Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 June 20

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 19 June	21 June >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:42, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Morale (rapper)[edit]

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

Highly doubt the subject is notable. Fails WP:NMUSIC Ceethekreator (talk) 22:41, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:41, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:41, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:41, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject doesn't seem to meet the threshold of inherent notability established under WP:MUSICBIO and absolutely certainly doesn't meet the WP:GNG. I did a quick BEFORE and could find nothing additional not in the article. Chetsford (talk) 00:23, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The current sourcing is poor - passing mentions, blogs, YouTube videos, deadlinks - and I can't find anything better. Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:NMUSIC. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:21, 26 June 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 Tiling window manager#X-tile-anchor. ST47 (talk) 03:45, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Qtile[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage (WP:BEFORE). Non-notable software per WP:N. SL93 (talk) 22:35, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 22:58, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 22:58, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 22:58, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tiling window manager#X-tile-anchor to anchor, with history, printworthy ... I'd added a ref on target and its sort of what the deProd ~~talk~~edit summary says. Yet more of my RL spun around by AfD's with crap WP:BEFOREs failing to seek out the alternatives ... Djm-leighpark (talk)
- - Wow, what is your problem? That is a terrible idea anyway to redirect non-notable software to an article that should only list notable ones. SL93 (talk) 12:21, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My problem is I spend too much wasted time at AfDs. Its a straightfordward redirect. And there's way too much flying through for this AfD system. But its a good AfD and notable enough. Do how have an anti-religious viewpoint? Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:25, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree about there being any notability. What the hell does religion have to do with software? SL93 (talk) 12:28, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One answer of hell is likely found trying to run TempleOS in a vm through a Qtile window ... Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:59, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So you dodged the question. SL93 (talk) 20:01, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tiling_window_manager#List_of_tiling_window_managers_for_X (or a suitable anchor). There are a couple of short reviews out there in print and Youtube, but not enough to rise to the level of notability per WP:GNG. But basic information is verifiable, and reviews and inclusion in multiple Linux distributions show some impact. The topic is a reasonable search term and the articles has had 315 views in the past 30 days. One reasonable alternative to deletion for verifiable material, per our policy WP:ATD, would be to redirect where it is mentioned in context with other tiling window managers. The single referenced sentence in the target would be due weight; QTile doesn't have the impact of say i3 (window manager) or XMonad. But neither does the target list require notability, as far as I can tell--there are third-party Windows and Wayland TWMs without articles. Hence, redirect is my recommendation. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 17:54, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Djm-leighpark and Mark viking. SJK (talk) 20:13, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect,per above Alex-h (talk) 09:49, 26 June 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:43, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

QStar Technologies[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage (WP:BEFORE). Fails WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 22:33, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 23:00, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 23:00, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 23:00, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I did my own BEFORE and found nothing other than press releases and mentions of the most incidental variety. This doesn't meet the WP:GNG. Chetsford (talk) 00:24, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Article does not meet Wp:GNG Alex-h (talk) 09:39, 25 June 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:44, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Martin (American football)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NGRIDIRON. Coverage cited on the page is routine and doesn't constitute significant coverage. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 22:29, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 22:29, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 22:29, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 22:29, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The player doesn't appear to have a notable college or pro career. Doesn't pass WP:NGRIDIRON. GameInfirmary Talk 23:37, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I find the sources in the article to be unconvincing toward passing WP:GNG or any other notability measure.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:59, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Since he didn't actually play in an NFL game he doesn't pass WP:NGRIDIRON. The sources in the article don't establish WP:N. I AGF BEFORE found nothing else informative. Chetsford (talk) 00:25, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Meets none of the notability criteria at WP:NGRIDIRON. Coverage doesn't appear to be anything unusual for anyone who's tried to make an NFL team. Papaursa (talk) 23:54, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. James-the-Charizard (talk) 18:49, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The feature story from the Asbury Park Press (here) is significant coverage in an independent source. However, GNG requires such coverage from multiple sources. This I did not find. Cbl62 (talk) 20:29, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. As has been pointed out here, GNG and NACTOR require more than one source/role in order to justify keeping an article. Now there is apparently disagreement on whether it's one source or two which meet WP:BASIC criteria, and neither the argument in favour of the second source nor the one against is particularly compelling as they are mostly just assertions. So in my assessment there is no consensus here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:03, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jada Facer[edit]

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

Subject certainly does not meet WP:NACTOR (no "main cast" roles in anything), and almost certainly doesn't meet WP:BASIC regardless. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:12, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:12, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:12, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Larson source in the article is surprisingly substantial, and could support more of an article than we currently have, as it covers education and family background of the subject. I haven't found a second source that is as substantial as that, that isn't non-independent publicity blurb or WWW echoes of unidentifiable provenance and authorship. I am strongly in favour of multiple independent good sources, whose authors can be identified and have reputations for accuracy. Uncle G (talk) 04:41, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AmericanAir88^(talk) 21:13, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:24, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:24, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:24, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:24, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:24, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep 10 episodes of Melissa & Joey might be considered to meet WP:NACTOR. As per Uncle G, the first citation is good. The last has merit too. I'd say this sneaks in as a pass. Bondegezou (talk) 15:57, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep even if the nominator does not believe that an actress with many roles in mainstream national programming passes WP:NACTOR...article references speak to the notability of the subject. WP:NEXIST The subject has non-trivial coverage. subject must pass one or the other - I believe subject passes both. Lubbad85 (☎)(Edits) 14:06, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NEXIST is always a problematic claim, and is doubly so in a case like this – this isn't some actress from the 1920s, but a current child actress. IOW, if sources on this subject exist, they'll be easy to find, not difficult. Yet, this article has one solid source, perhaps two – that does not pass WP:BASIC, and if you're going to claim the subject does you need to provide proof. In addition, one single, recurring role on one TV series does not meet the requirements of WP:NACTOR. So far, none of the "keep" votes have provided any evidence that the subject passes either BASIC or NACTOR. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:08, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn; No, this is a pointless waste of time. I was very sick and tired and misinterpreted policy. This article has no reason to be deleted. (non-admin closure) 💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 02:46, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Diplomacy in the American Revolutionary War[edit]

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

Seeing the title, you may think "What? that sounds like a fine article", but this article is severely flawed. It's a redundant fork that serves as more of a random list of "diplomacy" during the Revolutionary war. It's also copied other articles verbatim 1 2, and was created by a serial copyvio inserter. 💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 20:51, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:26, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:26, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:26, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:27, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:27, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:27, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:27, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:28, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:28, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:28, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:29, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What is it a redundant fork of? Simonm223 (talk) 21:40, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The page has existed for about 10 years and the topic is quite notable. Entire books are written about this and they seem to be cited in the article. Copying within Wikipedia is not a major issue because our content is intended to be re-used and the first version does make a stab at attributing the other pages that it was based on. I've run Earwig to check for copyvios and it doesn't seem to find anything much -- just a big block of text quoted from a historical letter. If there are residual issues, these would be best addressed by cleaning up the current text rather than by starting again. Andrew D. (talk) 23:01, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative Keep I'm not going to delete a notable and reliably sourced article under the grounds that it's a redundant fork when I don't know what article it's supposed to have been forked off of; absent that information I'm !voting keep. Should that be provided, I may reconsider. Simonm223 (talk) 12:25, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep CLearly meets notability standards, and I do not think it is a flaw. Sheldybett (talk) 23:53, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is extensively sourced, and although in a "bullet point" format, consolidates numerous activities during the American Revolution into one very useful article. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 06:22, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per WP:GNG. Good sourcing.BabbaQ (talk) 08:22, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This serves to act as a parent article to a significant number of "main" articles. It may well be able to benefit from being improved, but that is no reason for deletion. It is common in WP to have a hierarchy of articles, where one provides a summary and another more detail. This AFD nomination (unless there is a similar article at the same level) is just plain destructive. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:35, 23 June 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. Randykitty (talk) 21:49, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paula R. Pietromonaco[edit]

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

Non-notable professor. Sources from associations are standard resumes. Yoninah (talk) 20:26, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Yoninah (talk) 20:26, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:30, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:30, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:30, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:PROF#C8 as editor-in-chief of Emotion. IntoThinAir (talk) 21:48, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. also passes WP:Prof#C1 with 16 publications with over 100 cites each. Did nominator do WP:Before? Xxanthippe (talk) 01:23, 21 June 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Keep: Editor in chief of journal Emotion (journal) passes the bar of WP:PROF#C8. Is it "major well-established"? Well, running since 2001, published by a major academic society, indexed everywhere you'd expect. Ticks enough boxes. PamD 08:29, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Emotion (journal) is an APA journal with an impact factor of 3+, which makes it important in the field of psychology. Meets WP:PROF#C8 as editor-in-chief. QuakerSquirrel (talk) 16:07, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Along with the passes of WP:PROF#C1 and C8 already noted above, she appears to pass #C3 as a fellow of multiple scholarly societies [1]. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:15, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep in accord with passing multiple criteria of the applicable guideline. XOR'easter (talk) 15:18, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is an odd AfD nomination to come from a person who has "This person makes women blue" on their user page. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:27, 24 June 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Let's not personalize this, please. 28bytes (talk) 22:36, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, For she is the editor-in-chief of Emotion, and for her other acheivments mentioned above Alex-h (talk) 10:04, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article doesn't overwhelm you with GNG noteworthy coverage, but her citation counts are impressive and she appears to be the lead author on many of them. I believe WP:NPROF is met. Papaursa (talk) 00:16, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Essentially a repeat of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Health of Donald Trump. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:07, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mental health controversy of Donald Trump[edit]

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

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

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

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

This is essentially the same scope as the article that was just merged/redirected following discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Health of Donald Trump. It appears the author created this fork after participating in that AfD which didn't go their way. Already BOLDLY redirected per the AfD and was reverted. So here we are. GMG ^talk 20:30, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This was intended as a much more MENTAL HEALTH-centered discussion, with sources that center around mental health professionals. You can see that Bandy X. Lee's group of 37 top mental health experts, and then the group of thousands of mental health professionals who organized around this issue, are given much more focus than Donald Trump. Now their group is international with members from at least three continents. This evolution is historic and does not revolve around Donald Trump as much as the unprecedented mental health concerns around a president. This does not fit under "Donald Trump," as it concerns the Goldwater rule, the importance of presidential fitness, and the potential dangers when a president cannot be tested for mental fitness, which are issues that go beyond him. It could equally be labeled "Mental health controversies of presidents," with Richard Nixon, Lyndon Johnson, and JFK added on, if helpful, but Donald Trump would still be unprecedented by far. Thanks.--Dallbat 21:50, 20 June 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dallbat (talk • contribs)

Yes, well, those are some impressive mental gymnastics, but this is still just a WP:POVFORK to circumvent the consensus of the previous deletion discussion. Both Lee and her book have their own stand alone articles, and content about those subjects should go there, although that content should not be written like a political advocacy tabloid as this article currently is. GMG ^talk 21:31, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The merged article seemed anemic in content to start with, unaware of the historic significance. Mental health professionals are not political activists, and this has never occurred before in U.S. history (although there was a non-issue regarding Barry Goldwater, of only 10% speaking irresponsibly, which FACT Magazine blew up and made into a scandal). You still don't hear much now, but what you do is significant: it is apocalyptic, urgent, and a consensus. It should not be buried in an article already too long to be read with sustained attention.--Dallbat 23:02, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a vehicle for righting great wrongs and it is also not a vehicle for political advocacy. GMG ^talk 22:28, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know. I genuinely, profoundly believe this is an issue that should not be whitewashed for political reasons, either.--Dallbat 00:30, 21 June 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dallbat (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychiatry-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 21:46, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 21:46, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 21:46, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom This is speculation by people not necessarily medically qualified and is clear violation of the professional standards Goldwater rule in particular and there concerns about the reliability of physicians who evaluated Trump and has both WP:BLP and WP:MEDRS issues and privacy violations .In addition it is WP:COATRACK ,WP:POVFORK and clear violates WP:NPOV meet to disparage the subject.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:34, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- These are the most renowned members of the field, not just one but almost all of the most respectable, and the reason why I believe the issue is so important. More psychiatrists are against the Goldwater rule than for it.--Dallbat 10:51, 21 June 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dallbat (talk • contribs)
Strong Keep A lot of idiotic notions have been thrown about on this issue from the lack of expert input in the public arena. Many of the shrinks who spoke up are legendary figures, and somebody has to challenge the American Psychiatric Association's unethical Goldwater rule. Also, Donald Trump is a walking textbook of mental health issues that the nation can learn from for generations to come. HeadDoc911 (talk) 22:01, 21 June 2019 (UTC) — HeadDoc911 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
~~Merge and redirect~~ Delete Much of it is about the book The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump and can be merged there if there's helpful info and sources not already in that article. This article is not written from a neutral POV, and is nearly a polemic. The "keep" statements arguing from a WP:RGW stance are disturbing. The article could properly be titled Bandy X. Lee's crusade. I made a few edits to fix language that was not supported by the sources, then gave up. edited: changed my !vote to make it clear that I do not believe this article should be kept. Schazjmd (Talk) 22:52, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- This is my first time creating a page, partly in response to my original questioning about motive for deleting the Health of Donald Trump page, since it was proposed on the very day it was announced that the mental health/fitness issue would be presented to Congress. I take full responsibility for the tone, and thank you for your corrections. But I believe the issue needs addressing one way or another and not just as one person's crusade (which it is not).--Dallbat 00:59, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

@Dallbat:, when I said it could be titled her crusade, I meant that would be a title that properly reflected the contents and the way it's written. (Not that I think we should rename the article.) I can tell that you are very passionate on this topic, which is understandable. I really do sympathize. But you're trying to use an encyclopedia to further a cause, and that's not what it's for. Schazjmd (Talk) 00:02, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Schazmd:So here is my dilemma: As a health professional, I have some specialized knowlege I can offer (I have written several encyclopedia articles, as have many of my colleagues, but we are not Wikipedia people). This platform seems to be dominated mostly by writers who are specialists in a certain style of writing. Even though the previous article had many errors in it, I would not have bothered to write another one as long as a Health of Donald Trump article existed--it is understood that Wikipedia is not a Wiley encyclopedia--but now the deletion of even that article is extremely worrisome, further highlighting that this topic is critical and urgent, not to be covered up further. So would you not help improve rather than eliminate?--Dallbat 16:59, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm one of the psychiatrists who can vouch for this being a medical consensus, which is why they used ethics to gag us rather than medical evidence. Would you say that the opinion of the average Joe is the same as a brain doctor's when it comes to brain science, and would you prevent actual brain doctors from making any comment if a president were unconscious? I think not.HeadDoc911 (talk) 18:22, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The information seems correct, but I agree about the language. Maybe the title could be changed to World Mental Health Coalition?^[1] This group now focuses less on Trump and preventing dangerously unstable leaders around the world (who are not unprecedented around the world). CPMSW (talk) 20:11, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is essentially a compiled set of comments on Trump made by some mental health professionals. Most of these do not merit an article. Viztor (talk) 09:35, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't make any sense: how would they get their word out if not compiled? This is why an article that informs better is necessary. If it isn't a majority vote, I say improve the writing, but allow for expertise to be shared.HeadDoc911 (talk) 18:26, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hi, I am one of the members of the organization we created because of one of our professional's organization's resurrection of the outdated Goldwater rule. The illegal use of that rule to gag professionals is why the public hasn't heard much about this issue, but it is indeed an important, if not the defining, issue of this presidency. I vote to keep or create a similar article. Thanks. WendyMD (talk) 19:41, 22 June 2019 (UTC) — WendyMD (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep After this weeks harrowing instability over what could lead to an uncontrollable war, I think there should be a page people could go to. Disclaimer: I am a member of the said organization that can be found here: ^[2]. So far, it's the only place you can go if you are one of the more than half of psychiatrists who disagree with the Goldwater Rule^[3] or the large majority of MH professionals who have no such rule but are worried about the President. CPMSW (talk) 20:01, 22 June 2019 (UTC) — CPMSW (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

References

^ https://dangerouscase.org/
^ https://dangerouscase.org/
^ https://www.mdedge.com/psychiatry/article/159384/personality-disorders/goldwater-rule-should-be-modified-debate-audience

Speedy delete - WP:CSD#G4. All keep votes here are from single-purpose accounts. Jdcomix (talk) 21:05, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article consists predominantly of promotion for Bandy Lee, her book, her activities, and her organization. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:52, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge somewhere. I mean wow, this runs afoul of WP:BLP, WP:CSD#G4, WP:CANVAS, WP:ACTIVIST and whole bunch of others. Main point is, this a non-neutral article created to WP:RGW (possibly by a group of professionals but that doesn't change anything), and should be salted.Hydromania (talk) 07:14, 23 June 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 List of King of the Hill characters. Randykitty (talk) 21:50, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of guest stars on King of the Hill[edit]

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

Find article to lack in notability. I posted the proposition for deletion earlier while logged out. Thylacine24 (talk) 20:19, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:33, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:33, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This list is unstable to have its own article. There are no sources to support this list and has been like it since its creation. The notability of guest stars on shows like this is poor as it just looks like trivial info and shouldn’t have received a standalone article. 1989 (talk) 21:40, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It doesn't have the panache/notoriety of The Big Bang Theory or The Simpsons, the gold standard for animated series guests. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:28, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of King of the Hill characters and keep only the more relevant guest-stars. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 16:45, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of King of the Hill characters and keep only the more relevant guest-stars per FoxyGrampa75. 111.68.115.165 (talk) 07:25, 27 June 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. The source-based arguments to keep carry the day per WP:GNG. As has been pointed out here, just because something does not (yet) exist does not mean we can't have an article on it if there is adequate sourcing - original research is defined by the non-existence of sources, not by the non-existence of the subject in physical form - nor is the article being short a deletion rationale per WP:DEL. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:17, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

International Legion (Proposed)[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to be a notable proposal. The book reference is a modified PhD thesis (and calls it a "UN Legion"); other references are speculation at webforums and a self-published article by Edward Luttwak [2]. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:49, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And....?--Degen Earthfast (talk) 16:50, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:03, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A rationale for deletion that points out that the article is sourced to an entire book on the subject written by a subject expert who has a doctorate in international relations from the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, is not a very good one at all.
Reading the book, I find that this article is what we call a good stub with clear context and plenty of scope for expansion, nominated for deletion less than 24 hours after it was created. Far from being a one-person idea discussed by a (subject expert) second person, the subject expert right after discussing Luttwak's January 1993 proposal on the very same page proceeds to discuss a June 1993 proposal by Brian Urquhart. Yes, that Brian Urquhart.
Once one factors Urquhart's name in, one find sources just rolling out, including: ISBN 9780275969066 p. 19, which includes two Secretary-Generals and proposals made at the time of the Korean War into the mix of stuff available for expanding this article, and cites a whole bunch of sources to look at; p. 45 and the whole of Sverre Lodgaard's chapter in ISBN 9783663092254; Adam Roberts' entire chapter in ISBN 9780199583300 that is even entitled "Proposals for standing UN forces: A critial history"; Urquhart xyrself, Robert C. Johansen (professor of political science at the University of Notre Dame), and others in ISBN 9780971072763; and another subject expert with a doctorate (Annie Herro, with a PhD from the University of Sydney and now a research fellow there) writing ISBN 9781317812296.
And that's simply where I stopped looking rather than where the available sources stop. So let me modify the above to a good stub with clear context and plenty of scope for expansion from subject expert sources, discoverable with about 5 minutes' effort of simple reading, beginning with the very sources cited, even by me. It actually took longer to type this in than to read and to find the stuff. Per Wikipedia:deletion policy we do not delete such things. Titles are fixable with the move tool that everyone with an account has, no administrator required.
Uncle G (talk) 08:06, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge - This could be merged with United Nation or United Nations peacekeeping#Proposed_reform. However as there is basically nothing of substance to this article, there doesn't seem to be much point unless someone expands upon it. TheSLEEVEmonkey (talk) 16:52, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Please familiarize yourself with the article development process. Lots of our articles started as good stubs with clear context and plenty of scope for expansion. Uncle G (talk) 15:47, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename - the subject, a "UN Legion" or similar, is definitely notable in terms of the WP:GNG, with antecedents including the recent Hero book, and earlier, Christopher Bellamy, Knights in White Armour, [3], 1996, suggesting a "UN Legion". There is also a enthusiastic Portuguese former Foreign Legion guy suggesting a "Single European Regiment" along much the same lines. The question is what exactly to call it. 'Proposed international volunteer intervention force' covers most of the parameters. It is definitely more specific and of separate notability to reforms to the current peacekeeping model. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:34, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- United Nations Emergency Peace Service (UNEPS) is what Herro calls it, but that's the specific name of one idea. Roberts and others talk more generally of proposals for standing UN forces. I expect Herro's name, Urquhart's United Nations Volunteer Military Force, Boutros-Ghali's United Nations Rapid Reaction Force, the Dutch United Nations Rapid Deployment Brigade, and suchlike to be redirects. But none of this is a matter for AFD, and does not involve administrators and administrator-only tools.
  There's another Bellamy, by the way, professor Alex J. Bellamy of the University of Queensland and yet another subject expert, who gives a very brief précis of Roberts in ISBN 9780745641867 pages 168–169. doi:10.1080/03071840802249604 looks interesting, too.
  Uncle G (talk) 15:47, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge: Many have ideas, however, we are not repository for that. This could be well merged to UN article not an independent one when it is just an idea (which would filled with OR and primary sources). Or should we go through all the alternative proposition in the way that UN or the US could existed? I'm pretty sure a lot of people have had ideas about how it could be different. Viztor (talk) 12:22, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- It wouldn't be filled with original research if it were based upon the entire chapters and even entire books on the subject written by subject experts that I mentioned above. Did you look at any of the things cited at all? Uncle G (talk) 15:47, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are sci-fi out there for just about anything, does that mean all these inventions in these books are worth an encyclopedia article? Albeit there may be ideas about it, but what could really be said about an army that exist only on paper? We all know what an army is, just different owners. All that is there to say is nothing more than speculation. Viztor (talk) 20:29, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - yes, if there are enough independent sources that discuss them. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:30, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for all the reasons provided by my uncle. Drmies (talk) 01:18, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:GNG, with the article sources and those listed by above, a big thanks to Uncle G for including them here and for putting up their hand to improve this article, do agree that some sort of rename is needed (with "United Nations" in there to make it easier for search engines?). Coolabahapple (talk) 06:43, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:46, 26 June 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. Fails verifibility. Before deleting, I checked Georgian Wikipedia for the term თიჯრობის, and found nothing. Even without an article you think it would be found in a text search somewhere, but no. I also checked the Georgian article for Pentecost to see if maybe it linked to something like this, but also no. I'm out of ideas. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:49, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tijroba[edit]

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

I think this is a hoax as presented. თიჯრობის (transliterate Tijrobi) [4] appears to mean "Feast Day" in general, and not a specific feast day on the day after Pentecost. No English-language results before the recent government press release. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:32, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:32, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it is დღესასწაულია (c.f. ka:დღესასწაული) that means feast day. I have spent far too much time trying (and failing) to find თიჯრობის in a dictionary, when it is clear both from what some dictionaries told me and from the garbled state of the rest of the cited English source, that this is an entire house of cards built upon a machine translation error creating a bad English translation of a source written in Georgian. Moreover, as if more were needed, the day that the president is talking about in the original source is named Day of the Holy Spirit, Spirit Day, Spirit Monday, Pentecost Monday, or Whit Monday, and certainly not "Tijrobi". No, it's not even the Georgian for the second day of Pentecost, which is in the original Georgian source in the same sentence: სულთმოფენობის მეორე დღეს ("the second day of Pentecost", c.f. ka:სულთმოფენობა). This is entirely unverifiable. Uncle G (talk) 08:33, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:22, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:22, 26 June 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) 18:43, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Media Operations[edit]

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

This appears to be a new usage of the term made by the article's creator; the one reference doesn't use the term "Media Operations". Article creator banned for promotional edits. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:23, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it's a new usage of the term. "Content services" is a term sometimes used for recording, ingest and playback. Playout is already an article. Enbytv (talk) 17:27, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons stated above, and the fact that this article doesn’t really have a place on an encyclopedia anyways. WildChild300^Talk 23:55, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:08, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEOLOGISM. This does not appear to be a common use of the term, which more often seems to refer to a job (perhaps Media management or Director of communications). By the way, given that Media Operations Group also exists, a disambiguation page may be in order, though probably at Media operations. Cnilep (talk) 03:37, 27 June 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 tallest buildings in Jersey City. Consensus that NBUILD isn't satisfied. Discussions that the redirect target's list is too long can be held in a separate discussion on that page. (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 21:53, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

International Financial Center (Jersey City)[edit]

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

Yet another ~~apartment~~ office building. No indication whatsoever of how this meets WP:NBUILD which require the building to have " historic, social, economic, or architectural importance" and receive significant coverage from reliable sources. Rusf10 (talk) 16:17, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 16:17, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 16:17, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Another huge construction project, covered in detail in sources such as the New York Times. The architects, Frank Richlan and Herbert Beckhard seem significant too and this was one of their major works. We should be adding articles about them, not deleting this. Andrew D. (talk) 18:11, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, we need much more than one article in a local publication. Also, if the architects are so notable then why don't they have articles? And even if they did, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:29, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included by Andrew D. in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:58, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Redirect to List of tallest buildings in Jersey City The 33rd tallest thing in any city is inherently non-notable on the surface (though not an apartment building, just another office). Nate • (chatter) 21:24, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Vote struck and changed to rd with other consensus, which is a fair result. Nate • (chatter) 01:45, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jersey City#Downtown Jersey City where it can be mentioned, there are sources tha tcan be added, jut not, I think,enough to support a page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:19, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of tallest buildings in Jersey City Djflem (talk) 10:10, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of tallest buildings in Jersey City. SportingFlyer T·C 18:11, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Not every generic office building is notable, even if it's tall and got routine coverage that a developer constructed it. Reywas92^Talk 20:00, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- There are a lot of redirect votes, but why? It it ranked as the 37th tallest in Jersey City (someone updated the list since the AfD was started). I have to ask the question, why is the list so long? At 303 feet, this building does not qualify as a skyscraper which must be at least 492 feet tall.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:39, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:ATD, WP:NOTPAPER, WP:PRESERVE Djflem (talk) 07:01, 23 June 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:38, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Association of Telehealth Service Providers[edit]

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

No references, and quick search found no sources. The organization's website is a dead link. This is second nomination. Doubtful they were notable the first time, but certainly aren't now. Senator2029 “Talk” 16:17, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Senator2029 “Talk” 16:17, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Senator2029 “Talk” 16:17, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. When a link is dead, it can often be recovered using the Internet Archive. In this case, an archive of the organizations website can be found at http://web.archive.org/web/20140701102452/http://www.atsp.org/ and an earlier version (with information about the organization) at http://web.archive.org/web/20041214091211/http://www.atsp.org/ The organization appears to be defunct. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:50, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've found nothing. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:46, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've created this loooong ago when I didn't know much about WP:NORG. While the mention is in passing, the source does call it a 'major tele m/h organization." Some of its surveys from ~15 years ago or so are cited in a number of works, but there is no in-depth coverage of the organization. Some of the best 'in-passing' mentions: This source found through GScholar mentions it in passing: "The major tele- medicine and telehealth organizations, such as the ATA and the Association of Telehealth Service Providers, continue to direct lobbying efforts toward these issues." [5] states "Lobbying efforts by the American Telemedicine Association and the Association of Telehealth Service Providers, groups representing the industry, have strongly influenced changes in US federal telehealth reimbursement policy. " Overall, that doesn't seem to suffice to rescue this article. I guess it can be mention in passing in some other articles, but there's probably not enough information about it to cobble more than 2-3 sentences, so hardly enough to argue it is notable. And if their website is inactive, this only suggests that whatever they were doing, they either failed or succeeded, so no new sources will discuss it unless one day some historian publishes more research into this org and its significance. But until this happens, they are probably not an organization worth having their own encyclopedic page. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:06, 23 June 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. Despite the fact that no significant sources were put forward during this AfD, there obviously is no consensus to delete at this time. Randykitty (talk) 14:58, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Liberty Towers (Jersey City)[edit]

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

An apartment building. No indication whatsoever of how this meets WP:NBUILD which require the building to have " historic, social, economic, or architectural importance" and receive significant coverage from reliable sources. Rusf10 (talk) 16:12, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 16:12, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 16:12, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep J.P.Morgan have bought the building for $300M – that seems economically important. There's more coverage in the New York Times and here's a report on its opening. Finding sources for such a substantial project is just a matter of looking – please see our policies WP:ATD, WP:BEFORE, WP:IMPERFECT, &c. Andrew D. (talk) 17:58, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your first reason to keep is JP Morgan bought the building, please see WP:NOTINHERITED. Otherwise coverage is lacking, there needs to be more than just local sources and the building itself is not the subject of that New York Times article.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:26, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included by Andrew D. in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:59, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Large building this size are very likely to be notable , and they generally have sufficient coverage if looked for carefully. To a considerable extent, in businesses and similar topics, financial size is a relevant consideration, if not a formal criterion. Crains is a reasonably reliable source. Some articles on topics like this have a problem with promotionalism , but his one seems ok. DGG ( talk ) 06:17, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep DGG made a very convincing argument. Dream Focus 21:17, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the rationale of DGG. Lubbad85 (☎)(Edits) 13:31, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- I am not convinced by DGG's argument. If Crain's is the only reliable source that's not enough. WP:NBUILD require significant coverage by sources (with an s, meaning more than one).--Rusf10 (talk) 00:52, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the rationale of DGG. If Keep doesn't work, than Redirect,as I am not finding a lot of sources yet. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:28, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the tallest buildings in Jersey City page. The sourcing on the page as it stands is terrible, and the sourcing found above is marginal. We can always recreate if/when it becomes more notable. SportingFlyer T·C 05:52, 26 June 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. Randykitty (talk) 14:59, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marbella Apartments[edit]

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

An apartment building. No indication whatsoever of how this meets WP:NBUILD which require the building to have " historic, social, economic, or architectural importance" and receive significant coverage from reliable sources. Rusf10 (talk) 16:09, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 16:09, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 16:09, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It was the tallest in Jersey City when built but is now not so outstanding. But a second tower has been built in the complex. That seems to be known as "M2 at Marbella" and, being newer, is easier to find sources for, e.g. this. There's no reason to delete this developing complex as our policies WP:ATD, WP:NOTPAPER and WP:PRESERVE apply. Andrew D. (talk) 18:57, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lots of coverage, I added a few sources to the page. More sources available at nj.com, [6], the website owned by teh Star Ledger tha thosts many New Jersey newspapers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:19, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included by Andrew D. in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:00, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of tallest buildings in Jersey City Djflem (talk) 10:16, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. . If it was notable for being the tallest in thecity once, it remains notable--just as for every topic. Large buildings likethis usully have sufficient sources if looked for carefully, , as does this. The article isn';t promotional , which can sometimes be a problem. DGG ( talk ) 06:19, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons cited above. No compliance with WP:Before. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:11, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep once a subject is notable it remains notable. Lubbad85 (☎)(Edits) 13:27, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable and well sourced. Barca (talk) 17:19, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to tallest buildings in Jersey City. Unfortunately, the keep !votes above haven't identified the fact the sourcing here is actually quite terrible - the best is entirely promotional from nj.com and still only mentions the building about four times. The rest just offer passing mentions of the building. On the whole, the building fails WP:GNG. We're better off redirecting it. SportingFlyer T·C 05:55, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New York Times: 2 New Buildings on the Waterfront; Rental Towers In Jersey City : Construction is to begin next month on the 283-unit Portofino and next year on the Marbella, with 278; both will have studio to three-bedroom apartments. The buildings will rise across Washington Boulevard from each other in the 82-acre Hudson Exchange mixed-use development. The Newport residential-retail-office project is to the north and the Harborside Financial Center is to the south. Garden State Development of Jersey City and the Seltzer Group of Manhattan acquired the parcels, totaling 3 1/4 acres, on June 23 from National Bulk Carriers of Manhattan. With Jersey City in the midst of an economic boom there continues to be a significant demand for this type of product, said Peter G. Mangin, president of Garden State Development. Monthly rents at the Portofino, where occupancy is set for late 1999, will be $1,200 to $2,800. Marbella rents have not yet been set. Financing for the $94 million project, Mr. Mangin said, is coming from Lehman Brothers, a bank that he declined to name until a contract has been signed, and the developers' own equity, and was arranged by the Greenwich Group International, a real estate investment banking concern in Manhattan. The architect is Schuman Lichtenstein Claman & Efron of Manhattan.
New York Times: Manhattan Skyline Views, Trump Style: Currently, the tallest residential building in New Jersey stands only two blocks away from the Trump Plaza site. It is the 40-story Marbella apartment building at 425 Washington Boulevard.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:26, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I saw both of those. I have no idea how they're WP:SIGCOV. SportingFlyer T·C 20:56, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Revisited, added two more sources. More coverage exists.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:43, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reliable sources proving it is notable have been found and the article expanded. Dream Focus 16:50, 26 June 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. While there seems to be some disagreement about whether the current sourcing of the article is adequate (per SportingFlyer), it seems like the sourcing presented by Andrew Davidson has convinced most editors. I note Rusf10's comment but it doesn't seem to have caught on. Thus this is a keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:13, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hudson Greene[edit]

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

Apartment Building, does not meet WP:NBUILD. The fact that a construction worker died is also WP:NOTNEWS Rusf10 (talk) 15:58, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 15:58, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 15:58, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's already enough sources for a start and there's more to find, as with all these huge buildings. Here's an interesting account of what's happening in the area, which includes the building in question. And here's another source, showing it to be in the Jersey City top 10. And here's coverage in The Architect's Newspaper. Andrew D. (talk) 18:40, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

None of these are significant coverage. I can't believe you even bothered to include a top ten list.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:38, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These are all significant coverage per WP:SIGCOV. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 22:54, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included by Andrew D. in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:57, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per above.Djflem (talk) 10:09, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough sources for notability -- And in general buildings of this size will have sources if looked for carefully. Rather, the problem with many articles like this is much more likely to be promotionalism , but this article seems to be OK in that respect. DGG ( talk ) 06:14, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article passes the general notability guidelines. Dream Focus 21:15, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
CommentNot a single one of the above "Keep" votes have addressed the concerns I raised about WP:NOTNEWS. All significant reliable source coverage is related to the construction worker that died.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:38, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable. Horsley, Carter (May 3, 2016). "Skyline Wars: New Jersey's Waterfront Transforms With a Tall Tower Boom". Retrieved June 24, 2019. No compliance (or cursory) compliance with WP:Before. Article and sourcing is not now what it was when this nomination was proposed. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:48, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article passes WP:GNG with non-trivial coverage. Lubbad85 (☎)(Edits) 15:07, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Its snowing in June in New Jersey. What a way to celebrate Summer solstice. Who'd-a-thought! 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:22, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I know this is going against consensus, but I ended up here after deleting a block quote that had nothing to do with the buildings, and it led me to review all of the sources in the article. The first two sources are links to a building database. The next two are primary sources which link to the websites of each building. "Near-empty tower still holds hope" is about One Madison Park in New York and doesn't mention the complex at all. We then have three articles that are actually about the buildings, but aren't significant coverage. "High rise fire as at..." is four grafs long and doesn't talk about the buildings substantively. I cannot open the ABCLocal source. "Construction worker dies..." is also four-five grafs long and isn't about the building, but rather that someone died working there. "Skyline Wars..." mentions the buildings, along with a number of other buildings, over a couple grafs. I don't think it's significant coverage. A before search brings up mentions, but nothing in independent secondary coverage (such as there's a bitcoin machine in the building from a crypto blog.) If anyone finds any other independent secondary sources, please ping me, but this definitively fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 21:18, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The block quote has to do with the redevelopment of the Jersey City waterfront and warehouse district. It does not mention this building "Hudson Greene" by name, but is apt material to provide context about the location. I undid your deletion, and posted it to the article talk page with reasoning stated there.

I note that the block quote is quoted in the Horsley article, which does mention "Hudson Greene" (this building} by name.

I am not suggesting that it affects, one way or the other, the question of WP:Sigcov or WP:GNG, etc. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:19, 26 June 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 tallest buildings in Jersey City. Irrespective of the (de)merits of the deletion nomination, it seems like the consensus leans towards there not being enough sourcing to justify a separate article around the topic - for some sources it's not clear from the discussion whether they'd satisfy WP:SIGCOV - and the keep arguments are mostly concerned with procedural issues or are not based on guideline/policy. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:09, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Towers of America[edit]

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

Nothing more than an apartment building. Fails to meet WP:NBUILD notability. Rusf10 (talk) 15:55, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 15:55, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 15:55, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep This is actually five separate buildings. The nomination is part of a series and it appears that due diligence, such as reading the article, is not being done. Please see WP:BEFORE and WP:SK, "so erroneous that it indicates the nominator has not even read the article in question". Andrew D. (talk) 18:21, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Davidson:I did read the article, so retract your WP:PERSONALATTACK]! The article is so short it only takes about 15 second to read and does not use any reliable sources. I do need see how the fact that the apartment complex has five buildings adds to notability. Your speedy keep vote is nothing more than disruptive and you should strike it immediately.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:35, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination starts "Nothing more than an apartment building" but the article and its sources plainly indicate that it is several apartment buildings and therefore the topic is more than an apartment building. When the article was prodded, the nominator seemed to take no time between this and his previous prod and so it seems apparent that the WP:BEFORE process has not been followed. I reckon that it takes at least 10 minutes to investigate a topic of this sort properly, not 15 seconds. Andrew D. (talk) 20:35, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One apartment building, a five building apartment complex, what the difference? THe fact that it is not notable and has no significant coverage in reliable sources is all that matters. And you really don't want to talk about timing, do you? You DEPROD multiple articles within the same minute. Maybe you don't read anything because you have a "keep no matter what" philosophy. --Rusf10 (talk) 20:46, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew, the above blatantly disruptive comment is one of the clearest indicators of disruptive behaviour I've seen in a long while. The nomination referring this apartment complex consisting of five towers as "an apartment building" is not an indication the nominator had not read the article. WP:SPEEDYKEEP actually has very strict criteria -- the criterion you are invoking here actually says that a nomination must be full of errors to the point that one gets the impression the nominator has no idea what the article is about; using colourful, abbreviated language does not indicate that. The only other possible criterion you could be invoking (and I've seen you invoke it before) is that the nomination is pure vandalism.

I actually gave the page a read just now since I kinda suspected it might apply to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keyence -- it doesn't, but by the standards you've been applying to this and other AFDs on what seems like a weekly basis, it definitely would. If I see you close any more AFDs as "speedy keep", given that you clearly either have a very poor understanding of that guideline or are deliberately misrepresenting it, I will revert you.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:42, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included by Andrew D. in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:02, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tryptofish: Thanks for letting me know. I guess @Andrew Davidson: is WP:CANVASSING now?--Rusf10 (talk) 21:31, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have no comment about that. It is the unofficial policy of the Article Rescue Squad that this template should be used whenever an AfD is listed by them. I add the notice when the listing editor has not done so, and I indicate the editor's name to make it clear that I had not listed the AfD, as would otherwise be assumed. I am in favor of always using the notice template, in order to avoid any appearance of canvassing. Of course, it is always possible that an editor could simply forget. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:26, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I added a New York Times article that had substantial coverage of these buildings to the article, but that was the only good reference I could find. Unless more can be found, I'm leaning delete. Antrocent (♫♬) 22:04, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Redirect to List of tallest buildings in Jersey City Djflem (talk) 10:12, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of tallest buildings in Jersey City. I can't find anything that's not the NYT article, either - another source or two and this can be kept. SportingFlyer T·C 18:13, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Not every generic apartment building or complex is notable, even if it's tall and got routine coverage that a developer constructed it. Reywas92^Talk 20:01, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Large complex. Part of the rebuilding and rebranding of Jersey City. WP:Not paper. Article hus been improved. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:18, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And just how does the complex's size establish its notability? WP:NBUILD requires "significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability" and despite your best efforts you have found only one source. WP:NOTPAPER is not justification for keeping this, see WP:EVERYTHING--Rusf10 (talk) 19:31, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It exists. Whether there is a Wikipedia article, it is still a landmark and part of the larger complex tapestry of urban development in Jersey City. Which is itself a rags to riches story that is useful to our readers' understanding. 12:32, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment unfortunately the WP:HEY version of this article had nothing to do with the source topic (and appears to now be in a bizarre edit war,) so my redirect vote stands. SportingFlyer T·C 20:11, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Removal of the following relevant material, which provides context, is just your attempt to dictate theoutcome huere.

It is being eclipsed by a larger building boom and architectural revival that is taking place in Jersey City, which has now moved toward tall towers.^[1]

Although built in 1999 – 2002 it is seen as part of a larger long term revival in Jersey City. In 2015, Robert Cotter and Jeff Wenger, one of whom is the urban planning director for Jersey City wrote:

“Since 1980, 18 million square feet of office space have been developed on the Jersey City waterfront, generating the highest price per square foot office deals in New Jersey history and marking the success of the original ‘Wall Street West’ concept. Currently over 6,000 housing units are under construction with another 20,000 units approved by the planning Board. Much of this development is accommodated with high rise construction with approximately 28 buildings over 300 feet tall and 6 buildings over 500 feet with several more under construction. China Overseas has approvals for a new tower of 889 feet. Within a few years, Jersey City will overtake Newark as New Jersey’s most populous city….”^[2]

I think it belongs, and I thiink that doing this while the AFD is pending is an attempt to create a self fulfilling prophecy. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:39, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The source does not even mention the buildings. You clearly added it so there would appear to be more sources than actually exist. There is one, only one reliable source for the article, the same source that exists when I nominated the article for deletion. You purposely added irrelevant information to the article so you could claim a there was WP:HEYMANN and the article should now be kept. Saying that you improved the article is extremely disingenuous and an attempt to WP:GAME.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:52, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yesd, the source does not explicitly mention it, but implicitly involve it. It pertains to the area in which it sits. And your accusation that it was put in to misrepresent anything is scurrilous and both uncivil and a violation of WP:AGF. You have shown your cards. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 23:21, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The source "eplicitly (sic) mention it, but implicitly involve it" That's called WP:SYNTH. Do not even attempt to lecture me on civility and AGF when you constantly accuse me of not doing WP:BEFORE searches and canvass other editors to deletion discussions.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:42, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You both need to stop. SportingFlyer T·C 01:41, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes. I suppose you actually did WP:Before here. If you did it, why did you AFD Hudson Greene? And Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marbella Apartments I simply stated a facts. Given the present state of the article, indeed why have you not withdrawn the nomination? But that's a matter for your conscience; ride that into the ground if you will. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:51, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rusf10 And your unfounded accusation of canvassing ["and canvass other editors to deletion discussions"] needs to be withdrawn. If you have proof go to WP:ANI. Oh, I forgot, you went there already. So ~~Otherwise,~~ shut up. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:11, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of tallest buildings in Jersey City. I agree with the Nom, nothing notable here, save the height. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:50, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of tallest buildings in Jersey City. The WP:GNG suggests that subjects should have multiple reliable sources that provide significant coverage on said subject, and this article only has the one New York Times article. Sources that do not cover the subject at all, even if they are tangentially related to it, do not qualify as significant coverage, so none of the additional sources that have been brought up in this AFD help establish any notability to this complex. Rorshacma (talk) 15:45, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Don't speedy keep Yeah, it's been almost seven days and Andrew still hasn't convinced anyone to close this prematurely, but it still seems worth mentioning. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:42, 27 June 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.

Notes[edit]

^ Horsley, Carter (May 3, 2016). "Skyline Wars: New Jersey's Waterfront Transforms With a Tall Tower Boom". Retrieved June 24, 2019.
^ Cotter, Robert; Wenger, Jeff (2015). "Jersey City on the Rise". {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help) quoted in Horsley, supra,

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. bd2412 T 04:02, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sham marriage in the United Kingdom[edit]

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

As User:Po8crg noted, this article "appears to be a Migration Watch press release lightly rewritten to look like a wikipedia article". The article is grossly unbalanced, and relies on a single news article and a very brief and quite poorly written "briefing paper" by a group which lobbies for fewer migrants in the UK. Both of these sources are over 10 years old, despite many recent developments in the area over the course of Theresa May's tenure as Home Secretary. It is not clear to me that this topic meets notability guidelines, and why it shouldn't form part of an article such as United Kingdom immigration law, although as I have said, its current content is of very low quality, and in my opinion should be completely discarded if this is the course taken. Matt J ^User|Talk 14:20, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Matt J ^User|Talk 14:20, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Matt J ^User|Talk 14:20, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Merge into Sham marriage: This looks more like a WP:NOTNEWS case. This particular case does not seem to deem it's own article as it is a REDUNDANTFORK any valid information should be added to the existing Marriage#Marriage_of_Convenience section. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 14:44, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With what E.M.Gregory brings up and since we already have an article about sham marriages and this one does not add too much to that topic it should just be merged into the existing article. It still falls under WP:REDUNDANTFORK. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 18:27, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note that we do have Green card marriage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:11, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what that has to do with this discussion as other things exsist McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 18:27, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that laws and social conditions vary from country to country making it appropriate to have separate articles, Green card marriage for the U.S., Sham marriage in the United Kingdom.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:55, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sham marriage in the U.K. is a notable topic that can support a serious article. These sources offer a sample of the scope of sourcing that esists:

Financial Times, 2018, Crackdown on sham marriages leaves migrants in limbo.
The Guardian 2018: Couples face 'insulting' checks in sham marriage crackdown
Deccan Herald 2011: 5 Pakistanis jailed for running 'sham' marriage gang in UK
The Daily Telegraph 2014: Sham marriage a 'massive loophole' in Britain's border; Chief Inspector of Borders warns bogus marriage may be a "growing problem" but authorities are failing to report their concerns to the Home Office
Helena Wray, Regulating Marriage Migration into the UK: A Stranger in the Home, Routledge, 2016 [7], [8], [9].
Bridget Anderson, Us and Them?: The Dangerous Politics of Immigration Control Oxford University Press, 2013: [10]

In sum, the page just needs an editor willing ot upgrade it. I tagged it REFIMPROVE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:53, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sham marriage is a thing that can happen anywhere, though what is really unique in the UK case that merit it an independent article? I failed to see. If it serves to include individual cases, we may eventual find ourselves in violation of BLP policy. Viztor (talk) 12:10, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:GNG, E.M.Gregory's list above shows that it has been covered over a sustained period by reliable sources, as for merging it into the parent article Sham marriage, that does need improving, but it is/should not be just about britain but a world view about this subject with breakout articles, when enough sources warrant it, like this one. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:58, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agreeing with Coolababble and M.E.Gregory.A.Jacobin (talk) 14:49, 27 June 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)} 16:20, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Torres-Marín[edit]

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

Tragic death but not notable lawyer. WP:NOTMEMORIAL also applies. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:15, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:15, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:15, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:1E and NOTMEMORIAL. Searching in PR news only gave me results about the crash, although someone who speaks more fluent Spanish might want to try that again. Nolelover (talk) 15:49, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:1E and NOTMEMORIAL. Seems to have been in the news once, because of the accidental death.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 16:27, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:1E and NOTMEMORIAL.A.Jacobin (talk) 14:55, 27 June 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. Without prejudice to undeletion/recreation if legitimate sources are found in the future. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:43, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alpina Watches[edit]

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

A web search doesn't turn up any significant coverage in independent sources - mainly just retailers. Current references are a blog post and a user-generated source. Peacock (talk) 12:22, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:44, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:44, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:09, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:DIRECTORY. Searching turns up a few mentions here and there (perhaps their advertising was notable back in the day?) but nothing significant. Nolelover (talk) 15:54, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet NCORP. --qedk (t 桜 c) 21:30, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Reading German-language Wikipedia's more detailed article de:Alpina (Uhrenmarke), I think it might be notable for English Wikipedia, too, but the article would need expansion. Per the German article, the company was originally a cooperative ("Genossenschaft") which in 1905 had a membership of more than 20 companies. It seems that it was historically important for the Swiss watchmaking business, until the big Swiss "watch crisis" of the 1970's (that crisis itself would merit an article, lots have been published about it). Apparently, now it's just a brand owned by Frédérique Constant which in turn is owned by Citizen Watch, but if somewhat expanded, I would keep the article. But I don't feel like investing my time into this subject right now. For what it's worth, the German article, per the references, seems to be based on an English book called Clock and Watch Trademark Index of European Origin. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:02, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Addition: I note that the article used to be considerably longer, but was extremely shortened by Froglich in 2017 with the comment "chainsawed 95% of the article for massive spampuffery and probable copyvio)". Maybe "chainsawed" a bit too much? The whole history of the company/cooperative was lost in the process. Maybe parts could have been kept (unless indeed everything was a copyvio). Gestumblindi (talk) 20:13, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article quotes some of the same stuff that was on that old version of the page and says it's from Alpina's website, so that may be where the copyvio is from, likely copied from a timeline somewhere. And I believe that the crisis you're talking about is the Quartz crisis, no? Anyway, the more that I read the more I do think that perhaps the original cooperative might be notable, but it would be a real labor of love from someone who has access to sources like that book. As of now, the current company only has listings, retailers, etc. Nole (chat·edits) 21:39, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nolelover: Yes indeed the Quartz crisis - and I see that even German Wikipedia's article is at de:Quarzkrise, but here in Switzerland (I'm living in a traditionally watch-making region), I heard it mostly just called the "Uhrenkrise" (watch crisis), so it didn't occur to me to search for an article under "quartz crisis"... thanks for the pointer. And I agree with your assessment that the article would need "a real labor of love". With the current state of the article, it's understandable that people don't see the potential notability. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:04, 25 June 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:07, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paolo Tasca[edit]

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

Apparent promotional page; most content was created by two SPAs. Literally every reference is primary - this is a BLP with zero third-party RS content, which is unacceptable for a BLP. WP:BEFORE shows passing mentions, no biographical detail. Unclear he meets WP:NPROF - PROD was removed citing a high H-index ... but again, the literally zero third-party RS sourcing for biographical details would mean the article should not exist as a BLP. I'd love to be shown wrong, but it would take actual RS sourcing. David Gerard (talk) 11:09, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 11:09, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 11:09, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 11:09, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:42, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:42, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. cryptocurrency / blockchain / digital currency advisor field. Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:23, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:09, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. His Google Scholar profile [11] shows one well-cited multiple-author work and everything else in double digits, not enough for WP:PROF#C1 notability in a high-citation field. And no other notability is evident. The promotional and badly-sourced nature of the article is also problematic. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:42, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. XOR'easter (talk) 22:48, 25 June 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:08, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Subas Humagain[edit]

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

An autobiography by an obviously non-notable person. No acceptable sources. Contains original research and links to personal social media and work website. I am not sure if it would have passed CSD. So, here it is. Usedtobecool ^TALK 08:22, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^TALK 08:22, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^TALK 08:22, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^TALK 08:22, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An autobiography without any indication of WP notability. Highly misleading to claim he was part of a cup winning soccer team because he's the team's website administrator. Papaursa (talk) 20:07, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:09, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP is not a resume or promotional. Non-notable subject Lubbad85 (☎)(Edits) 19:24, 24 June 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:20, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Olga Medynich[edit]

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

Nothing popular Russian actress. A couple of supporting roles and participation in a humorous show.--Kirill Samredny (talk) 06:56, 13 June 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 June 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:18, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:29, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:29, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:29, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:09, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Did you try Russian sources or any other language besides English? Keep per source one, source 2, and source 3. SL93 (talk) 00:52, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- So what? Biographical references of databases.--Kirill Samredny (talk) 01:09, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - So biographies do not count as significant coverage nowadays? Prove to me that they cover any celebrity, such as some sort of statement on the websites, or my mind can't be changed. SL93 (talk) 01:15, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep how is this not significant coverage? Which documents a dozen or so movies and multiple TV series. This is in stark contrast to both the nominators statement. Seems to be a WP:BEFORE failure that could have been avoided by looking at some of the other language versions of this article. Nfitz (talk) 01:19, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources exist. