office building viztor ✦ 07:12, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. viztor ✦ 07:12, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:14, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notable commercial building. Fails WP:NBUILD. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:25, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NBUILD. - MA Javadi (talk) 20:22, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

Binder, Georges, ed. (2001). Tall Buildings of Asia and Australia. Mulgrave, Victoria: The Images Publishing Group. p. 140. ISBN 978-1-86470-075-6. Retrieved 2019-07-27.
Wong, Wah Sang (1998). Building Enclosure in Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. pp. 115–123. ISBN 962209449X. Retrieved 2019-07-27.
Hope, Eliza; Ryan, Kate, eds. (2002). The City in Architecture: Recent Works of Rocco Design. Mulgrave, Victoria: The Images Publishing Group. p. 8. ISBN 978-1-876907-22-8. Retrieved 2019-07-27.
Wong, Wah Sang; Chan, Edwin H.W., eds. (2000). Building Hong Kong: Environmental Considerations. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. p. 229. ISBN 962209502X. Retrieved 2019-07-27.

Sources with quotes

Binder, Georges, ed. (2001). Tall Buildings of Asia and Australia. Mulgrave, Victoria: The Images Publishing Group. p. 140. ISBN 978-1-86470-075-6. Retrieved 2019-07-27.
The book notes:
Oterprise Square
(Formerly Titus Square)

The site is located at the junction of Nathan Road and Middle Road in Tsimshatsui, a traditionally busy commercial and tourist neighborhood. The site is sandwiched between a number of landmark buildings in the district: the Peninsula Hotel, the Sheraton Hotel, and the Hyatt Regency. It is relatively small in area, only about 1,000 square meters, and what used to be a panoramic view of Victoria Harbour is now largely obstructed by the Sheraton and the newly extended Peninsula Tower.
The redevelopment is envisaged to be a Class-A office building with a retail podium. The challenge to the design was how to fully exploit, under the restrictions of its towering neighbors and its own relatively small area, the potential of the site in this particular 'golden' location.
The strategy in the design of the podium was to introduce a passage cutting diagonally across the site linking Nathan Road and Middle Road. This means that pedestrians are tempted to use this shortcut through the retail areas, and be brought, involuntarily, through the skylit atrium above this passage, into visual contact with the various retail levels and the associated bridgelinks and escalators. As a result, there is an intentional mixing and blurring of the boundary between the private and the public domains, resulting in an architecture that is both fluid and permeable.
In the design of the office tower, a conscious attempt was made to maximize the view of the harbor available at the different levels of the tower. This results in the façade being orientated towards the southwest, from the sixth floor to the thirteenth floor, through the gap between the Sheraton and the Peninsula, and towards the south from the fifteenth floor to twenty-seventh floor, once it is clear of the roof of the Sheraton, to capture the whole panorama of Hong Kong Island.
The form of the building is thus predetermined by the above strategies and represents a distinct example of a 'contextual high-rise' in the dense urban fabric typical of Hong Kong.
The article provides some additional information about the building:
1. Location: Hong Kong SAR, People's Republic of China
2. Completion: 1998
3. Height: 108.8 m
4. Stories: 28 and 1 basement
5. Area: Total floor: 16,462 m²; site: 1,096,906 m²
6. Structure: Reinforced concrete
7. Materials: Glass and aluminum
8. Use: Commercial
9. Cost: HK$225 million
10. Architect: Rocco Design Ltd.
11. Structural engineer: Maunsell Consultants Asia Ltd.
12. E/M consultant: Meinhardt (M&E) Ltd
13. Contractor: Penta Ocean Construction Ltd
Wong, Wah Sang (1998). Building Enclosure in Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. pp. 115–123. ISBN 962209449X. Retrieved 2019-07-27.
The book notes:
Titus Square
Architectural Firm: Rocco Design Limited

