Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 July 27

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 26 July	28 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The result was withdrawn by nom (see edit history). --Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:34, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Feather Award[edit]

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

Contrary to the article I don’t see any evidence this is a major or even notable award. I doubt it if it meets GNG. Gleeanon409 (talk) 23:32, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 July 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:44, 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. Sam Walton (talk) 15:34, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yoda Bangladesh[edit]

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

WP:PROMOTIONAL article is sourced two two press releases and one legitimate news article. BEFORE finds nothing further redeeming. Fails GNG. Chetsford (talk) 22:58, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:42, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:42, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:42, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:43, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:GNG. I can find at least two news sources, [1], [2] with non-trivial coverage from reliable sources. --Zayeem ^(talk) 00:25, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have many examples of profitmaking companies that meet our WP:SIGCOV standards and can only be sourced to two WP:RS? Chetsford (talk) 02:38, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. I did my own WP:BEFORE search and found nothing of note. The closest thing to reliable sources are boilerplate press releases published in local newspapers, which does not establish lasting notability per the terms of WP:GNG. Michepman (talk) 16:48, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Daily Star coverage [3] is mostly about the platform itself and not the company. The bits about it are " Yoda eliminates the middle man and gives tutors a free platform to find suitable tuitions. Yoda currently has a website with over 3500 registered tutors with their specialties, qualifications listed on the website. Yoda aims to streamline the private tuition business for all parties involved, and best of all, it’s free." Three sentences overall. And here [4] relies on a WP:PRIMARY quote from a Yoda related person. Neither meet WP:CORPDEPTH. My searches don't make anything else like Michempan has said. Fails WP:NCORP for the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:16, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Daily Star coverage is also obviously a rehashed press release - none of the sourcing is of CORPDEPTH standard, so this fails WP:NCORP.GirthSummit _(blether) 19:27, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP and WP:SIGCOV.Further it is upcoming and started in 2017 and also a case of WP:TOOSOON may be notable in the future not at this point.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:55, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Boys/Girls State. (non-admin closure) MrClog (talk) 09:57, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Badger Boys State[edit]

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

Almost all refs are primary sources, and a BEFORE search turns up routine coverage - not coverage that constitutes WP:SIGCOV. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 22:51, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 22:51, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 22:51, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Boys/Girls State; insufficient independent coverage of the Wisconsin event. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:32, 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) 09:07, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tex Benedict[edit]

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

The subject does not meet WP:GNG. I could not find any coverage in reliable sources. StaticVapor message me! 22:44, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. StaticVapor message me! 22:44, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:46, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:46, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Career relies totally on Cage Match as a source, and IIRC Cage Match can't be used for anything other than match results. Therefore it can't be used in a BLP, and for this reason nearly qualifies as an A7 speedy delete, let alone a regulation delete. Addicted4517 (talk) 08:09, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Deletion arguments should not be based on sources presented in the article, but coverage available, so the argument presented for A7 etc. is not actually valid. MPJ-DK (talk) 15:48, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: No sources means no claim to notability so A7 is a valid argument. Addicted4517 (talk) 22:22, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, indeed if there had been no sources, or even a claim of no sources that would make more sense, if. MPJ-DK (talk) 00:14, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG.LM2000 (talk) 09:17, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have not found anything that looks like significant reliable sources by searching on Google. MPJ-DK (talk) 15:48, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 17:56, 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:26, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch n' Match[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:SUSTAINED or WP:EVENTCRIT. Mccapra (talk) 22:19, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:19, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:19, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:RS and I cannot find any significant coverage. AmericanAir88^(talk) 02:20, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SUSTAINED. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:34, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 22:20, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Distributed (company)[edit]

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

Non-notable UK company. Fails WP:NORG. Press mentions like this one don't have the depth of coverage. Bbarmadillo (talk) 22:08, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:52, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:52, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find anything other than WP:ROUTINE announcements and press releases - nothing that raises to WP:CORPDEPTH standards. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:31, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:15, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 22:17, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whiskey School[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:NFILM. No third party coverage or winner of an award. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:57, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:57, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:57, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No good sources that I could find in a quick search. If there are any, they should be placed into the article. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:12, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article lacks adequate sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:43, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No adequate sources. Not much notability Taewangkorea (talk) 03:03, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:20, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mermaid (2000 film)[edit]

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

May not meet WP:NFILM. No third party coverage or winner of any awards. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:54, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:54, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found no significant coverage. Fails WP:NF. SL93 (talk) 22:32, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to keep: Per new sources. SL93 (talk) 22:59, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:56, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as a copy violation shown here thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:01, 30 July 2019 (UTC) struck delete vote, see below Atlantic306 (talk) 14:17, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Only the plot summary was a copyright violation, I've removed it. Hut 8.5 21:24, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hut 8.5, now the article is a cast list. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:41, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's a once sentence stub with a cast list. The major question here is whether the subject meets the notability guidelines, if it does then the fact the article is short isn't an issue. Hut 8.5 06:41, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Atlantic306 to take another look now that there are sources below and the copyvio reason has been resolved. matt91486 (talk) 11:42, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is at least two major reviews here Variety and LA Times: [5] [6]. Given this, and other sources like BFI that have been added to article, enough for keep. matt91486 (talk) 11:13, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the LA Times is actually a New York Daily News reprint, but I think the sufficiency still stands. matt91486 (talk) 11:14, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Matt91486, erm those articles aren't added. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:17, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Refresh the page, I posted this before I posted the edits I was making. I didn't exactly expect someone to click in that 70 second period. Tyw7. Also...it shouldn't matter if they were added, as just the sources existing is sufficient. But they have been all the same. matt91486 (talk) 11:20, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Comment -- Apparently both Ferland and Burstyn received Emmy nominations for the film as well, adding to notability. See 28th Daytime Emmy Awards. [7]. matt91486 (talk) 11:35, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Matt91486, not a requirement for NFilm. "The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking." --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:11, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I never said it was a "requirement," but I said it likely adds to its notability. I think in a broad sense receiving Emmy nominations would make any TV movie more historically significant. That doesn't strike me as a controversial statement. matt91486 (talk) 06:11, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it is no longer a copyvio and has reviews in reliable sources added to the article (not that they have to be, see WP:NEXIST) so that WP:GNG and WP:NFILM are passed and the Emmy Awards are obviously connected to the film, (acting counts as film making) regards Atlantic306 (talk) 14:17, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There's some reasonable suggestions here for renames, but I'll leave that up to others to do some consensus building. I did not verify the claims that this is a copy-paste from another wikipedia article, but if that is indeed true, somebody needs to follow up with the proper attribution per WP:COPYWITHIN. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:26, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nigerian Players Representing Other Nations[edit]

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

Appears to be a football related article. Not the kind of list that belongs on wikipedia Almy (talk) 21:38, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:58, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:02, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the article is a bit of a mess (and mixes football and rugby players) and should be titled as a list, but I don't see a rationale for deletion here. There are plenty of similar lists of footballers - List of foreign football players in the Netherlands as one example. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:34, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Power~enwiki:. Thanks for linking to that page and all the players on that list seem to have their own articles - they are blue linked. This may not be the case here, for the list page at this AfD - and the author would have to research which players are notable to match what you have shown us.

In any case, I am discussing this issue with the author of this article, but pertaining to other list articles he/she has created. I am wondering if you would be willing to join in the discussion taking place on my talk page to possibly give us some ideas on how to make these lists work. Here is the section on my talk page entitled Thanks for understanding. (It's a great title!) (a little bragging humor there :>)

Also, before joining the discussion please see the sections on the author's talk page (here) that pertain to me placing those list articles in the Draft Space while we seek improvement. Your input is very welcome because I am out of my depth pertaining to rugby and football players. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:45, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your first paragraph here gives misleading impression, I'll assume this an oversight and not intentional. You seems to be saying that the Netherlands' article is full of "blue links" but may not be the case here, that's this one contains lot of redlink, or simply non notable people. Although the former is more developed (expected, since it has been developed since 2010), it contains far more redlink ratio than any list article I have seen. I've roughly counted over 250, that's very large number. Meanwhile this article contains mere 3 redlinks and it was just started, we don't know how far could be developed. – Ammarpad (talk) 05:25, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but it seems that you are now giving a misleading impression of the situation. The vast majority of links on that page are blue. Yes, missing the red links was an oversight on my part, but so what. Maybe you could count the number of blue links on that page, since this seems to be an issue for you - in an attempt to be "fair and balanced". And if an argument for keep has to made on the amount of red links or blue links in a new article - then that is a really weak argument. I get it that some editors could care less about notability guidelines, either general notability or sports notability. But the truth is these are the measuring sticks for this type of article on Wikipedia, even though some editors seem to find these to be a pesky hindrance. So how many blue links are there in List of foreign football players in the Netherlands? Also, I would appreciate it if you no longer address me during this AfD. Thanks. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:03, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opposition to draft-ifying this until it is cleaned up. If they're all Rugby Union players, this should be fairly easy to fix while this discussion is open, though. power~enwiki (π, ν) 14:31, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. I recommend draft space while the author attempts to improve this article for main space. Also, the The author seems to be a new user and he/she has the stated goal of developing pages that cover the history of Nigerian rugby [8], [9]. I think the author should be given the chance to try to develop this and other similar articles. Thanks. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:57, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Valid article, invalid reason for deletion. The claim that this is not the kind of list article we have has been proven false outright. The article should be renamed List of foreign football players in Nigeria, but that's for WP:RM process, not here. – Ammarpad (talk) 06:17, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete copy&paste of Nigeria national rugby union team#Nigerian Players Representing Other Nations -- Sawol (talk) 07:43, 28 July 2019

---(signature fixed by Steve Quinn. See edit history for this page). ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:11, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Based on Armmarpad's and Power~enwiki's responses, I have struck my previous Ivote and opted for keep. This is because the topic is supported by the fact most of the players have their own pages and are probably from Nigeria. So far, I found one player born in England and that would be Ugo Monye (see infobox). We might have to remove this player from the list. The other players will have to be looked at for place of birth or place of residence prior to becoming a notable rugby player (imho). Also, I agree the title should be changed to List of Nigerian Players Representing Other Nations. And I agree that over time this could become quite an article. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:33, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I found a couple more players not actually from Nigeria who play on English teams. So I don't know the rationale for having these players on this list, but this can be discussed after the AfD. Or someone could open a discussion now, on the talk page of this article, and maybe this can be fleshed out. Whatever anyone feels like doing is OK with me. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:51, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As pointed out above by Sawol, this is a straight duplication of Nigeria national rugby union team#Nigerian Players Representing Other Nations, and I see no reason why this short list should require its own article rather than exist as a subsection. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:27, 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. czar 22:15, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Worrell and James Duell[edit]

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

no apparent notability DGG ( talk ) 21:30, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 22:11, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 22:11, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 22:12, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 22:12, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 22:12, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:50, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - presumptive copyright violation per Wikipedia:Copyright violations#Addressing contributors; author has been blocked for repeated copyvios. MER-C 20:15, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no indication whatsoever of notability as a couple – no hits on Gnews, no hits on Gbooks. Sourcing of the page consists of two obit notices and a gravestone. Duell seems to have been a minor government functionary, but of no encyclopaedic interest; Worrall is apparently completely without notability. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:44, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is the most egregious violation of the not memorial guidelines that I have ever seen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:08, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW. John Pack says it right, violation of the not memorial guidelines. AmericanAir88^(talk) 16:22, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 22:13, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fresno nightcrawler[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFRINGE (i.e. a fringe concept with insufficient notability). Article claims alien creature seen in Fresno, CA — but is largely cited to a crowdsourced website called Odyssey online and The Sun tabloid. Passing mentions in other media don't add up to sufficient notability for a stand alone article, but possible it might rate a sentence in List of alleged extraterrestrial beings. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:29, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 23:09, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 23:09, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete Not because of fringe, but the dodgy citing.Slatersteven (talk) 10:17, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete Because of lack of notability and lack reliable / credible sources even documentation its validity. Paul H. (talk) 02:08, 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. czar 22:12, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Davis Page Platt[edit]

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

No individual notability, WP:NOT INHERITED DGG ( talk ) 21:29, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Question for DGG- Why did you nominate this for deletion instead of being WP:BOLD and redistricting/merging content per WP:ATD-M? Thsmi002 (talk) 00:19, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of notability and Wikipedia is not (once again) a memorial. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:54, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - presumptive copyright violation per Wikipedia:Copyright violations#Addressing contributors; author has been blocked for repeated copyvios. MER-C 20:14, 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. Note: No mention of Urdu language searches. czar 21:00, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tahir Malik[edit]

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

Having LinkedIn and Facebook profiles does not count towards notability, and the third ref is a YouTube video. Subject isn't passing WP:BLP here. A loose necktie (talk) 20:45, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:09, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:09, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:10, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I wasn't able to find any independent sources showing the subject's notability, but was holding off on nominating this in the hope that author would add something else. Simply being a journalist or a television host is not notable. As the nom pointed out, the current sources are useless. No evidence he passes WP:JOURNALIST, WP:ANYBIO or WP:BASIC Meters (talk) 04:47, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of sources, that is, my searches aren't finding sources and there are none on the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:23, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent/reliable sources. Simply fails all notability guidelines. Jmertel23 (talk) 12:43, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - all three sources are original research and not reliable. There's no way to verify, unless somebody can find something better. Willing to change my mind. Bearian (talk) 15:33, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reliable sources. - MA Javadi (talk) 16:55, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:27, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paren Nyawi[edit]

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

Non-notable political figure. News searches reveal a number of cases in which he has been quoted as a political party officer (local party chairman) or candidate in an election. But he has never won election to parliament. And none of the sources are actually about him. Notability aside, the article is a CV and, in my view, merits speedy deletion as G11: 'unambiguous advertising or promotion'. Mkativerata (talk) 20:29, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:35, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:36, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:37, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable under WP:NPOL — people do not get Wikipedia articles for being unsuccessful candidates in legislative elections, or for being staffers in the offices of more notable politicians. But the references here are a mix of blogs and primary sources that do not constitute support for notability at all, and glancing namechecks of his existence as a giver of soundbite in articles about other things or people. People get over GNG by being the subject of coverage, not by getting quoted in coverage of other subjects. Also WP:AUTOBIO. Bearcat (talk) 23:20, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Vanity resume by as yet non notable person. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:23, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable politician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:03, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable political figure. --SalmanZ (talk) 21:29, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nomination. - MA Javadi (talk) 19:01, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 20:51, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

X88 Software[edit]

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

No significant coverage for this company. A prod was removed in 2010. SL93 (talk) 19:52, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:06, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:06, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:07, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:07, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete A rather obvious lack of sourcing. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:16, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looking at the history of the article and seeing there was one user and he only really contributed to this article makes it particularly suspect in my opinion and that it survived this long without anyone noticing! I am pretty sure this is also a speedy G11. Govvy (talk) 23:08, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am unable to find any RIS. Mccapra (talk) 07:04, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails notability guideline for businesses - no significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 17:45, 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. czar 20:51, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wreck Trek[edit]

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

I found no notability for this television series. SL93 (talk) 19:48, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:08, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:08, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:08, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non notable television series, fails GNG Ceethekreator (talk) 09:03, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability established. All sources are about a shipwreck of the same name. AmericanAir88^(talk) 16:21, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:30, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anup Kuruvilla John[edit]

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

A Google News search turns up only two hits on this individual, one of which, though from the Times of India, only mentions him in passing as an award recipient for a non-notable award for updating a police training manual, and the other of which discusses him only as one of a team of police officers assigned to a particularly awful Indian criminal case. Neither article is "about" him. A Google search reiterates these results and adds others that seem to lack independence from the subject. Did not come across enough to form the basis of a genuine claim of notability for a living person (WP:BLP). A loose necktie (talk) 19:16, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:22, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:22, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Please delete this page of non-notable person. --Harshil169 (talk) 03:54, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : New reference articles are added and notability is introduced Jehowahyereh (talk) 09:24, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources currently used in this article don't indicate notability, a further search didn't turn up anything to establish notability either. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:04, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:ANYBIO. No notability established. AmericanAir88^(talk) 16:20, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The user also recently created Merin Joseph IPS. AmericanAir88^(talk) 16:20, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@AmericanAir88: that's a recreation of the previously deleted article Merin Joseph. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:33, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Based on the work that other editors have noted has been done since the nomination was opened to improve the article, consensus has been reached here that the article now meets notability criteria sufficiently. (non-admin closure) Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 03:36, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G. W. Stephen Brodsky[edit]

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

~~Not notable. References are either the subejct's books or short reviews of them, but not anything in-depth about the author. Couldn't find anything on Google, Google News, and NewspaperARCHIVE either.~~ MrClog (talk) 18:56, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- - Keep - the sources found through JSTOR (which I cannot access) convinced me that the person is notable. --MrClog (talk) 08:55, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(user voted !keep below) Note that with WP:AUTHOR, and WP:CREATIVE it is not necessary to know anything about the author; we keep many pages on anonymous sculptors, composers, and writers, and many pages on writers with important books about whom few biographical details can be sourced. E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:19, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
E.M.Gregory, directly under the "Additional criteria" section of WP:NBIO, it says "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." Even anonymous people can be covered by RS (e.g. discuss how they operate or their art style). --MrClog (talk) 21:30, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, certainly. I do hope that you will read the book reviews and discuss Brodsky's research methods and artistic style. The reviews of his book on Joseph Conrad are mixed, both of the reviews that I read of his book on the British military were admiring. In sum, certainly the article can and should be improved, but the book reviews do carry him past WP:AUTHOR. E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:37, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

E.M.Gregory, sorry, I'm missing your point here. The quote I provided specifically mentions that meeting WP:AUTHOR is merely an indication that someone is likely to be notable, not that they are notable. To examine whether they are notable, we need to look if WP:BASIC is met. As asked below, which sources are in-depth RS discussing Mr. Brodsky? --MrClog (talk) 21:41, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if my comment confused you, the thing is, we have separate notability criteria for several categories of persons, among these is WP:AUTHOR, it does not require that the person have in-depth biographical coverage, but, rather, that the things the person wrote must have in-depth coverage in, for example, the form of multiple book reviews. I hope that this clears things up for you. E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:49, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AUTHOR is merely a way to quickly determine if someone's likely to meet WP:BASIC, per the quote above: "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." This quote is about all the additional criteria listed at WP:NBIO, which includes WP:AUTHOR. --MrClog (talk) 21:56, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 18:57, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 18:57, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 18:57, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I tagged this as an A7 but was declined. I don’t even see a credible claim of significance, let alone notability. Red Phoenix ^talk 20:10, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the work put in - my reason for supporting deletion is no longer valid. Red Phoenix ^talk 12:30, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WP:COI. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:00, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you specify your reasons for this assertion? I have looked at page creator's editing record, and I do not see a COI. What am I missing here?E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:21, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass notability for academics or writers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:55, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, perhaps Nom and editors above missed the series of book reviews improperly entered so that they appeared as a clump at the bottom of the page. I have added additional reviews that came up in a JSTOR search. Passes WP:AUTHOR]. Note that some of the reviews include BIO details from which page can be improved. E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:15, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Which specific sources did you find to contain in-depth bio details? --MrClog (talk) 20:34, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I pointed out above, it is irrelevant to notability under WP:AUTHOR. Nevertheless I did source teaching position at Royal Roads Military College to one of the book reviews. E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:16, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The question still stands though: which of the book reviews give some in-depth bio information? Because as I explained above, the man still needs to meet WP:BASIC: MrClog (talk) 11:56, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Added a 2nd source (book review) on his military career and teaching position; do note that the article was sourced to a regimental history by a previous editor. E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:01, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:26, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. G. W. Stephen Brodsky has had a notable military and academic career, including writings that have been reviewed in an array of scholarly publications. His book on Joseph Conrad alone deserves interest for the light it sheds on Conrad's Polish roots – often overlooked or minimized – which influenced his fiction and nonfiction works. Nihil novi (talk) 22:08, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, at least two of Brodsky's books: Gentlemen of the Blade, and Joseph Conrad's Polish Soul meet WP:NBOOK, having received multiple reviews, Brodsky's research appears to concentrate on joseph conrad (going on the books he has written and the number of contributions he has made to journals such as Conradiana), some editors may see this as too obscure for WP, its not, as anyone with an interest in european literature will know this is significant, so with the reviews he meets WP:AUTHOR and is a keep.Coolabahapple (talk) 03:43, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

or i suppose we can delete this and make two standalone articles on the books mentioned above..... Coolabahapple (talk) 03:45, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per NAUTHOR. The alternative is repurposing the article tomcover one of the books and creating another article dor the other notable book - keeping tue bio is simpler.Icewhiz (talk) 03:52, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep thanks to E.M.Gregory's efforts. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:35, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seems like the consensus is that notability criteria are not met and the sole source does not appear to work (per WP:GNG one would need more than one source anyhow) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:21, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trausti Valsson[edit]

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

As part of my efforts to clarify articles on Icelandic academics I bring you Trausti Valsson, an article created by User:TraustiV (contribs). Trausti is a professor emeritus of planning at the University of Iceland. I don't think WP:NPROF is met, the subject seems to have an h-index of 6-ish. None of the awards listed in the article seem like they would suffice either. Finally, the article is undersourced - the only reference is a broken link. The article was nominated for deletion 12 years ago and kept but I think it's time for a second look. Haukur (talk) 11:05, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Haukur (talk) 11:05, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. Haukur (talk) 11:05, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per WP:GNG. That the link is ”broken” doesn’t matter as it has been archived.BabbaQ (talk) 13:06, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing at that link, even in the archived version. Haukur (talk) 13:14, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The cited source is a book (not accessible online anymore) that contains short biographies of 1700 Icelanders "that have been prominent in Icelandic society recently". The bar for inclusion in that book seems fairly low, I couldn't find very many WP:GNG sources for him. Here is however a long interview with him discussing his views on city planning: [10] and this short review of his book might also be cited: [11]. --213.220.68.145 (talk) 20:09, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good work. Some reviews come up on this search: [12] I still think we are best off deleting the article. Haukur (talk) 21:56, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. GS h-index of 6 does not pass WP:Prof. BLP is replete with COI. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:49, 21 July 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Seems to be an essentially unsourced CV. Agricola44 (talk) 14:57, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | spout _ 17:50, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per Agricola44. - Best Blake44 (talk) 18:53, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Agricola. Given that this is an almost 50-year-long academic career a couple of book reviews in journals is pretty run-of-the-mill (I can only see one on the link Haukurth provided but I don't speak Icelandic so not 100% sure). Can barely find any independent coverage on Google and agreed on the COI problems. —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 19:22, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I read through the previous AfD and the arguments by which it was kept also seem pretty inadequate (unsurprisingly for 2007): "the book appears notable" and "he published more than any other Icelander on the subject", both unsourced claims. Given that I don't imagine there are a huge number of urban planning professors in Iceland, even if true I don't think the latter point is sufficient proof of notability. —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 19:28, 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. (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 17:20, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Decepticons[edit]

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

The article is entirely Wikia-style fancruft and pure WP:OR. While I will withhold my judgement on whether a List of Decepticons might possibly be notable, the article in its current state would clearly be a WP:TNT candidate regardless. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:15, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:15, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:15, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:02, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough of these have their own articles so it qualifies as a valid list. Aids in navigation. Dream Focus 01:49, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Over the past few years, there have been lots of character articles nominated for deletion with consensus to merge or redirect to this list. Deleting this now seems rather underhanded. Plus, Decepticons are a notable element of the Transformers fiction and this list provides a convenient home for all the characters significant to the fiction but not independently notable. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:06, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how it would be "underhanded". Just because cruft is merged into another crufty article doesn't make it any less crufty. Often, people point to existing articles as merge targets while ignoring whether it would still be unencyclopedic after the merge. The Transformers character articles are by and large completely unencyclopedic, besides some prominent exceptions like Optimus Prime and Bumblebee (Transformers) (though they need a massive amount of fancruft culling)._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:45, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Entries on lists do not have to be independently notable, so long as the list itself is notable. Common consensus has been that basic (non-crufty) information on these characters should be retained. Failing to note that when nominating this list for deletion seems like a massive oversight. Seeing as how the entries here only rarely include more than name, sub-faction, and alt-mode, I'm not even sure what you're seeing as cruft. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:22, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just having their name, faction, etc, makes it a WP:INDISCRIMINATE list. Information in Wikipedia should be put in context. As for your argument that a list must be needed to organize the characters, there is still Category:Decepticons._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:30, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think INDISCRIMINATE was the link you wanted, as this list doesn't fall under the four categories. Are you saying that Decepticons as a whole are not a notable topic?

The category is great, but is limited to characters that are independently notable and have their own article. This list incorporates more than the category and provides more information at a quick glance. See WP:NOTDUP. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:38, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Undoubtably notable topic needing of a list. This is a page which is in dire need of cleanup and citations, not deletion.★Trekker (talk) 01:38, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Argento Surfer's comments. The list definitely requires improvement, but I agree with the comments on the past redirects and the notability of Deceptions as an overall concept. Aoba47 (talk) 02:31, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Grease (musical). (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 17:21, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rock n' Roll Party Queen[edit]

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

Per WP:MUSIC Willbb234 (talk) 17:02, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Willbb234 (talk) 17:02, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:07, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. No independent notability for this song, and there is no value to readers for this single-sentence article that offers zero extra info to the soundtrack article. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 20:20, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect is fine, per below. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 12:03, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Grease (musical) as it is a song from that show and it could be a viable search term. Aoba47 (talk) 18:17, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect With no references it's untenable as a standalone article. My basic BEFORE finds nothing significant. That said, I can imagine someone searching for the song's name so having it as a redirect could be helpful. Chetsford (talk) 02:48, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mainly per the notability concerns as they have not been addressed and constitute a valid deletion argument. That other similar pages have not been nominated for deletion is not a reason to keep this one; if someone wants to get rid of the other pages as well send 'em to AFD. I see the arguments that such a list would be useful in some places but that alone does not override the notability concerns; if people want to merge or export the list you can ask at WP:REFUND. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:26, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of civilisations in the Culture series[edit]

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

Pretty much entirely in-universe fancruft. Fails WP:GNG as it does not demonstrate standalone notability as a list. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:02, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:02, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:02, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:08, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete this looks like something better suited for Fandom, though I could be convinced otherwise if someone presents sources. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:37, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This data collection doesn't exist anywhere else and contributes greatly to research on the books and topics. Timmccloud (talk) 17:57, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ... per Timmccloud. It "doesn't exist anywhere else" and it's WP:USEFUL. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:59, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - there are some fairly detailed articles on The Culture in the encyclopaedia, and this is an extension of those. As it stands, the information is too detailed to fit easily into another Culture article. What bothers me is that it seems overly detailed and somewhat light on references. Possibly more of a problem: it smacks of the dreaded original research - it's an impressive collection of information about these civilizations and it is certainly of value, yet Wikipedia's own policies discourage this sort of article. On balance though I think it should stay. Shritwod (talk) 22:04, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- this is overly detailed, poorly sourced plot summary. Due to the poor state of the sourcing, there isn't any good content that could be merged anywhere. Reyk _YO! 09:08, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep. There are at least 10 other similar Culture-related stub or primary-sourced "cruft" articles (that number from the navbox alone) and this isn't even the worst-in-shape article. There is no logical reason why this article only should be deleted and the others left. Therefore I suggest that this nomination be dropped and that these substantially identical articles be nominated together at once so as to consistently apply the notability and sourcing policies, to bring attention to all of them and allow proponents to find sources and perform clean-up work, and to decide whether they should collectively be merged or deleted. 144.134.2.40 (talk) 10:45, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is merely a thinly veiled WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. I prefer to avoid a WP:TRAINWRECK by nominating things separately. There is enough controversy as it is over this one article._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:51, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've seen this game before. Nominate them singly, and people demand a bundled nom. Give them a bundled nom and it's all "Speedy keep- one of these ten crappy cookie-cutter articles wasn't cut out with the same cookie-cutter. That invalidates the whole nom. NPASR." So you then nominate them singly again. "Nooooooo, speedy keep, NOTAGAIN, this was just nominated last week REEEEEEE". Reyk _YO! 12:16, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to assume good faith. 2001:8003:70C0:7501:2F4:8DFF:FEB3:2DE9 (talk) 01:48, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. I never expressed the opinion that the article should be kept, only that it makes no sense to focus on this single article when it is part of a collection, and that they should be nominated together. If you intend to go through and tag all of the other articles sequentially then that is fine, but I don't know why you wouldn't do it at once. 2001:8003:70C0:7501:2F4:8DFF:FEB3:2DE9 (talk) 01:48, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Clarityfiend and Reyk. Aoba47 (talk) 02:29, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Grease (Musical). (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 17:22, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mooning (song)[edit]

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

Per WP:MUSIC Willbb234 (talk) 17:00, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:13, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:14, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. No independent notability for this song, and there is no value to readers for this single-sentence article that offers zero extra info to the soundtrack article. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 20:17, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per below. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 12:10, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Grease (musical), where this song originated. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:48, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Grease (musical) as it could be a viable search term. Aoba47 (talk) 18:16, 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 redirect to Star Control. On the one hand, both headcount and strength of arguments e.g WP:NLIST or WP:INDISCRIMINATE endorse the notion that the page does need to go. Seems also like there are valid arguments against merging over content. However, the point that people going to this page should be pointed to some article seems reasonable and there is no specific counterargument; thus redirecting rather than outright deleting. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:31, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Star Control races[edit]

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

List is mostly fiction-cruft with no indication that the races listed were mentioned in reliable sources. Wikia-style material. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:52, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:52, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:52, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:52, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is something that shouldn’t even be in the games article, per WP:GAMECRUFT, let alone spun out into its own article. Sergecross73 msg me 16:59, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:03, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an excessively WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:GAMECRUFTy list. Topic does not meet WP:LISTN. --letcreate123 (talk) 20:33, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The lead material should be included in the specific articles in question. Is it? --Izno (talk) 21:03, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Star Control. Preserve the history in case any can be merged over. This page got 4,231 pageviews in the past 90 days. So someone coming here and seeing the redirect, might go ahead and work on merging information over eventually. Dream Focus 15:54, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Star Control. A redirect seems appropriate, but I would not be opposed to an outright deletion. I am primarily suggesting a redirect as it could be a valid search term, and there is a parent article to redirect to. I am not sure if any of the current article could be useful or merged into the parent article as it does not appear that anything is cited with third-party reliable sources. Aoba47 (talk) 14:47, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if there is no list of characters in the Star Control article, it will just be a confusing and pointless redirect._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:07, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Then that information can be merged over as I have said. Dream Focus 22:52, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the responses. Upon further reflection, I agree with letcreate123 and Sergecross73's arguments with WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:GAMECRUFT. I do not see enough reliable, third-party sources to justify a separate article, and there is really nothing from this article to merge into the Star Control one. My vote is delete. Aoba47 (talk) 23:02, 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. For the purpose of this close, I'll treat "This article is not only unnecessary, as each of the three Pokemon in question have their own full articles, " as an argument against merge/redirect. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:32, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Legendary Bird Trio[edit]

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

Not only is the title confusing, but there are already articles on Articuno, Zapdos and Moltres, so an article about them as a "trio" is not needed and fails GNG. It is a superfluous article. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:43, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:43, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Completely unnecessary article with very little content and sourcing, which could be covered an multiple other areas. Sergecross73 msg me 17:01, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:05, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have no Pokemon knowledge, but it might be preferable to merge the three individual Pokemon into this article? power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:39, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, they may all need to be deleted or redirected to the giant list of Pokémon article. Sergecross73 msg me 17:13, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This article is not only unnecessary, as each of the three Pokemon in question have their own full articles, but the sourcing is also terrible, as it is nothing more than announcements of events in which players could obtain them rather than substantial coverage of the Pokemon themselves. Furthermore, the name "Legendary Bird Trio" is not, from what I can tell, even an official name for the grouping, making the title confusing, as stated by the nomination. Rorshacma (talk) 15:41, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I believe the games only refer to these Pokemon as legendary birds without the trio part so I agree with Rorshacma that the article name is not an official title. I do not see enough independent coverage on the Pokemon as a group to justify this article, although there is a language barrier at play here. The question on whether the three individual pages meet the notability standards would be have to discussed at their individual AfDs if that ever happens. Aoba47 (talk) 21:46, 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 delete arguments are not only numerically superior, but also cite good policy-based reasons for deletion. The keep arguments, both from users with relatively limited editing experience, make no such policy-based arguments. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:29, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of free Epic Games Store games[edit]

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

WP:NOT#CATALOG. Because these are free for a limited time, it really doesn't help anyone after the fact. Other storefronts offer free games on a routine basis, and we don't track those. Masem (t) 16:25, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Masem (t) 16:25, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CATALOGUE. We’re an encyclopedia, not a sales-catalogue for an online storefront. Sergecross73 msg me 16:31, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:35, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:17, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete CATALOG has been dropped already, but WP:NOTPROMO also applies nicely to this, and Epic can do its own promotion just fine without us. Nate • (chatter) 17:55, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTCATALOGUE and WP:NOTPROMO. No encyclopedic merit to this list whatsoever. Ajf773 (talk) 19:06, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:04, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:OTHER Masem You are correct other storefronts offer free games on a routine basis, but you are wrong that Wikipedia doesn't track those. See List of Games with Gold games, which has been updated consistently for over six years, for one example. The value is not what to see is currently available - that is what the news covers, - but rather to understand what happened in the past. Firms don't generally relist items under the same promotion so it aids in understanding future company decision-making. WP:NOTE Sergecross73 It is not a sales catalog. It mere lists those items that are free because that has received significant coverage in reliable sources as Epic attempts to battle the dominate market player, Steam. WP:COMPREHENSIVE Nate Wikipedia's purpose is to be be a fully comprehensive and informative reference work, which includes company specific activities. It is no more 'Epic promotion' than List of Games with Gold games is 'Microsoft promotion'. WP:VERIFY Everything on the page is cited. WP:OTHER Ajf773 'No encyclopedic merit to this list' implies a) that the sources are unreliable and b) that many pages should be deleted including the following ten pages as they are lists too: List of wikis, List of Jewish American businesspeople, List of serial killers by country, List of environmental journals, List of airlines of Chad, List of alcoholic drinks, List of poets, List of Nintendo DS games, List of Pakistani sweets and desserts, and List of fictional frogs and toads. n64ra (talk) 19:31, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. This article has been singled out because it is a list of free games, a sub-category of a list of games from the game producer. It mostly certainly fails WP:NOTCATALOGUE because it specifically details pricing. Ajf773 (talk) 21:01, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. You have not explained how the article this is based on, List of Games with Gold games, has survived for over six years without deletion - doing the same work. n64ra (talk) 14:47, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
None of that rambling monologue actually counters the idea of it being a sales catalogue. I’m not sure you’re understanding WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Sergecross73 msg me 02:23, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I addressed the five arguments (historical value for future business decision making, already track similar ideas on wikipedia, significant press coverage, credible sources referencing every component, and several "lists of" exist on wikipedia) for deletion. You have only pointed out one (catalog) and readdressed it. n64ra (talk) 14:47, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Your statement didn’t counter my point. There being sources, and it being a sales catalogue, not not mutually exclusive. Sergecross73 msg me 03:09, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTCATALOG and the article is rather pointless as many are very temporary. Nixinova T C 04:52, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. While it may be pointless to you, such lists are quite valuable to others. I take 'many are very temporary' to mean the amount of time an item is eligible. Does anyone need to know that Sacred Citadel was free from February 1, 2016 to February 15, 2016, as per List of Games with Gold games? That question doesn't matter. What matters is that it is a fact and worth documenting. WP:NOTE n64ra (talk) 15:14, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We don't keep stuff because it's useful. There are many game wikis and other fan-run sites that track this, and the purpose otherwise fails WP's core policies. We have documented this free game program by Epic Games (and similar ones on the other services), as that's a notable feature, but we aren't required to document all instances of it. --Masem (t) 15:32, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We aren't required to document all instances of it, but some people do want that information documented. -digimarks (t) 19:12, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it was useful. I said it was worth documenting. Encyclopedias give information on many subjects, and this is another subject. Can you point me to the many game wikis and other fan-run sites that track this sort of thing? I searched for a complete list of the 644 free games Sony has given away in North America in their similar program over the course of this decade. The two comprehensive results are Wikipedia and Reddit. Wikipedia's is much cleaner, readable, and more detailed. That would be a shame to lose! You still haven't addressed what criteria exists to allow some like List of Games with Gold games but not others like this. n64ra (talk) 14:08, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We don't argue WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Just because there's the list of Games with Gold, doesn't mean it is appropriate, and I am considering its deletion if this AFD closes delete for similar reasons. But I'm not starting that until it is clear what consensus is. --Masem (t) 14:53, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:OTHER I see this list as more about factual information than promotional anything. I understand that there's a good deal of possibly/probably well-earned animosity for Epic Games and their practices, but as a gamer who sometimes seeks out gaming history, I've searched for lists like these to know what the lineage was and if a game I'd like to get from their catalogue was already offered. Since Epic themselves don't list their offer history on their website (as far as I know), we have to seek this info elsewhere. Under the "When to not use deletion process?" section of Wikipedia:Introduction_to_deletion_process, it says "since Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, articles that interest some people should be kept", which addresses the audience intended for this info, as well as "Wikipedia contains information on all topics, not just those which any person or group agrees with", which addresses the personal (and possibly entirely valid) umbrage that may be a source for some of the disagreement on this article segment's existence. Other services do offer free games, as has been mentioned, but the linear timeline factor of these temporarily available games gives it a point of being trackable, not unlike the List of Games with Gold games, as mentioned by n64ra. WP:DIRECTORY also clearly states "there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are relevant because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic". -digimarks (t) 19:17, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't the place to go to find out what games are free. It's not a game guide nor a catalogue. That information should be available directly from the distributors. Ajf773 (talk) 00:04, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Expect the distributors don't maintain a database of the games given away in such programs. One has to search through old tweets and blog posts to compile an inclusive list. n64ra (talk) 14:08, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're not citing OTHER correctly here at all, and the rest of your argument, along with n64ra, is just WP:ITSUSEFUL arguments. If you could just yell that out and have that work every time, nothing would ever get deleted. It doesn’t work like that... Sergecross73 msg me 03:09, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- We have provided more than just WP:ITSUSEFUL. 14:08, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Agree with it being factual. Here's my personal story of why I am passionate about lists like these. A few years ago my PS3 broke so I bought a replacement, which meant I had to redownload everything on to the new PS3. I like to separate games I pay for versus those that are free. Sony / Playstation provided no such comprehensive list. Looking at individual items on the PSN Store only provides the info 'purchased' for either category. Not helpful, but you know did help? A clean list, which was found on Wikipedia. Take a look at my history, and you'll see I provided most of the updates to List of Instant Game Collection games (North America) since January 2018. That's how give back to the community that helped me. I expect something similar to happen on Epic Games Store. Say I get a new PC in four years, then I'll be interested in separating those I paid for from those that Epic game away for free. A clean list like the one currently on Wikipedia would come in most handy. This hits WP:OTHER, WP:COMPREHENSIVE, WP:NOTE, and "When to not use deletion process?" section of Wikipedia:Introduction_to_deletion_process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by N64ra (talk • contribs)

Thats just another WP:ITSUSEFUL argument. It’s a nice story, but it has no bearing on whether it should be deleted or kept. Your valiant efforts can still be continued on a fan wikia or Gamefaqs or Neogaf/ResetEra/social media. But it’s not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Sergecross73 msg me 14:42, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Delete This page is a standalone list WP:SAL. It is clearly not a catalog WP:NOTCATALOG. Looking through the list of examples there, and the discussion here, the only delete argument seems to be that this is a sales catalog. But, if we look, this page doesn't include pricing information, nor availability. (At least nothing past it being a chronological list of items, filtered by the notable free ones). Whether or not this is a good chronological list, as per WP:SALAT, seems to be the only meaningful discussion we can have here. The two common issues that page discusses are "too broad" and "too narrow". We all certainly agree this list isn't too broad. With the number of entries it has already, it doesn't appear to be too narrow either. So, we have to see if this topic is notable enough to deserve a Wikipedia article. I'm not experienced enough with editing Wikipedia to make a good argument on that topic, but it seems fairly clear that it's the only discussion worth having. If someone has experience arguing the notability requirement of WP:SALAT or knows where we could find past discussions to reference here, please chime in! I see this page passes WP:GNG but surely there's more to the discussion than that. WP:NOTESAL unfortunately doesn't give much help. Masem when this and similar discussions finish up, it might be worth expanding that guideline. 3fishes (talk) 22:40, 2 August 2019 (UTC) Edit: Due to the discovery of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Humble Bundles (2nd nomination) I change my stance to support Delete, on the basis that it stays consistent with existing consensus. Specifically, that it should be deemed WP:NOTCATALOG (though I still do not agree that it's a sales catalog), and that the notability of it is insufficient to supersede its catalog-ness. This list should be preserved and maintained somewhere else. 3fishes (talk) 13:32, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Well "free" sorta indicates the price, and the availability is there of when the game was free on the website. I would argue that yes, there is a GNG argument here - nearly every time this has switched over the major game sites have talked about it, but the key to keep in mind is that this is effective just when certain promotions were held. The main Epic Games Store page notes it runs this promotion and that's really all WP should say about it per NOT#CATALOG (which overrides the GNG). --Masem (t) 22:45, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Maybe the key difference here is that a directory/catalog is always kept current. I completely agree that a page, or even a section of a page, with "This is the current free Epic Game" would clearly violate NOTCATALOG. This page, on the other hand, is a historical record. A catalog holds the availability and price of a product so that you can buy it. Availability and price are secondary to the real purpose of the catalog. On this page though, "free" and "in the past" are the key and primary features. I would maintain that all catalogs have price and availability, but not all lists with price and availability are necessarily catalogs. A catalog requires something more. 3fishes (talk) 23:01, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - the key to keep in mind is that this is effective just when certain promotions were held. I definitely need to look deeper into the correct usage of WP:NTEMP. 3fishes (talk) 23:08, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - To reiterate - Say when, random game from the list, like "The Witness", was offered. (The game itself is notable on its own, not a question). I can do a google news search of "the witness" "epic games store" "free" and limit it to the month of April and I get 40+ hits, with at least 10 of those being WP:VG/S compliant reliable sources. So one could argue that the promotion was notable itself, but... the point of NOT#CATALOG is that we're not here to deal with promotions, unless something notable fell out of that promotion. At one point, we had a list of the various Humble Bundles but that was deleted (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Humble Bundles (2nd nomination)) because while the first few bundles had impressively charitable results, most of the bundles in the last several years have not really had that, so the list was deleted, and mention of some of the more significant bundles made back in Humble Bundle. So I also submit that decision as a reason here.
    - At the end of the day, Epic Games Store is just a store front. The games it offers are notable, the storefront is notable, but the individual promotions are not. Just as we don't track every Steam sale or free game offering. It is just outside the purpose of an encyclopedia. --Masem (t) 23:16, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - The humble bundle decision is a great find. I've edited my initial comment, changing my stance. 3fishes (talk) 13:32, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article indicates when games are free. In every instance, free is a decrease in price. A decrease in price is called a sale. A collection and compilation of sales is what sales catalogues document. Therefore, the list acts as a sales catalogue. Where is the disconnect here? It’s all very straightforward. Sergecross73 msg me 00:47, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:33, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zayed Bin Waleed[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was that he Does not meet WP:NFOOTY as he has not yet played a game in a professional league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:35, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:35, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:35, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:18, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:06, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 07:53, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:31, 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 redirect to Roman Catholic Diocese of Las Vegas#Bishops. (non-admin closure) AmericanAir88^(talk) 16:17, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bishop of Las Vegas[edit]

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

There is no reason to have this stub specifically about the bishop of Las Vegas; the article about the diocese is sufficient. Songwaters (talk) 14:31, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Songwaters (talk) 14:31, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:24, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Roman Catholic Diocese of Las Vegas#Bishops per nom. Nate • (chatter) 17:58, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above, this subject can easily be expanded upon there Atlantic306 (talk) 19:43, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Roman Catholic Diocese of Las Vegas#Bishops. It was arguably not necessary to bring this obvious redirect to AfD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:14, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:SNOW, WP:CHEAP, past WP:OUTCOMES. Bearian (talk) 15:35, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect -- If I am right in gathering that this is a relatively recently created diocese, we do not yet need a separate list article. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:29, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - as above. Neutrality^talk 19:13, 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 merge to Walt Disney Direct-to-Consumer & International. Redirect after merge -- RoySmith (talk) 15:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Walt Disney Company Asia Pacific[edit]

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

Regional division of Disney that is not independently notable. Trivialist (talk) 17:23, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:31, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:31, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:31, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that AfD is the place to settle this issue. Clearly, we don't want to delete the article. At worst, we want to turn it into a redirect to The Walt Disney Company but that should be decided by a simple discussion on the article's talk page. Pichpich (talk) 20:58, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't think it needs to be deleted or redirected. As per reason by Pichpich, this is not the place to settle the issue and it's not possible about these issues by an user that started it all. Movies Time (talk) 03:45, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have attempted a redirect to Disney DTC and International (DTCI) and had a discussion about it (Talk:Walt Disney Direct-to-Consumer & International#The Walt Disney Company Asia Pacific Private Limited) that have gone no where given no other editor's involvement. While AfD may not be the ideal place to discuss it, after the article has been submitted here moving discussion else where c/would be seen as forum shopping. The Asia Pacific unit operated for a short while in the early to mid 1990s, became dormant as Asia Pacific was split up, then reactivated with the new segment, DTCI, and 2CF merger. It is just parroting primarily the DTCI article's information thus having no separate notability from that article. Spshu (talk) 14:31, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I Dont think also that needs to be deleted or redirected and also if we want to resolve it is in the article talk page not here ok. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CCVolk23zx (talk • contribs) 17:56, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs a better consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AmericanAir88^(talk) 13:40, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I already said why it should be ~~Keep~~ because first this is not place to discuss that just because he didn't get what he wanted now wants to delete article no discuss that the talk page not puting deletions and second its more than notable to be kept and the rest i won't repeat myself because I already explained thanks.CCVolk23zx (talk)

Comment You are only allowed one vote in an AfD, so I have struck your second 'keep'. You need not reiterate your position after a relist. Moaz786 (talk to me or see what I've been doing) 21:28, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry I didn't knew about I thought I had to vote again so why u guys relisted the AfD for explain to me below okCCVolk23zx (talk)

Merge/redirect to Walt Disney Direct-to-Consumer & International where it is already mentioned in lieu of deletion. I was unable to find significant coverage about "The Walt Disney Company Asia Pacific" aside from announcement articles such as this article from Variety and this article from The Economic Times about Uday Shankar heading the "India and Asia Pacific business of The Walt Disney Company once it completes the acquisition of 21st Century Fox's assets".
I oppose deletion since it is useful to retain the article's history. The reorganization happened in December 2018. As more time passes, if The Walt Disney Company Asia Pacific gains enough independent coverage of its parent company in the future, I support undoing the redirect and restoring this as a standalone article.
Cunard (talk) 00:56, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with redirect per Spshu and Cunard. – Levivich 13:44, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:35, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bellingham Metro News[edit]

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

Declined PROD. Merely being recognized by the state does not make it notable enough for inclusion - a search for the topic ironically brings up results from other newspapers. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 13:37, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 13:37, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 13:37, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly does not meet GNG due to its lack of outside coverage. Article creator is also listed as the owner, so this is a COI case. Sounder Bruce 15:50, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No references and does not meet WP:GNG - Best Blake44 (talk) 18:35, 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 speedy keep. WP:SK #3 applies. (non-admin closure) ——SerialNumber54129 10:31, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Azoi[edit]

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

Azoi was a Medical gadget startup that eventually failed. The trademark is no longer owned so I don't believe there should be a page under this name, maybe the name of the article should just be changed, i would suggest to change it to 'Wello' the name of the one product that they nearly brought to production. Jobordan (talk) 13:33, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:35, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:35, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:35, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:26, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Just because the company is no longer trading doesn't mean we don't have an article. Theroadislong (talk) 16:33, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~CHANGE NAME~~ "Just because the company is no longer trading doesn't mean we don't have an article." Well, at least the name should be changed.Jobordan (talk) 11:05, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that the change of name to their product would be a better thing, even if they no longer own the trademark, in some point of time they did, and so there's nothing bad about an encyclopedic article about that in my opinion.
- Also 'the company' and 'the product' are different topics, and if there's only one article for both, then at least a redirection should be done from one to another.
- On name change I'd prefer something like 'Azoi (company)', 'Azoi (startup)', 'Azoi (digital health)'
- As extra info, Wello was an app, the physical product was the Kito and it reached production.
- Neko Spectrus (talk) 00:09, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~CHANGE NAME~~ "Well, what were to happn if somebody buys the TM and decideds to make a page? i Believe there is a not-for-profit that is registered in the US under that name.Jobordan Jobordan (talk) 05:01, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jobordan ~~You cannot vote twice~~. Infact you cannot vote ~~three~~ (effectively) four times... Do you want to delete, or change the name of the article??????? If you want to change the name, WP:RM is the place, it shows you how to. By placing this at AfD, you are voting to delete the article. Nightfury 09:35, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:36, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Rickard[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Mark Rickard

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

Fails Notability for BLP and for creative professionals. Body of work is not widely know, is not widely critiqued, is not cited or awarded, and all mentions of the subject's involvement in the body of work are trivial mentions. Searches have failed to produce any interviews, citations, commentary, or any acceptable sources which are not trivial mentions. Additionally, the account which created the page appears to potentially be a conflict of interest account because the vast majority of edits are related to this article or projects referenced in this article. MrStrang3rthangs (talk) 12:05, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:13, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:13, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:15, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:50, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:11, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:11, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 00:41, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:08, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 05:03, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ricardo Farcaş[edit]

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

The footballer never played in a fully professional league, thereby failing WP:NFOOTY. I do not see correspondence to WP:GNG either. Ymblanter (talk) 09:50, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 09:50, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:00, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:00, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:30, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 07:53, 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. For both notability and copyright reasons, as either point would suffice to justify deletion here. Redirects can be added at editorial discretion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:01, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hélène de Kuegelgen[edit]

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

no apparent notability .the references refer to her only incidentally in connection with her partner. DGG ( talk ) 09:47, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:01, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:35, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dora Ohlfsen-Bagge, her partner. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:52, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:19, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a presumptive copyright violation; the author was blocked for an extensive history of copyright infringement. MER-C 15:26, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Dora Ohlfsen-Bagge her partner was notable, can't see a hook here and notability isn't inherited. W C M_email 18:17, 27 July 2019 (UTC) Delete with compelling evidence of copyright violation, delete per Uncle G. W C M_email 10:37, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need to presume that it is a copyright violation. It is one. I compared the initial revision of the article to the sources cited. It copies them word for word, and the sources are not in the public domain nor free content. We really should not be merging non-free content into other Wikipedia articles. Or indeed copying and pasting it, as a substitute for actual writing, in the first place. Uncle G (talk) 00:54, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete when an article opens with a claim of "probably committed suicide" and that is the most notable thing about the person the person is not really notable. It some times is discouraging how many articles on non-notable people Wikipedia is plagued with.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:01, 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) 10:01, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Gamble (socialite)[edit]

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

It is possible for socialites to be notable , but it takes more than this. None of the references are references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements DGG ( talk ) 09:39, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:20, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:22, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a presumptive copyright violation; the author was blocked for an extensive history of copyright infringement. MER-C 15:26, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, as being very poorly written, and lacking significant coverage on his own, assuming good faith. Bearian (talk) 15:37, 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. For either notability or copyright reasons, as the arguments here justify a deletion for either reason. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:02, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Florence Sellers Coxe Paul[edit]

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

I cannot figure out what she is supposed to be notable for. All of the references refer to her in the primary context of other people. WP is not Who's Who. DGG ( talk ) 09:37, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:02, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:34, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can find a bit more information (she divorced her second husband), but all the newspaper coverage is short reports of weddings, deaths, divorce, etc. There is no significant coverage, no profiles of her, in Newspapers.com, Ebsco, Jstor or Google that I can find. The portrait of her is already in the article about Ida Waugh. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:51, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a presumptive copyright violation; the author was blocked for an extensive history of copyright infringement. MER-C 15:26, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I don't see a hook for a claim of notability per WP:GNG. W C M_email 18:14, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless someone can explain why she should have an article here – the actions and achievements that make her notable by our standards. The present article consists of routine coverage of ordinary events in an ordinary life, flavoured with extensive off-topic digressions ("Her father was chairman of the Fairmount Park Commission" etc). Please note that if the article is kept, all text added by the article creator will need to be presumptively removed – please see Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Elisa.rolle. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:40, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's no WP:Copyright violation here, so forget that, but there is no WP:Notability either. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 19:42, 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. After discarding a bunch of socks, consensus clearly favours deletion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:03, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lekhraj Bugaliya[edit]

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

I do not see why the person is notable. The article was moved multiple times out of the draft by the creator and moved back by other users. Ymblanter (talk) 09:30, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 09:30, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I am striking comments from three accounts all of which are unambiguously block-evading sockpuppets. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:50, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete This person hasn’t achieved any coverage in WP:RS and no proper sources are even cited here. Fails WP:GNG and WP:Notability. —Harshil169 (talk) 11:24, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:36, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:24, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article have right details with sources. This is Rajasthan local person who work to teach poor student and have Education YouTube channel for iit jee and neet prepration. I think wikipedia allow this article on main page WP:NPOL — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chota92 (talk • contribs)

Note that the creator of the article has been indefblocked for spam, and the above user is likely their sock.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:01, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. No coverage whatsoever from WP:RS; all sources primary or poorly-written user-submitted list articles, that's about it. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:10, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable Youtuber.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Pure promo. Fails WP:GNG. COI editor. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:51, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This person passes WP:NPOL..... Caller92 (talk) 11:51, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep passes WP:GNG. b4sky005 (talk) 13:26, 01 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

— b4sky005 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:11, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:33, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Robert E. Wells[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to meet WP:BASIC, as per several WP:BEFORE source searches. Sources found are affiliated (non-independent) and primary. I located this Deseret morning news 2006 church almanac source, but from the snippet view, it appears to be a rather standard directory listing of sorts, one that may not consist of significant coverage. Otherwise, not finding any significant coverage in independent, reliable sources to qualify notability per Wikipedia's standards of notability. Some news articles such as this are out there that provide passing mentions, but fall far short of being considerable as significant, in-depth of coverage about the subject. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:03, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:05, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:05, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:05, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BASIC and WP:RS. All sources are either a passing mention or someone else. AmericanAir88^(talk) 16:16, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 17:40, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kida Burns[edit]

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

No evidence of significant notability. The only accurate sourced statement which indicates notability is the award of "America's Favorite Dancer". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:04, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:04, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:04, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:37, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:37, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:37, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:37, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

comment I will come back to this one. Seems like this subject was a winner of a television dance show competition. Lightburst (talk) 13:56, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject easily passes WP:ANYBIO The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor $250,000 and first place on the national television show: So You Think You Can Dance: The Next Generation. I also see enough non-trivial coverage of the subject and the subject has appeared in national television productions such as a the BET awards and the Ellen DeGeneres Show and others. The subject may also pass WP:ARTIST as a creative professional dancer. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers. The subject's notability is not temporary. WP:NTEMP Lightburst (talk) 23:43, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, being the winner of a "reality" show, even one nominally based on talent, is not even evidence of a significant award. But, there may still be non-trivial coverage in other venues. I am certain the subject doesn't qualify for the slightly greater requirement for appearing in 2002#Births, which is why I noticed ~~her~~ him. For example, the first Survivor winner has the additional notability of being a tax protester (or at least, tax evader). But I won't complain if the closer disagrees. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:08, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as he is covered in multiple reliable sources and he won a nationally televised dance competition which seems a notable award (it does have it's own article here), thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 22:33, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm inclined to think that the award is significant enough (it doesn't have to be the nobel-equivalent), and the subject's also received significant coverage elsewhere. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:17, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. A vast majority of comments are written against an outright deletion. (non-admin closure) ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 05:12, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hairy Maclary Scattercat[edit]

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

No independent reliable sources cover this topic. Fails GNG and NBOOK. Steve Quinn (talk) 06:47, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:36, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:36, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have just been having a look at the Hairy Maclary article, which has very few references, and a lot of redlinked titles (and has been like that since at least 2013). I'm thinking that any references that can be found for individual books would most usefully be added to Hairy Maclary, to support his notability as a character, and to verify information about him. Perhaps a short summary of each book could be added there too, and the redlinks removed unless there is clear evidence of notability for individual titles. I haven't yet found any reviews of this particular book, but I have found it listed in a Canadian Library Journal list of books about bullies .... I will come back and !vote when I've checked more, but I'm thinking either Merge to Hairy Maclary (though there are no independent sources anyway ...) or Delete. I don't think a redirect would be useful for this title, given that a search would easily find the main article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:14, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects are cheap; no reason not to have one, and people may well search for the exact title rather than the series. But I agree that it may be a better approach to curate the series article well, rather than trying to sustain meagre articles for individual books. (Dropped a couple of possible sources there) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:45, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ I can find coverage of this book in School Library Journal and Publisher's Weekly but I agree with Elmidae that redirects are cheap and it's better to have one well done article than several poor ones. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:49, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the reviews mentioned here, Cool's sourcing of a New Zealand award gives this book enough individual notability to warrant Keep rather than my previous redirect (really merge and redirect). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:47, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ("Meeow, rowr, mew", "yes mitskie, i know Scarface Claw is one of your kitty heroes, as is The Slinkster, but that doesn't mean that every book that includes him is notable", "Rowwrrr!", "okay, okay i will try to show the nice wikieditors that this book is notable...."), according to WorldCat this book is in over 900 libraries and has gone thru multiple editions (the 1st being 1985, the latest being 2011?), and has been published thruout the world ie. NZ, OZ, USA, England, so is a well known and popular book (in addition, its storyline is the basis for Hairy Maclary, Hide and Seek: A Lift the Flap Book more editions and holdings). It is the basis of an episode of a tv series - see here, the series of books are bestsellers, having sold 5 million, no i dont have sources about how many copies this book has sold to date but would expect this to be a bestseller (this shows it selling almost 100th by May 2004 is that enough?), illustrations from this book were part of an exhibition held at National Library of New Zealand Gallery - see here, in addition to the reviews mentioned by Barkeep49 above (although i dont see a review from PW on this specific title, please confirm) and the Canadian Library Journal listing (thanks RebeccaGreen), there is a short review here (but really, what more needs to be said:)) by Books for Keeps, and here is a review about the flapbook mentioned above (probably not suitable as a reference?), it also won the 1986 New Zealand Children's Book Awards Picture Book of the Year, so to summarise: heaps of copies/multiple editions held by libraries worldwide, part of a tv series, bestseller, book illustrations part of an exhibition, multiple reviews (2 or 3?), a national book award winner (oh, and includes one of mitskie's kitty heroes:)), so i reckon rather than a "delete" or "merge" this can be a keep. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:42, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Coolabahapple, I did not find the New Zealand award. That does change my thinking about it which I will note in a moment. The PW evidence I can find is from March 31, 2003 which is about the reprint but quotes the original review leading me to believe there was a review. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:46, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

thanks. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:50, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, a lot of Hairy Maclary titles have received awards/are bestsellers so in addition to expanding that silly dog's (mitskie's words, not mine) article, they could also have standalone articles, if only i could get my the cat to type.... Coolabahapple (talk) 17:50, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thank you, Coolabahapple! I had not found the Picture Book of the Year award - I've now added a link in that article to this book's article. With the reviews and award, this should be a keep - will you add the info, or shall I have a go? I notice that two of the other red-linked Hairy McLary titles in the Hairy Maclary article won the Picture Book of the Year award too, so should also have articles rather than having their redlinks deleted ... It does look like a lot of the existing articles about Lynley Dodd's books and characters need more references, too. I guess they were created when not many were needed ... RebeccaGreen (talk) 17:59, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

yep, thanks, that would be good, must sleep zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Coolabahapple (talk) 18:04, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, oh, and this shows the tv series was broadcast nationally and not just sent straight to video/dvd. Coolabahapple (talk) 18:00, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've just expanded the article using a reasonably detailed ODT article that deals with Dodd's cats upon which many of her books are based. Schwede 66 08:58, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly meets WP:NBOOK. Sheldybett (talk) 01:10, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus that the additional reviews added demonstrate notability per NAUTHOR, (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 12:19, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Vanita[edit]

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

Non notable person. Fails WP:Notability and WP:Author. No major coverage in WP:RS and no secondary source is cited as reference even though this is WP:Bio. All the claims are dubious and vague; not backed by sources. Wiki is the only source and can be used as circular reporting.

This article should be removed as soon as possible because the Ruth Vanita was involved in the editing the Article. Violation of WP:COI

--Harshil169 (talk) 06:21, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Harshil169 (talk) 06:21, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Harshil169 (talk) 06:21, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Harshil169 (talk) 06:21, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Harshil169 (talk) 06:21, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete. Deleting this article makes no sense. Ruth Vanita is a major academic and researcher. Her books have been published by Penguin India, one of the most important publishers in India, and her works are regularly used in courses around the world. She is one of the leading scholars in the world on the history and sociology of queer people (lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans) in South Asia, a part of the world that accounts for more than 15% of the world's population. She did not start this Wikipedia article: I did. I have never met her, and this article was not started as any kind of promotion. It was started precisely because she is a major figure in an important area of research and teaching. I'm not sure whether she has contributed to it. If she has, those portions can be edited. Interlingua 14:17, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Interlingua: let’s accept that she’s major scholar and notable person who should have page on Wikipedia but why not a single secondary source has been cited in the page to support her notability? If someone is being taught in studies then it doesn’t mean she should have Wikipedia page. —Harshil169 (talk) 16:28, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Harshil169 (talk) 06:21, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Harshil169 (talk) 06:21, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just look at the contributions of @Ruth vanita: in which she is adding details about herself and her colleague Saleem. Clear violation of WP:COI and this page should be removed or should be started from scratch. --Harshil169 (talk) 06:35, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Subject is obviously notable given independent sources that are easily found by doing Google, Google scholar, JSTOR and news searches. Article could have been improved before nom as per WP:BEFORE. She is not only widely published and reviewed, she is a full professor and the director of the South & SE Asian Studies Department at the University where she teaches. She has received grants & fellowships from the American Philosophical Society (the oldest learned society in the US), Fulbright Foundation, National Endowment for the Humanities, and others. Netherzone (talk) 04:21, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Netherzone: Main concern is conflict of interest(NPOV) and verifiability is too. Ruth Vanita herself is a contributor in the editing article and adding details about her books which are not published yet and that too without any proper citation. Whole article was written on the base of one reference and that too is not reliable. I tried to improve the article but so much details and that too about her parents are added in the article which isn’t even publicly available. Obviously, her associate is editing article on her. According to me, she’s not notable scholar who received multiple coverages and interviews in media to have Wikipedia page. If you think article should be improved then we can work together but no unsourced information about her should be tolerated as it violates WP:BIO —Harshil169 (talk) 04:47, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Her work does seem to be reviewed in various scholarly journals, and additionally she is described as prominent in other RS and cited in more. Seems to be a notable academic. I agree that the article's poorly written, but that's hopefully fixable. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:51, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Roscelese: You can cite those RS here if you think she has received enough coverage and her article should be kept. And another main concern is she herself was editing her article and adding details about her upcoming books. Obviously, violation of WP:SPAM --Harshil169 (talk) 05:22, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject is sufficiently prominent; article should be rewritten however. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevindongyt (talk • contribs)

Sign when you're commenting on important issue. Cite reliable sources to prove that she is prominent. --Harshil169 (talk) 05:22, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some book reviews, enough I think to pass WP:AUTHOR. As nominated the article needed cleanup but that's not what AfD is for. And Harshil169: Please see WP:BLUDGEON. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:01, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware of this policy. Thanks for bringing attention of me. --Harshil169 (talk) 07:12, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not policy; merely advice. Anyway, you're welcome. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:23, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Tons of coverage and reviews of her books. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 11:35, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sourcing brought by David Eppstein]].E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:37, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:AUTHOR as demonstrated by the reviews included by Eppstein. PROMO can be managed through editing. I placed COI banners on the talkpage. Thsmi002 (talk) 13:01, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:AUTHOR with room to spare. As edited, it is not overly promotional at the moment. The remaining biographical claims are dry stuff that can be sorted out through ordinary editing. XOR'easter (talk) 16:27, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What the....hell ? Harshil169 Shame nominator! what reason you nomination for MPs (member of parliament) and notable articles only?? You did many deletion reqs for notable persons with base on WP:IDONTLIKEIT! Shame on you. should be report this nominator to check user request.Burmese pokemon (talk) 13:34, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than shaming, try to stick on policy and debate on the issues. I already said that at time of nomination, only one reference and that too personal blog was cited as reference and Ruth Vanita was also contributor in article. Is this Wikipedia’s policy to write article? I didn’t did any crime to nominate this person’s article. Read WP:Civility before shaming on me. —Harshil 14:35, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Keep Passes WP:AUTHOR, and AfD isn't the place to fix problems with the article. PohranicniStraze (talk) 13:58, 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. czar 20:53, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amy B. Lyman bibliography[edit]

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

Qualifies for deletion per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. This article consists of a lengthy listing of non-notable magazine articles the subject authored. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:16, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:17, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:17, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:18, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. This isn't a bibliography, it's a collection of external links pointing to one single magazine. Not a single piece of work from this author is notable. Ajf773 (talk) 08:29, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete rarely is it worth creating a seperate listing of a subjects works. However in this case, all that is needed is a mention that Amy Brown Lyman wrote many articles published in the Relief Society Magazine. Generally we restrict bibliographies to books and significant scholarly articles, neither of which any of these are, and almost never seperate them from the biography of the person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:33, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Amy B. who?" Biblographies are only appropriate for the sort of extremely well-known writers whose well-sourced pages are lengthy, who are the authors of many impactful works, and whose every work is significant.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:14, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, one of my student workers created this page. There are not clear guidelines about bibliography pages. In the Bibliography guideline, it states "Lists of published works should be included for authors, illustrators, photographers and other artists." It does not mention restricting those lists to books or scholarly articles. It also does not state that lists of published works should be restricted to "extremely well-known writers." The recommended structure on WikiProject Bibliographies encourages including URLs for works. As far as I can tell, there are no requirements that the works themselves be notable if the author passes notability criteria. That said, I can agree that the list is overly long. Would it resolve the issue to delete this page, but list some 10-15 of her articles on her main page? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:33, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rachel Helps (BYU). Notable articles can be listed on a writers page, but only when notability of those articles has been established, most commonly this is the case where a scholarly article has had a significant impact on a field of study, or where an article has been widely discussed in WP:SECONDARY, WP:RS publications. Exceedingly few articles meet these criteria. User:Johnpacklambert's comment above, "all that is needed is a mention that Amy Brown Lyman wrote many articles published in the Relief Society Magazine." is exactly on target.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:39, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- E.M.Gregory, is there a Wikipedia policy or guideline that states that only notable articles should be mentioned on a person's Wikipedia page? I've written many author pages where including a list of their works is standard (even if those works were not discussed in secondary sources). Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:35, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is common to list all books published by reputable presses. And notable papers/articles are listed. But it is poor practice to list every article someone wrote, or to list articles at all unless there is sourcing to show that each listed article is significant. E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:39, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to agree with you, but is there an actual Wikipedia policy or guideline to this effect? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 18:57, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's Wikipedia:WikiProject Bibliographies#Notability of bibliography articles czar 20:53, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No support for deletion. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 14:50, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Fetzer Bates[edit]

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

Source searches are providing no evidence that this subject meets WP:BASIC or WP:MUSICBIO. Searches are providing name checks and passing mentions, the latter of which are in primary sources. None of this establishes notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:09, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:09, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:09, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:10, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:38, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.~~ CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:39, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:39, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:39, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe that she can be considered to meet WP:COMPOSER #1 "Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition." She has written two LDS children's hymns (though maybe they're not called that) which are, it seems, both well known and well loved within the church. We have many articles about hymnwriters, some of whom have written many hymns, some only one or two well-known ones - but "well-known" meaning within the church or denomination they were created for; only a very few are widely known. I have added references from independent secondary sources - the only one that is not independent, I believe, is the obituary in the Deseret News. So the issue of primary sources is addressed. I have also added some information from the sources I found. There is one long profile, some shorter articles and some sources that verify information. (I am not at all sure why this has been included in the list of "Fictional elements-related" deletion discussions.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:51, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I removed this AfD from the Fictional elements deletion sorting page (diff) and struck its entry above. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:21, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources added during AfD carry her past WP:BASIC, WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:42, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep concur with above keep !votes. Sources added during the AfD carry this article past WP:BASIC. Rollidan (talk) 05:03, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The impact of her songs is hard to gage, but Book of Mormon Stories is a truly widely sung song. I may be a little biased here because my grandmother lives with Bates for several years in Salt Lake City, and I am good friends with Bates daughter, and was at her son-in-laws funeral. However the sourcing shows her being covered in multiple sources over a broad time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:37, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 17:27, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh–Kenya relations[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2016. The cited sources are three government press releases (upon the appointment of an ambassador, upon his presenting his credentials, and when one leader sent a congratulatory message to the other upon her re-election), and one 2012 article speculating that Kenya would buy US$8M worth of jute from Bangladesh "soon".

Relations are much the same as Bangladesh has with most countries: no state visits, no bilateral agreements, and negligible economic ties. The Atlas of Economic Complexity shows 2015 bilateral exports from Bangladesh at $9M (0.03% of total), and from Kenya at $11M (0.2% of total).[13][14]

Insufficient coverage in third party, reliable, secondary sources to meet WP:GNG. Possibly merge to Foreign relations of Kenya, although I don't see anything more than diplomatic boilerplate here. Worldbruce (talk) 05:52, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 05:52, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 05:52, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 05:52, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:GNG based on these two sources: [15], [16]; both are third party reliable sources with indepth coverage discussing bilateral relations between Bangladesh and Kenya. The Kenyan FM has just concluded a visit to Bangladesh this year and signed agreements on education, science and technology as well as on initiating regular foreign office consultations. The national cricket teams of Bangladesh and Kenya have exchanged several bilateral tours, pointing out the extensive cultural relations between the two countries. --Zayeem ^(talk) 00:41, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm of the belief that all bi-lateral relations articles should be kept; per WP:XY there's no redirect target. As Kmzayeem notes, there's sufficient coverage here in any case. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:42, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I guess, per above. Passes WP:GNG (shown above), and per WP:XY there's no redirect target. Paintspot Infez (talk) 20:14, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to West Yorkshire Metro. Selective merge, as most commenters indicate that the sourcing is not good enough. The editors carrying out the merger may want to note Peter James's argument about redirect targets in mind. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:39, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TLC Travel[edit]

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

Non notable bus company, Found this but that's it, Fails NCORP & GNG –Davey2010^Talk 16:21, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:15, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:15, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:15, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: Nothing turns out significant with a quick Google search, lack WP:RS, non-notable local bus company. Meeanaya (talk) 05:00, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- What are the grounds are for speedy deletion? Simply doing a Google search is not a sufficient search to determine the notability of an article - most sources about bus information are likely to be offline too. Bookscale (talk) 13:31, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to West Yorkshire Metro (the local transport brand) for the moment. Although the article lacks some sources, the article is written in an encyclopedic manner and actually contains some information about the company's bus operations. There are some sources about the bus company albeit limited (e.g. here). An example where an alternative to deletion (but without retaining a standalone page) is appropriate. Bookscale (talk) 13:31, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the article TLC had won Bradford AccessBus contracts from West Yorkshire Metro .... but that's it .... so IMHO it seems pointless merging into essentially an unrelated brand ?, I have no objections to merging but only if it's being merged to related things which doesn't really seem to be the case here?. –Davey2010^Talk 14:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think the intention was that it was one of the companies contracting under the brand (similar to other deregulated transport contracts). Happy for a better suggestion if available? Bookscale (talk) 12:13, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article, it's not notable itself.Forest90 (talk) 17:10, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you mean, your comment doesn't make sense? Bookscale (talk) 22:58, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss the merger proposal
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:50, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively (a couple of lines only) to West Yorkshire Metro, per Bookscale. Agree that the article is properly written, but it lacks evidence of notability, offered or to be found. As such, the amount of detail in current article would be excessive to port into the target article. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 17:21, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Most of its services seem to be subsidised, and therefore probably contracts for West Yorkshire Metro (although wymetro.com doesn't specify whether this applies to all services on a route or only certain times or days). However, it is not part of West Yorkshire Metro, so a redirect would be misleading. Peter James (talk) 22:52, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Booksacale and Hobbes... Out of curiosity, aren't you meant to be retired Davey2010? Or have you caught the Wiki bug again! XD Nightfury 10:53, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Not flaffing around with the above but I have no objections to merging - Admittedly I didn't quite get it but having read Peters rationale I think merging would be best perhaps. –Davey2010^Talk 15:56, 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. Consensus was that the subject passes WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 17:28, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Russian interference in the 2020 United States elections[edit]

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

WP:FUTURE Theoallen1 (talk) 05:08, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:14, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:17, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:17, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 22:38, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 22:38, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:33, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as pure speculation. — JFG ^talk 07:23, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
JFG, what, precisely, is "speculative"? 2020 interference is already happening. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:11, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Says who? — JFG ^talk 06:48, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

JFG, says the reliable sources. – Muboshgu (talk) 07:07, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources speculate on all sorts of things; we are not required to echo it all. — JFG ^talk 07:38, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

JFG, the reliable sources are reporting on the heads of U.S. intelligence. Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, – Muboshgu (talk) 19:07, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, fine, U.S. intelligence agencies say something, Russians say otherwise, and the opposite is happening as well, with Russian intelligence agencies claiming that the U.S. has been interfering in their elections, and the U.S. denying it. Same with numerous other countries: these are run-of-the-mill geopolitical struggles and propaganda messaging. That deserves not more than a paragraph under the generic Foreign electoral intervention page. Why not just merge there until and unless there's more meat to the matter? — JFG ^talk 19:40, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

JFG, because there's already enough "meat" for its own page. This is no "run-of-the-mill geopolitical struggle": that phrase is an oxymoron. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:27, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah you don't believe that geopolitical struggle is a run-of-the-mill affair? Well, let's agree to disagree then.

— JFG ^talk 22:35, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's not staring into a crystal ball to write about something that has already started. (To elaborate upon a reference already in the article, "They are doing it as we sit here. And they expect to do it during the next campaign" [17]. And it's not speculation on our part to report that Mueller expressed fears that hostile government interference in US elections, and political candidates failing to report it, may become “the new normal” [18].) XOR'easter (talk) 15:40, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing that should be mentioned is the Senate Intelligence Committee report from the other day which includes recommendations for 2020 (some of them blacked out). XOR'easter (talk) 17:15, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to say this before, but WP:FUTURE literally states, Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, which is the only kind of "speculation" that this page is doing. XOR'easter (talk) 22:35, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I knew someone was going to nominate this for deletion. As XOREaster, Robert Mueller, Christopher Wray, and Dan Coats have said, interference in the 2020 elections is already happening. I have more sources to incorporate into this. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russian interference in the 2018 United States elections: WP:FUTURE does not apply. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:03, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is worth echoing a point that @Jbhunley, among others, made in that previous discussion: For those of you who are not familiar with the US election process ... they are long drawn out affairs. Not the relatively short things you see in most Parliamentary Democracies like Australia or the UK. XOR'easter (talk) 17:40, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because there are plenty of reliable sources about it.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 19:11, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination --SalmanZ (talk) 22:10, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ The November 4, 2024 Presidential Election is blocked for 15 months and is currently a draft page. The 2018 page needs to be substantially reworked, or merged into the 2018 investigation timeline. The page should be moved to a draft until we see evidence of interference.Theoallen1 (talk) 22:49, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your nomination counts as your !vote. This page is not the place to discuss improvements to the article on Russian interference in the 2018 United States elections. XOR'easter (talk) 22:52, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The first four sources in the current version of the article, all specifically about Russian interference in the 2020 US elections, published in Reuters, The New York Times, Time, and NBC News, and another later source on the same topic from Newsweek, make a clear case for WP:GNG notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:41, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per XOR'easter, this is not "speculation" of the kind WP:CRYSTAL talks about: it is verifiable that these things have been claimed by notable authorities. It does not even appear to be a future event, in that the interference is supposedly happening right now. May merit a POV check but that's all. —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 00:35, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until after the election, then create it and say how surprised we all were. Just kidding... Keep, obviously. E Eng 01:09, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SIGCOV, much as we keep pages on major candidacies and ballot campaigns for upcoming elections.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:25, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fake news. People have been beating this "Russia bad America good" drum endlessly.80.111.42.123 (talk) 21:57, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is, to put it mildly, not a deletion rationale based on Wikipedia policy. XOR'easter (talk) 23:25, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User blocked as a sock of Claíomh Solais (Non-administrator comment) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:30, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is specifically discussed in reliable sources. Robert Mueller's statement that this is occurring was extensively reported on. 331dot (talk) 00:02, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now - I wouldn't be opposed to recreation if more stuff comes out from reliable sources about interference in 2020. Right now, though, there's not enough, so I'm voting in favor of deletion. Jdcomix (talk) 01:03, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - extensive significant coverage. Neutrality^talk 01:08, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There has already been extensive significant coverage in a variety of independent reliable sources, and this is only going to increase in the next months and years. Softlavender (talk) 01:31, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Heck, it'll probably increase tomorrow. Such is life, these days. XOR'easter (talk) 03:51, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

... Case in point [19][20]. XOR'easter (talk) 12:31, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Whether this is actually happening or we merely have political scaremongering (or in extremis even if this were a conspiracy theory) - enough WP:RSes (and notable US political figures) are discussing this - passing GNG. One could lament Wikipedia editors spending so much time on speculative future American political issues (and on this issue being rehashed over and over again - one could perhaps argue for a merge to a general Russian interference article (as opposed to having a separate one for each country/election year)) - however it does pass Wikipedia notability thresholds. Icewhiz (talk) 15:01, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A merged page would actually be a splendid idea. Too much of the same information and same context is being rehashed between those articles indeed. — JFG ^talk 22:35, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe anyone is suggesting deleting the content. However, there is need for a greater discussion and a common talk page for the Russian Interference articles.Theoallen1 (talk) 01:17, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If the intent was not to have the content deleted, then a merge discussion should have been initiated, rather than an AFD. XOR'easter (talk) 01:24, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Since 2016, alleged Russian interference has been discussed in every single election in the West - so some sort of merge (+discussion/referral in the main election article) could make sense (and our relevant pages look like intel assessment timelines). While merger can be an AfD outcome, in this case this is a multi-page merge (including more established pages than this one) into a non-existing combined page - which is a complex outcome for AfD (and probably should be discussed in a merger discussion published in the relevant wikiProjects).Icewhiz (talk) 03:48, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I can think of multiple organizational schemes that would be at least defensible, and hashing out that kind of thing is not what AfD is suited for. XOR'easter (talk) 03:59, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not only will this article be created, if it were deleted, the new RSs regarding this topic would be best suited going here now; as per previous "Keep" arguements. X1\ (talk) 22:01, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not only this is already a significant subject and actually happening (as Mueller said), but this is going to be a lot bigger. Poor USA. My very best wishes (talk) 00:34, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously notable and relevant subject for an article. Follow WP:PRESERVE. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:15, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article's creator had this in it [21] before anyone else edited the article: "President Donald Trump said that he would accept foreign interference on his behalf in the 2020 United States presidential election". That is not what the referenced New York Times article said, and it is worded to mislead people. I changed it [22] to: "President Donald Trump said that he would accept information from other nations about his opponents in the 2020 United States presidential election." Any valid information about this can be found in Foreign electoral intervention no need for this article to exist. Dream Focus 05:46, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. What specifically did Russians do that we can write about in this article? Right now it's mostly speculation.

The Russian descriptor should be removed if an article like this is to stay.

"Dan Coats, the Director of National Intelligence, believes that Russia and China will both attempt to influence the elections."

"In his Congressional testimony, Mueller stated that "many more countries" have developed disinformation campaigns based partly on the Russian model. Between January and late July 2017, Twitter had identified and shut down over 7,000 phony accounts created by Iranian influence operations." Blumpf (talk) 06:47, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blumpf, I was thinking of either moving this article to Foreign interference in the 2020 United States elections, or splitting off the pieces on Iran and China to a different article. But that will have to wait until after the AFD closes.– Muboshgu (talk) 16:02, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Muboshgu I support the creation of Iranian and Chinese interference articles, but I cannot support lumping all foreign interference in the 2020 elections. Russia is quite clearly the main actor, and I fear Iran and China may not have enough documentation for 2020 to deserve splitting the article with Russia. We already have Foreign electoral intervention anyway, which is where the less documented Iranian and Chinese interferences should belong in my opinion, until more RS coverage and development happen at least. --Pilaz (talk) 16:19, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:GNG, article has plenty of references on this subject, concerns about misleading information on/being added to this article can be mitigated by pagewatchers and possibly protecting the page, discusson about a possible merge to a catchall article can be made on the talkpage. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:13, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Editors in favor of deleting have raised two main criticisms: #1 WP:FUTURE, on the grounds that this constitutes speculation (Theoallen1, JFG, Blumpf); #2 That the information is redundant to Foreign electoral intervention (Dream Focus). Let me address each separately. Argument #1 rebuttal: First, while per WP:FUTURE it is policy that Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation or presumptions, WP:FUTURE also clearly states that Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included. Moreover, WP:FUTURE states that 1.Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Given that the election is an expected future event and that Russian election interference is expected to continue in 2020 according to the intelligence community, WP:FUTURE would actually be argument to keep the article, and not delete it. But I dispute that WP:FUTURE applies here, like several other editors have done before me, on the grounds that Russian interference in the 2020 election is already happening. That's because the term election isn't strictly to be interpreted as only election day, but also as the campaigns that precede it, the nominations, and political processes that culminate in the election; in short, election stands for election cycle. The Russian interference in the 2016 United States election article can be a good illustration of this point. Let's now turn to examples which show that this event is not happening in the future, but as we speak. (1) When former FBI director and Special Counsel Robert Mueller, one of the foremost experts on Russian interference in the 2016 election, was asked by congressman Hurd at a hearing on July 25 at the House Intelligence Committee whether the 2016 interference was an isolated attempt by Russia or whether he found evidence that they would interfere again, Mueller stated under oath that "They're doing it as we sit here". [23] (see also 4:22). (2) FBI director Christopher Wray also stated on July 24 that "My view is until they stop they haven't been deterred enough", implying that the Russians had not stopped interfering. [24] Wray had previously stated on April 26 that disinformation by Russia has "pretty much continued unabated", stating that "That is not just an election-cycle threat. It is pretty much a 365-day-a-year threat." [25] (3) DNI director Dan Coats also listed political interference second in his list of threats while at a congressional at a January 29 hearing about worldwide threats, notably releasing a joint written threat assessment that reads "Russia's social media efforts will continue to focus on aggravating social and racial tensions, undermining trust in authorities, and criticizing perceived anti-Russia politicians".[26] This multitude of examples highlights that national security experts believe that Russian interference in 2020 elections is underway. If Delete supporters still think that WP:FUTURE applies here, I believe that they will have to confront the fact that Russian interference in 2020 is near-certain based on the expertise of the national security and intelligence community, which fulfills the almost certain to take place WP:FUTURE standard. Argument #2 rebuttal: the claim that information present in the current article is a duplicate of what is found in Foreign electoral intervention can be invalidated by simply looking at the latter article - there is no mention of 2020, yet. That is because the article deals with foreign electoral intervention in multiple countries by multiple foreign entities over the course of over 150 years. This means that each interference gets a few lines of content and is later expanded upon in a dedicated article. One can see that the content found in the Russian interference in the 2020 United States elections is already at least triple the size of the portion allotted to each interference in the article. While a small heading for 2020 interference is surely welcome, it should not act as a substitute for the article here. A word of conclusion: this does not mean that the article is bulletproof in many ways - as other have pointed out, some material such as Iranian interference may be removed and NPOV should be checked given the development of the issue, but those are best addressed in the Talk page and not in the AfD. Hence, the clear answer to me: the article is a current event which passes WP:GNG, and even WP:FUTURE if it is not current as other have argued. --Pilaz (talk) 14:43, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this article, perhaps renamed to "Foreign interference" instead of just "Russian", would be the thing that a paragraph-sized subsection in Foreign electoral intervention would link to with the {{main}} template. XOR'easter (talk) 14:57, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign interference in the 2020 United States elections would fine, as the potential for more than just Russia has been raised by various US officials. X1\ (talk) 20:53, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping this article as "Russian interference" and potentially having a catch-all too of "Foreign interference" with Chinese/Iranian/etc would likely be better. We need to get past the AfD before details. X1\ (talk) 21:47, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If this decision is to keep, a controversial move discussion of this article to Foreign interference in the 2020 United States elections is needed. Currently, this page is a redirect to the page Russian interference in the 2020 United States elections. This article is about foreign interference, not specifically about Russian interference.Theoallen1 (talk) 02:27, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Pilaz. This is the subject of significant coverage and commentary in reliable sources. It's not in the future - Robert Mueller swore it's going on in July 2019. Bearian (talk) 15:41, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per my !vote in the AfD for the earlier article this should be kept. Reporting on Russian (and other nations') interference in US elections is ongoing, both historical and in the upcoming 2020 elections. CRYSTAL does not apply here at all. The Democratic Primary campaign season is ongoing and "election" refers to the campaign season here in the US not simply to polling day.
I strongly disagree which the idea, above, of renaming this to "Foreign Interference" or any similar, diluted, title. The issue is the ongoing Russian operation to screw with the US elections. Other countries may hop on board but none other have been reported as having a significant, government sponsored policy of messing in Western elections for strategic purposes.
I am posting this as a "comment" rather than a "keep" since I was pinged here and would not have commented here otherwise. Jbh ^Talk 16:53, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not for renaming the article to "Foreign interference in the 2020 United States elections"

Keep per Pilaz. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 00:39, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~, because they're already using proxy troll farms to influence the election right here on Wikipedia; see, e.g. this vandalism from the wee hours of this morning. Bearian (talk) 12:39, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you've already made use of your !vote on July 30. --Pilaz (talk) 15:05, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I forgot! Bearian (talk) 17:44, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In a way, it's too bad we can't write about Moldovan troll farms trying to edit Wikipedia until someone else writes about it first. XOR'easter (talk) 19:28, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. --SalmanZ (talk) 21:00, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No doubt Putin & Friends would love to see this page deleted, but there are citations documenting attempts to influence the next election. The subject is therefore notable. Zaathras (talk) 16:42, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:59, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Revathi Chowdary[edit]

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

non-notable actor. Fails WP:GNG. Sheldybett (talk) 05:11, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:18, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:31, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:31, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:31, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:32, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:32, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unknown person. TheEditster (talk) 07:03, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable --Harshil169 (talk) 03:55, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sourcing is atrocious. The films do not appear to be notable, and nothing demonstrates her roles in them are significant, but since they are not notable that does not matter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:22, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non notable. Fails WP:GNG.--Nahal^(T) 10:36, 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. Consensus appears to be that there is no evidence of notability here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:59, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Earl Bolyard[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NBASEBALL. Sure there are tons of sources that mention him, but none rise above WP:ROUTINE John from Idegon (talk) 04:49, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:34, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:34, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:35, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NBASEBALL and the sources don't indicate that he was particularly notable as either a player or manager in the minors. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:28, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems unlikely that a person who played for 10+ seasons and then managed for 5 more seasons wasn't profiled enough times to pass the very low deletion bar that's been set here for baseball pages. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 01:27, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you actually have any sources to show significant coverage?Sandals1 (talk)

delete Fails to meet the GNG or WP:NBASEBALL. He never made it higher than AA and spent 7 years in levels below A that no longer exist. His entire managing career was in levels B and C. Doing something for a long time, especially with no outstanding achievements, does not show notability.Sandals1 (talk) 15:39, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Never did anything notable, fails WP:NBASEBALL and WP:GNG. --Seacactus 13 (talk) 18:04, 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. If people want to change the inclusion criteria for state lawmakers, Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) would be the right place. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:58, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wilfred Roy Cousins, Sr.[edit]

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

The article was thinly sourced at best, apparently conflating two or more individuals with similar names into one topic. Additional attempts to seek out external sources were very unsuccessful. In addition, this individual falls far short of the general notability guideline as well as the "Politicians and Judges" guideline, which only covers leaders who have held international, national, or state/province-wide office or major local leaders who have received significant press coverage. The only coverage this guy got was a blurb in the local government website indicating when he died -- hardly notable. Michepman (talk) 04:06, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question I'm confused. Are you saying that he was not a member of the Texas Senate? If he was, then he is presumed notable (and there will almost certainly be coverage in contemporary newspapers). RebeccaGreen (talk) 04:27, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:45, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:45, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:45, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He was definitely a member of the Texas Senate, and is therefore presumed notable per WP:NPOL. More sources can be added. The name of the article is wrong - the father was William Roy Cousins, and the son was Wilfred Roy Cousins (if the son doesn't already have an article, he should). It would have been simpler to move Wilfred Roy Cousins, Sr. to William Roy Cousins and create Wilfred Roy Cousins than to bring this to AfD. RebeccaGreen (talk) 05:18, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To clarify, this was previously discussed and stated by Magnolia677 on the talk page of [Beaumont,TX] the region for which Cousins served as a locally elected lawmaker. It is clear from the discussion that this person is not notable and that this article was created solely as a fork in an effort to cram these names into that article despite falling short of notability and having insufficient reliable sources in existence. They even failed to create one of the articles, because no sources could be submitted. Michepman (talk) 20:10, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He was a member of the Texas Senate, so he's presumed notable. See [27]. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:28, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. State senate is an office that passes WP:NPOL #1 right on its face. That criterion is not limited to the state governor, but most certainly does include members of the state legislature. Yes, this needs some referencing improvement, but for a person who held office beginning over 100 years ago and ending in 1934, the bulk of the sourcing will be in news archiving databases rather than out on the Googles — but we don't judge the includability of a person like this solely on the state of sourcing already present in the article, we judge it on the state of sourcing available in the world, and the simple fact is that no state legislator in the history of US state legislators has ever gone completely and totally uncovered by any reliable sources. Further, the discussion the nominator alludes to does not "establish" that Cousins is non-notable; it merely questions the utility of a city's list of notable people always listing everybody who ever represented it in the state legislature when there's also a category for people from the same city already. Bearcat (talk) 22:38, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I of course agree that it would be unfair to judge the article solely by the sources already within the article. What I was trying to say above (and I apologize if it was unclearly worded previously) was that there are no sources available, other than a brief passing mention, even when going through archival materials such as what can thus be found on places like newspapers.com. It's not at all clear that the information present in the article is even referring to the same person as the subject, since as noted above the person who created this article even used the wrong first name of the alleged senator and also combined materials from both the subject and his erstwhile son in a way that is dificult to tell which sources are relevant and which are verifiable (not to mention the few which are both). While this article may barely clear the bar for verifiable sources as written, digging in the details as I have done will indicate that a lot of the material was inappropriately transcluded and is actually related to the son, who may or may not be notable in his own right, and not the elder. Michepman (talk) 03:37, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Newspapers.com is not the only possible place to find sources for a state legislator. There can be other news archiving databases which include more Beaumont-area and/or rest-of-Texas newspapers that would have covered him; there can be books that would have covered him; and on and so forth. As well, in that era one would almost certainly have to search for multiple different forms of his name, including "Wilfred Roy Cousins", "Wilfred Cousins", "W. R. Cousins", "W. Cousins", repetitions of the "Wilfred" searches under the possible misspelling "Wilfrid", and on and so forth. So, yeah, if the creator messed up and conflated Wilfred Sr. with his son, then by all means we can fix it — but I don't believe that no sources exist at all, just because you couldn't find anything in one specific database that doesn't necessarily include every newspaper in the United States. It would actually be deeply unusual, literally to the edge of completely unprecedented, for a person to serve in a state legislature for 20 full years without ever having received any reliable source coverage anywhere at all. Bearcat (talk) 14:49, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually he was William Roy Cousins - W.R. Cousins Sr, but not Wilfred Roy Cousins Sr, confusingly ... that has been one of the problems with the article. So the automated "Find Sources" here doesn't help at all! RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:46, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly notable and passes WP:NPOL as member of state legislature. Bookscale (talk) 00:54, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and then of course fix the issues. Every member of a state senate ever is notable. As long as the sources demonstrate he was such, we keep the article. Since he held office in a state wide legislature, it does not matter how important to Beaumont he was. He was involved in making laws to effect the whole state, appropriating money for the whole state, ect.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:36, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:POLOUTCOMES, WP:SNOW. Although consensus can change, the long-standing precedent is that state senators in the United States are presumed to be notable. The burden shifts to the nom to prove, once verified, the this person did not serve or is not otherwise notable. Bearian (talk) 15:30, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:POLITICIAN. Member of a sub-national legislature. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:50, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep was elected to and served in the Texas Senate for two different districts. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:16, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:POLOUTCOMES, WP:SNOW --SalmanZ (talk) 21:06, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:35, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Prarambhik Islamic Aakraman Evam Bhartiya Pratirodh[edit]

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

Non notable books. Clearly promotion and fails WP:Notability. No coverage in WP:RS Harshil169 (talk) 03:43, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. Harshil169 (talk) 03:43, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Harshil169 (talk) 03:43, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Harshil169 (talk) 03:43, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Harshil169 (talk) 03:43, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The title except one word appears to be in a foreign language, which raises doubts was to whether it is notable for the English WP. A review by an RSS magazine suggests it may be portraying a Hindutva POV of history, not an objective one. And that is before the question of the commercial tag, which suggests it is a mere ADVERT. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:20, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Without an opinion on the article subject, I just want to say that I don't think any of these issues (besides the advert part) are reasons to delete the article. Articles subjects don't need to be covered in English language sources to be considered notable, and the book having a POV also isn't a rationale to delete the article. Sam Walton (talk) 14:52, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete From what I can see, it fails WP:NBOOK. There are no reviews to be found in my searches, and it's unclear whether the references even cover the book and how much. Also WP:PROMO issues, which Wikipedia is not. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:03, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:57, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Educational Service Center of Central Ohio[edit]

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

Non-notable organization per WP:ORG. SL93 (talk) 03:41, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:48, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:48, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:49, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - an ESC (known also as ISD in some states) is a service vendor set up under state auspices not that much different than a janitorial supply company. They have no taxing powers, they do not directly or indirectly run any schools. The exception we have always had for schools and school districts is pinned partially on their taxing power and the resultant coverage by sources. This is lacking for an ESC. It must meet WP:ORG, and this one doesn't by a country mile. John from Idegon (talk) 08:28, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing the requisite notability criteria. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:52, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:39, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Earthsong Camps[edit]

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

No significant coverage. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 03:37, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:55, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:55, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:55, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Spleodrach (talk) 15:16, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:RS. AmericanAir88^(talk) 16:10, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 17:29, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ira Trivedi[edit]

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

The article had very dubious and ridiculous claims without any citation and I removed all those claims. Such examples are extensive training in Yoga, won several awards in college, citing links of prestigious college which even don't support the claim she studied there, her show is number one in 2017, her family is first family of Madhya Pradesh etc. Violation of WP:Verifiability. Details about her personal life were added which aren't even publicly available and photo was also added. Obviously, violation of WP:COI.

Most of the sources cited here are primary sources like her website, her books, her talks, her articles and TEDx talks which don't help to achieve the criteria of the WP:Notability and violation of WP:Primary sources. I tried to find secondary sources and to improve article but failed as she is not much notable. Only her allegations about #Metoo on Chetan Bhagat (who is famous author and anyone accusing him can get famous) and recent controversies on Beef received coverage. Apart from it, only her self written articles such as to improve postures have been found. Hence, I am starting the AfD here. The person fails WP:Author and she didn't achieve the enough coverage in WP:RS. --Harshil169 (talk) 03:08, 27 July 2019 (UTC) Harshil169 (talk) 03:08, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Harshil169 (talk) 03:08, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Harshil169 (talk) 03:08, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:56, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:56, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Subject is notable, Google search and news search brings up coverage, and reviews not to mention the two New York Times articles here. Article needs improvement not deletion. WP:BEFORE Netherzone (talk) 04:42, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I read those two articles and just trivial mention about her in article doesn’t mean that subject herself is the notable person. Most of the claims made in the article were vague and humbug and person’s details were added to that level which can be used as circular reporting. —Harshil169 (talk) 04:54, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, Harshil169, you must have read other articles. Perhaps WP:JDLI? New York Times article contains three paragraphs framed by calling her a "best-selling author" to shed light on the condition of women in India. Netherzone (talk) 15:02, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With all respect, it will be better that you will stay on the policies of Wikipedia. Try to add the details about Ira here with proper citation and removing unnecessary and exaggerated claims about her. If you think she is notable then remove unnecessary primary sources, add reliable sources like New youk Times. Read WP:Civility. Thanks and regards, --Harshil169 (talk) 16:17, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per plentiful coverage, stuff like Financial Times book review of India in Love: Marriage and Sexuality in the 21st Century, ('India in Love', by Ira Trivedi, Pilling, David. FT.com; London (Jun 6, 2014).). She and her books draw coverage. Page needs improvement, most pages do.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:35, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:NAUTHOR. That the article needs (or needed) substantial work doesn't mean the subject doesn't meet our notability standards. Marquardtika (talk) 01:00, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:57, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jonelle Matthews[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS Comatmebro (talk) 02:31, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:57, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:57, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:58, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NOTNEWS #2: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events." As with the disappearances of many children, there has been significant coverage over the years, including in 1985, 1989, 1991, 2010, 2015 and now 2019. I have added some references and some more information; more can be added (eg a reward was offered). RebeccaGreen (talk) 05:27, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. TheEditster (talk) 07:04, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above - who are these puppets on wiki that call for obvious stuff to be silenced - I quote, "President Ronald Reagan mentioned Jonelle Matthews in a speech on March 7, 1985, in Room 450 of the Old Executive Office Building. She was mentioned in the Congressional Record for the United States House of Representatives on April 2, 1985, page 7224." as per the wiki article itself - who in their right mind would say that Reagan mentions her but we should just forget about it like it is came from some tabloid newspaper - patently ridiculous.--2600:8800:FF0E:1200:1962:B311:16B2:F79B (talk) 10:37, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article was nominated before that information was added. Comfr (talk) 18:08, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

and taking a look at the 1st dotpoint of WP:GNG we read "Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton,[1] that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band." so a mention in a speech by Reagan could also be deemed "trivial". Coolabahapple (talk) 05:24, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coolabahapple the band isn't notable, Jonelle Matthews is. StonyBrook (talk) 06:06, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per RebeccaGreen above. PohranicniStraze (talk) 10:39, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sustained coverage over many years - meeting NCRIME/NEVENT. Icewhiz (talk) 15:04, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable event, per above Seacactus 13 (talk) 20:02, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, i feel like Canute here ("your humility is astonishing coola, equating yourself with a king":)) but doesn't WP:BLP1E apply here ie. a low profile individual known for only one event that is not wikisignicant ie. someone who disappeared a long time ago whose remains has just been found? Coolabahapple (talk) 05:44, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Coolabahapple: I think that WP:BLP1E is only for living people. And, although this AfD has the article name as "Jonelle Matthews", the name of the article is now Disappearance of Jonelle Matthews: it seems to have been moved just after it was nominated for deletion. So, the relevant policy would probably be 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." That's why I looked at the duration of the coverage; it's also in depth, from across the US, and from various sources. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:14, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

me bad, i will allow the tide of notability and consensus wash over me. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:21, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While this subject can be mistaken for NOTNEWS, it definitely isn't, since not all coverage is from this week; interest in this cold case has been sustained for decades, and now may finally have a chance to being solved, with all the resultant coverage that will generate. StonyBrook (talk) 06:06, 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. Sam Walton (talk) 14:50, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nina Ivanišin[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NACTRESS. Lack of third party coverage. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:21, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:21, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:21, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:21, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:21, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She's got a lot of news coverage, but we should try to find someone who speaks Slovenian to help add the refs to the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:27, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. or modify to add references. It currently lacks any news references. Peter303x (talk) 20:48, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:18, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She's got a long article in Cosmopolitan with photos. https://www.cosmopolitan.si/zvezde/klemen-janezic-usodno-vino-se-je-porocil-poglej-kako-lepa-je-njegova-nevesta/. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:01, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
BeenAroundAWhile, and how is that significant coverage?

And the subject of the article is her husband Klemen Janežič not her.

This is a fluff piece at best. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:28, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I found more coverage, for example an extensive interview in Slovenia's leading newspaper, [28]. The article is subpar but the notability is there. She was the lead in several notable Slovenian films and won festival awards as well. --Tone 14:05, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tone, hmm. Most interview articles aren't strong proof of notability.

However, WP:NACTRESS says "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" but on the article, it says she's only in 1 major film. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:21, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This interview is, it's from Sobotna priloga, the weekly feature of newspaper that contains high-quality articles and interviews. I added some awards and films, Idyll, where she was lead actress, won best film at Slovenian Film Festival. That makes it at least 4 relevant movies. That should cover the notability requirements. --Tone 17:00, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as sources exist. Just because they're in Slovenian doesn't mean they don't count. Bondegezou (talk) 16:01, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bondegezou, prove. You can't say source exist without proof. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:18, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple links are given above. A Google News search shows plenty more. I and others have added yet more to the article. Bondegezou (talk) 21:14, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's likely she would meet WP:NACTRESS for the lead roles in Slovenian Girl and sl:Idila (film), and she meets WP:BASIC with in-depth coverage in Delo (newspaper) [29], a paragraph in Jutarnji list [30] and a bit in 24ur.com [31] (not counting the WP:PRIMARY interview parts). Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:44, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Highlander characters. The consensus on a redirect target is weak enough that a WP:RFD discussion can be started if people think there is a better target. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:56, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Four Horsemen (Highlander)[edit]

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

In-universe fancruft which relies entirely on primary sourcing and offers no indication of real world notability. This is not the Highlander Wiki. PC78 (talk) 17:21, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:10, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:11, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:11, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:11, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete According to our List of Highlander characters, Methos is a major character in the franchise, but the other three Horsemen appear only in a few episodes of the series. Thus, if that article is correct, then this group lacks in-universe significance as well. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 09:58, 14 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) 18:10, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

REDIRECT List of Highlander characters. Someone might find some information to merge over. Dream Focus 17:34, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Methos and recreate that page. Prior to February 2013, Methos was its own article before it was needlessly merged and redirected into this one. As a main character Methos is worthy of a page but the other characters were one-shot villains. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 16:57, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Main character or not, that article was just as bad as this one – entirely reliant on primary sources with no indication of real world notability. It should not simply be restored in its former state. PC78 (talk) 17:00, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:17, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Highlander characters. Even if one of the members of the group is arguably more notable than the others, there are no reliable sources that give any notability to the group as a whole. A redirect to the main character list for the franchise seems like the most logical answer. Rorshacma (talk) 15:46, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Highlander characters per above. A redirect to the existing character list seems like the best option for a group of characters with limited notability. I would be opposed to a recreation of the Methos article as I agree with PC78's assessment on that article being far too reliant on primary sources. Aoba47 (talk) 14:49, 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. There's some suggestions here for redirects and mentions on other pages, but in the same comment, it's said that this fails WP:V, so I don't see how we can do anything with it, so just delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:19, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ranka[edit]

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

Removed prod regarding a supposed ethnic group from India. The article has has a "no citation" banner for nearly a decade. After an extensive search, I was unable to find any sources on the topic: I found sources on a location and company called Ranka, but not on an ethnic group. Even assuming this ethnic group meets notability requirements, the article is so poorly written that it would need to be completely rewritten to be suitable for Wikipedia. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:03, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can’t find anything in English either. I wonder if anyone reading Marwari or other possibly relevant languages can turn anything up?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mccapra (talk • contribs) 03:35, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:59, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:59, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:59, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there is a source in the text - "Mahajan Vansh Muktavali" [32]. Unfortunately, I can't read the language the source is in. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:47, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

power~enwiki, this book was authored by some Jain monk in 1921, and is not an academic source, thereby unacceptable for history/religion/caste-related content on this project. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:14, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Ranka is just one of the 1,444 gotras of Oswals. At best, it can be mentioned at the Oswal page. As far as the page in question is concerned, it should be moved to Ranka (disambiguation), as there is no primary topic here. BTW, three articles of persons with this (sur)name – namely Ranka Velimirović, Arpit Ranka, and H S Ranka – can aslo be listed at the disambiguation page.

A relevant quote regarding Ranka

Choudhry, P. S. (1968). Rajasthan between the two world wars (1919-1939). Sri Ram Mehra & Co. p. 78. Retrieved 31 July 2019.
The Oswals are peculiar to Rajasthan alone.¹ They get their name after a former town in Marwar called Osia or Osinagar. They are supposed to be the descendants of a number of Rajputs of different clans who were converted to Jainism by a celebrated Jain priest, Ratna Prabha Suri. They are said to have over 1,444 exogamous sub-divisions, some of which are Abhani, Bhandari, Hirawat, Khazanchi, Chajer, Daga, Juniwal, Guglia, Lunawat, Muhonot, Nahar, Patwa, Ranka, Sankhla, Tolawat, Targar etc.

NitinMlk (talk) 20:14, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and turn it to a disambiguation with Ranka (disambiguation) becoming a redirect, nothing meaningful to be found about the subject in my searches, fails WP:V since nothing can be verified, and WP:GNG since there are no multiple WP:SIGCOV in reliable secondary sources. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:33, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Fritter#United Kingdom. First off, I see there are some concerns about the nature of the deletion nomination, but little detail on what these concerns are and a look at the page history or elsewhere does not give clarity. There are two plain keep arguments, one of which has been contested on the grounds that the sources mentioned are not actually about the topic (Fritter roll) and two which do not offer much beyond "it's notable". One delete argument was struck for being socky, the other is conditional on there not being any reliable sources. Finally there is a suggestion that the topic Roll and Fritter may be the correct topic but there is little evidence either pro or con notability. Finally, there are plenty of merge arguments pointing to Fritter#United Kingdom and to reliable sources which are not necessarily mentioned in article. Per the analysis it seems like the strength of argument favours a merge in this case and so does the headcount, so merge it is. Selective merge only involving the material supported by WP:RS that is, not just any content. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:49, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fritter roll[edit]

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

Until today this was PRODed and entirely uncited. Some additional material was added today and purported refs given but all fail verification. I'm unconvinced this is commonplace as an entity, distinctively Scottish or notable. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:24, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~or redirect~~ to Fritter The nominator was mistaken about all of the items failing verification.

The NY Times ref (caption of the photo) in the very first NY Times reference Haggis fritters in Edinburgh.
And the BBC reference: the proprietor stuffed the fritters with Peas.
Scotland.org and The Sun references I erased. It seemed from these references and from basic research that the most common fritters in Scotland were the crispy deep fired potato fritter. However I erased it rather than defend it.

The subject should be ~~redirected or~~ kept based upon the references. I will not spend too much more time on the Fritters, however WP:NEXIST Fritters do not appear to be uniquely Scottish, however it appears from the research that fritters are served in a majority of establishments in Scotland. Lightburst (talk) 21:03, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 21:04, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 21:04, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 19:25, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about a bread roll containing a potato fritter. These sources are not about potato fritters nor bread rolls, let alone in combination. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:54, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes...That is exactly what is pictured here in the NY Times reference. Please remove your incorrect failed verification tag after you verify. There are variations of Fritter Rolls. Just as there are variations of Hot pockets. Traditionally a potato is used as the filler, and other times, as the references show...Peas, or haggis. Here in the US the fritter traditionally is just fried dough. Lightburst (talk) 22:19, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are claiming that a picture captioned "Haggis fritters at the Orchard restaurant in Edinburgh." that manifestly has no bread roll in it is in fact "a bread roll containing a potato fritter". Ok, let's see if anyone is convinced of that... As to why you go on to supplement this with a list of yet more things that are not a bread roll containing a potato fritter, I am at a loss. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:24, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the verifiable content into Fritter#United Kingdom, plenty of space for more content there. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 21:25, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be content with a merge, if there actually is verifiable content therein. One source is a blog, so doubtful if a WP:RS; regarding the other source, I'm unsure whether it is a RS or not but I have my doubts and there are several factual errors in the piece. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:14, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On the basis that one of the two sources may possibly consitute a WP:RS in Wikipedia terms (factual errors therein aside), as nominator, I'd now be satisfied to change from advocating delete to Merge to Fritter#United Kingdom, but only of the material based on this source - not that based on the blog. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:25, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I was on PROD patrol and saw areas to improve this article - I did some research and added some references to this stub. Also created a category for the readability. The nominator immediately tagged all of my refs "failed verification". I went to the nom's talk page and explained why the "failed verification" tags were incorrect. By the time I was done typing the nom had an AfD slapped on the article. I went to the article and did clean up of the referenced material - verified that information was cited correctly, removed the "failed verification" tags. But... the nominator put the "failed verification" tags back in based upon the nom's evident desire to delete the article. I suggest that it is a conflict of interest for a nominator to delete, tag, and revert during this deletion process. This is two hours of my Sunday that I will never get back. Lightburst (talk) 22:14, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sunday's the next one. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:45, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:31, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because now I want a fritter roll (also due to procedural abnormalities which DQ this nomination). Lightburst, thank you for your dedication, it matters more that you care about the world than that you prevail against stinky behavior. The two hours you spent may hone your concentration skills against future trials.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:08, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not WP:VOTE, unless substantiation of the innuendo of “procedural abnormalities” is forthcoming.

I’d dearly like my two hours (and counting) back too please, vainly trying to explain the self-evidently off-topic nature of the additional material being dumped into the article. This waste of everyone’s time was compounded by a spurious submission to the admin noticeboard (not upheld). Now the addition of WP:JUSTAVOTE, coupled with encouragement of the first editor's imperviousness to the questioning of their additions. These indicate neither “dedication” nor “care about the world”; take a sniff closer to home. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:19, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat kneejerk. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:31, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Mutt LunkerI do hope you will allow edits on the article. I took a long break from Fritter roll's hoping that the temperature would be lowered with the passage of time. At the time, you had deleted nearly all of my attempts to edit the article (editing that you refer to as "dumping"). I am saddened to see that you continue to WP:OWN the article, and the temperature does not seem to have been lowered. Maybe the article can be saved if you will now allow other editors to improve it. Lightburst (talk) 19:46, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If they can find sources which, contrary to the bulk of yours, actually address the subject, I'd be delighted. Containing the term "fritter roll" therein, if not necessarily sufficient, would be a minimum starting point. The material you added based on sources which do not fulfil this, I have removed; the material based on the two sources which do fulfil this, I have not removed, even though one is a blog and thus not a WP:RS, so should really have been removed. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:13, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've attempted to post but were having difficulties with a mobile device, so I'll quote it here in order to respond: "Thanks. Yes I said it was a blog in edit summary. Placeholder."

Yes, I am aware that you did but notifying us of that you have used a source which is "largely not acceptable" does not thus allow it. See WP:BLOG. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:05, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mutt, It is still a bit too hot in here for me to edit this. I will exit and unwatch and let others see if they want to try to edit in this environment. Lightburst (talk) 21:19, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's your choice but there's nothing to stop you, should you unearth material that is both pertinent and reliably-sourced. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:27, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A search did not reveal sufficient RS coverage to establish notability. Content could potentially be merged with Fritter#United Kingdom if more reliable sources can be found. Many of the suggested sources are actually about pea fritters, haggis fritters, etc. and do not actually mention the fritter roll or suggest that they are variations. –dlthewave ☎ 21:56, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to fritter. I went carefully through the page history, and looked at every source that has ever been cited on the page. The sources that are no longer there do not actually include anything about fritter rolls, just assorted mentions of fritters in general. The two sources cited on the page as of when I write this comment ([33]) are web postings that appear to be blog-like (one of the two is explicitly someone's blog), and they are suspiciously similar to each other, such that one of them may have been written off of the other. I also did searches via the various Google sub-sites, and what keeps coming back is "...fritter. Roll...". There is just enough reliable sourcing to say that the thing exists, but not enough to satisfy WP:GNG. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:00, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yeah, I think that this meets notability guidelines for food. The two sources do indicate the significance of fritters in Scottish cuisine.Worldlywise (talk) 22:05, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was surprised by your mention of notability guidelines for food. I could not find any: list. I think it's just GNG that applies. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:09, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to fritter. I find places like this [34] where they show something called a "Finest bubble and squeak fritter" and then in the survey poll call the same product "Tesco Finest bubble and squeak fritter roll". Various other places describe similar things, sometimes calling it a roll and sometimes not. There are many different types of fritters. Not a lot in the article right now to justify its own article. I say merge it to Fritter. Dream Focus 22:59, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, the fritter and the roll are distinct items in combination. The latter is a bread roll (in all likelihood, a morning roll), containing the former. No mention of the bread roll and it's not a fritter roll, it's just a fritter, so not the subject of this article: the combination. There are vanishingly few mentions of the combination. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:40, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

...and the Tesco item appears to be a 2017 inclusion in their sandwich range; from the picture and description, in a bread roll. The full title is "Finest bubble and squeak fritter with spiced red cabbage roll", so a "(list of contents) (bread) roll (sandwich)". It's also mentioned here. Not notable, certainly not independently. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:07, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Cuntfinger (talk) 00:38, 28 July 2019 (UTC) user has been blocked by Bbb23 for being a sockpuppet.[reply]

That's WP:JUSTAVOTE. Mutt Lunker (talk) 01:11, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to fritter, which is...a type of roll. p b p 01:08, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting the sense that the concept of a bread roll may be something alien to Americans. Is that the case? A fritter and a bread roll in Scottish and wider British parlance are very much not the same thing and this article's subject, non-notable as it is, is not a single entity called a fritter roll but a combination of two things, the former placed inside the latter. I'm bemused at how difficult a concept this seems to be to many contributors here. Mutt Lunker (talk) 01:27, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And another source of confusion may be that an American fritter would seem to be largely dough, whereas in Scotland, wider Britain and large parts of the world outside the US it is a variety of battered items, in this case potato. Mutt Lunker (talk)

Merge very sparingly to Fritter#United Kingdom, with information from the one non-blog source. The term "fritter roll" refers to one, very specific, combination of foods, thus sources talking about fritters in general are not valid in establishing independent notability for this very specific variation. Rorshacma (talk) 16:29, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Fritter#United Kingdom seems the neatest arrangement of content. Bondegezou (talk) 13:47, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
comments: Believe it or not I have not been thinking about fritter rolls at all. Today on ARS someone posted another food item and used the terminology "chip barm" That caused me to reflect on the fate of the fritter...The correct name for this article should be "Roll and Fritter". When I used the search "Glasgow roll and fritter" I came up with numerous establishments and reviews for this food item. Not WP:RS but nonetheless. It exists.

Buzzfeed
Yelp review
Glasgow live
Sbran
Reddit/Twitter (photo of the menu)
Trip advisor
Restaurant menu
The Golden Fry
Amore Glasgow
Hot food

So if the article is retained it should be renamed Roll and Fritter. Lightburst (talk) 14:37, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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