This is a case study of an office building with its curtain wall serving as the enclosure. A shading device is incorporated for solar control. Minor articulation in the plan form produces variation in the building facade.
The site is within the busy urban fabric adjacent to Nathan Road in Tsimshatsui. As it is located in a corner site fronting two streets, a plan form of a circular quadrant is selected. This plan generates a massing with maximum view from the offices.
The curtain wall for the tower incorporates two main types of panel. The first type has one-third of its height as the vision panel and the other two-thirds as the spandrel panel. The second type has a full-height vision glass incorporating a 200 mm high fan light for smoke extraction. This latter type is more open to the view but less resistant to solar heat gain. To improve this, a shading device of fluorocarbon-coated aluminium overhangs 765 mm from the external wall.
Hope, Eliza; Ryan, Kate, eds. (2002). The City in Architecture: Recent Works of Rocco Design. Mulgrave, Victoria: The Images Publishing Group. p. 8. ISBN 978-1-876907-22-8. Retrieved 2019-07-27.
The book notes:
The result is a place-centered modernism. Perhaps no building exemplifies this better than Oterprise Square, completed recently by Rocco Design. In the tight confines of the densest part of Kowloon, this silver office and commercial complex uniquely fits its Hong Kong location. It encourages pedestrians to shortcut the crowded corner, slicing through and revealing a world of offices and shops. At the ground level, the building is as much a passage as a structure – and what a passage! – revealing the building vertically to the pedestrian moving through it. Oterprise Square was one of the first buildings that recognized that the upper, middle and lower portions of a tower each need to respond differently to their context. The top has panoramic views that need to be captured; the middle portion exploits the narrow view angle towards the harbor as defined by adjacent buildings; and the lower levels are the domains of the pedestrian. Buildings of this sort capture the energy of their surroundings, and they are at the heart of how Hong Kong modernism differs from new architecture in most other parts of the world.
Wong, Wah Sang; Chan, Edwin H.W., eds. (2000). Building Hong Kong: Environmental Considerations. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. p. 229. ISBN 962209502X. Retrieved 2019-07-27.
The book notes:
Case Studies

Titus Square

Titus Square is an office tower located in Tsim Sha Tsui. Similar to many office buildings in Hong Kong, the lower floors (G/F to 5/F, in this case) are designed for retail use and the upper floors for office use. Here, 6/F, 7/F and 14/F are for mechanical services and are not taken into account for OTTV calculation.
A curtain wall of 8mm coated glass and light grey tiles are selected as the basic external finishes for the fenestration and opaque wall respectively. The roof is reinforced concrete slab with insulation board and concrete tile.
Located between Nathan Road and Middle Road, the building is shaded from direct sunlight by Far East Mansion, Sheraton Hotel and Pennisula Hotel. This poses a difficulty in applying the standard method of OTTV calculation to accurately reflect the real situation.

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow 26 Nathan Road to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

Cunard (talk) 07:58, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

26 Nathan Road was previously known as Titus Square and Oterprise Square. Four book sources provide significant coverage about the building.
For example, The City in Architecture: Recent Works of Rocco Design from The Images Publishing Group provides substantial analysis of the building. It notes, "Oterprise Square was one of the first buildings that recognized that the upper, middle and lower portions of a tower each need to respond differently to their context. The top has panoramic views that need to be captured; the middle portion exploits the narrow view angle towards the harbor as defined by adjacent buildings; and the lower levels are the domains of the pedestrian. Buildings of this sort capture the energy of their surroundings, and they are at the heart of how Hong Kong modernism differs from new architecture in most other parts of the world."
And Building Enclosure in Hong Kong from Hong Kong University Press also provides substantial analysis of the building. It notes about Titus Square, "This is a case study of an office building with its curtain wall serving as the enclosure. A shading device is incorporated for solar control. Minor articulation in the plan form produces variation in the building facade. The site is within the busy urban fabric adjacent to Nathan Road in Tsimshatsui. As it is located in a corner site fronting two streets, a plan form of a circular quadrant is selected. This plan generates a massing with maximum view from the offices."
Jonathan de Boyne Pollard (talk · contribs) made significant improvements to the article after the AfD nomination.
Cunard (talk) 07:58, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Cunard. The photo suffices for me, anyhow. Anything that huge and expensive is going to be notable by wp:GNG, and should also be recognized by wwp:GEOFEAT(?). --Doncram (talk) 09:04, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cunard's sources. When I initially saw the links I thought they would be routine mentions, but though it's somewhat close, I think in the end the Binder and Hope sources particularly show the independent analysis needed to rise to the level of significant coverage. MarginalCost (talk) 16:16, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:32, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jaime Legato[edit]

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

Does not meet any of the notability criteria WP:MUSIC Dlabtot (talk) 06:25, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:39, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:39, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:39, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems very self-promotional. His band has no article and his band's website has been replaced by some sleep consultancy thing. His music label's website is down too. So, zero independent sources and zero dependent sources too. starship .paint (talk) 03:34, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:13, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:52, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Morbidgames[edit]

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

Corporate article was created by a SPA burner account in 2008. At the time, Geni tagged it as needing sourcing improvement, but the SPA promptly removed the tag. Article is sourced entirely to (a) press releases, (b) other Wikipedia articles, (c) broken links to non-RS websites, (d) a Craigslist ad, (e) ecommerce websites. A basic BEFORE fails to discover any RS. Fails GNG. Chetsford (talk) 05:39, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 05:41, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 05:41, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 05:41, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 05:41, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As the nominator says, current sources are poor and I am unable to find any better ones. Seems like a clear fail of WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Hug^syrup 10:04, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As stated by the nomination, the sources being used in the article are not valid to establish notability, as none of them appear to be from reliable secondary sources. Additionally their biggest claim to notability is being the runner up for a non-notable award. There are no additional reliable sources that I can find discussing the company in any depth, and as the team appears to have disbanded, there very likely never will be. Rorshacma (talk) 16:15, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. Commenters are unanimous that the subject passes WP:PROF#C6 and TJRC presents compelling evidence that this is a bad-faith nomination. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:53, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Thomas (academic)[edit]

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

Single-source article. The one source is the institution the subject is the president of. This person does not have notability. JimmyPiersall (talk) 03:07, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 03:28, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:41, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes WP:NACADEMIC by holding a highest-level administrative post at a major institution. Also received significant coverage from multiple reliable news sources such as the Chicago Tribune during his presidency and when he stepped down. That said, the sourcing in the article could be expanded quite a bit. Highway 89 (talk) 04:38, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per WP:NPROF(6) - and independent sourcing is quite easy to come by -[15][16][17][18][19] - probably passes GNG as well. Icewhiz (talk) 06:45, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Clearly pass WP:NPROF #6 for a position as the 11th President of Western Illinois University. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:17, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep per above, easily passes WP:PROF#C6. IntoThinAir (talk) 16:42, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all of the above. Note, this AFD and the substantially simultaneous AFD for Urban Romantic, another article I created, appear to have been made in retaliation for my reversion of the nom's most recent unsourced addition of trivia to List of references to Cleveland in popular culture. Both articles were nominated immediately after his repetition of the edit and comment about it on my talk page; and in neither case did the nom notify me of the AfD. TJRC (talk) 20:44, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:PROF without trouble, and as noted above, independent sourcing is available. XOR'easter (talk) 21:10, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The result was delete. The keep vote rationales are faulty, the team has never played in non qualifying rounds of a national competition. The more important point that the club fails GNG is not addressed by any of the keep votes. Fenix down (talk) 06:27, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

University of NSW FC[edit]

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

Non-notable semi-pro team. Meets neither WP:GNG or any of the SNG's. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:59, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:50, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:50, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:50, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:51, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notable sport team. Fails WP:NTEAM and WP:GNG. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:21, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 08:28, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - They competed in the qualifying rounds for the 2015 FFA Cup and the 2016 FFA Cup which might classify them under the notability criteria. HawkAussie (talk) 04:23, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment- FFA Cup is not A-Leagueand it is not on part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues for such fails WP:NSOCCER. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:48, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Played in the FFA Cup at least three times and therefore pass the notable club guideline. Dougal18 (talk) 16:20, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Teams that have played in the national cup (or the national level of the league structure in countries where no cup exists) generally meet WP:GNG criteria" Teams that are not eligible for national cups must be shown to meet broader WP:N criteria as per WP:FOOTYN.This club is eligible for national cup.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:09, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - They never played in the FFA Cup, but merely the qualifying rounds, which means they did not qualify for the FFA Cup. Therefore, the rationale of the 3 Keep !votes does not hold up.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:33, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. They are not eligible for the FFA Cup, or else they would have played in it. What they are eligible for is to attempt to qualify for the Cup, which they have failed to do. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:33, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:38, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eiji Ubusawa[edit]

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

Boilerplate rationale adapted from my previous AfDs of similar photographer articles (such as Keizaburō Saeki), which itself was largely borrowed from Cckerberos at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hideki Kasai. Keizaburō Saeki, Hideki Kasai, and this currently-nominated article are all identical bot-created articles. I have nominated several others for deletion, but have improved and de-orphaned quite a few more when sources have been available.

To quote Cckerberos: "This article is a generic stub, generated by a bot in 2007. It makes no specific claim to notability; it appears that similar stubs were created for every photographer listed in 328 Outstanding Japanese Photographers, all with the format "Name (years) is a renowned Japanese photographer" (compare the nominated article with Gen Ōtsuka, for example). Tokyo Metropolitan Museum of Photography states that the sole criteria for inclusion in the book was to have a single photograph in the museum's permanent collection at the time the book was published. That doesn't seem to meet WP:CREATIVE."

In addition to Cckerberos's excellent commentary, I'll note that I've done as thorough a WP:BEFORE check as possible for an English-speaker: Google searches of both the English and Japanese order of the English transliteration of his name. None of the English transliterations turned up anything of use. He does not appear in the reasonably thorough The History of Japanese Photography or Photography in Japan 1853-1912.

I have also checked his Japanese name, but I didn't find anything of substance. The Japanese Wikipedia has no article about him, so there are no sources to be borrowed from it. I searched his Japanese name there and found nothing.

In the absence of reliable sources, we cannot verify that this person is notable, so the article, like many of the previous bot-generated photographers before it, should be deleted.

Courtesy ping to Hoary, who is knowledgeable on the topic of Japanese photographers, and whose commentary on these AfDs is invaluable to me, especially when it causes me to alter my opinion. (And Hoary, you'll be pleased to know this is the last of the Feb 09 list, so I probably won't be hassling you to any more photographer AfDs). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:15, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:15, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:15, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:15, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an interesting fellow. As his inclusion in the "328" book indicates, at least one print of his is at Syabi. But he's perhaps less known as a photographer than as a popularizer of gum printing. He published several book about these. I looked for one at CiNii (Worldcat is near-useless in Japan) and here it is: after more than four decades after publication, his book Daredemo dekiru gamu inga ("Anybody-can-do-it gum prints") is in the libraries of two universities (one university has two copies). However, I can't imagine that anyone will improve this article any time soon. Therefore delete without prejudicing the fate of any new, intelligent, non-formulaic article on this person. -- Hoary (talk) 03:27, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As I said at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gorō Hobo and then again at Talk:List of photographers, I think quasi-noteworthy people about whom we can't write enough to fill a standalone article do merit inclusion in List of Japanese photographers -- otherwise there's no point having such a list, since a list of items that are required to have standalone articles is redundant with Category:Japanese photographers, and redirects are cheap. That being said, if the majority of the community does not agree with me on this point, I don't think it's worth my time arguing it. So consider me a !vote for "weak redirect", I guess; with the caveat that my preferred redirect target currently has inclusion criteria that mean that unless this subject has a standalone article, all reference to him will be removed from that page anyway, making the redirect useless. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:22, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete maybe he'll be back one day when someone digitizes some sources, but for ow there is nothing to be found online.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:33, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:34, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to List of Japanese photographers. I found mentions of him at some places very briefly, but as said above, until there some clear sources, the article is useless. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:55, 28 July 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. MBisanz ^talk 22:44, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Courtney Simpson[edit]

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

Porn actress that does not meet WP:ENT, being only covered sparsely by a small number of specialised and/or unreliable sources. Actually, I don't think she would even stand for the old porn bio criteria, for what it's worth. {{notability}} in the page for over two years. Leefeni^{aures audiendi audiat} 20:09, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete RS coverage falls under one event. Her career was relatively short and didn't do anything particularly notable during it. Wikiuser20102011 (talk) 22:31, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:22, 27 July 2019 (UTC)}[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:24, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:24, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:24, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable pornographic performer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:43, 27 July 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.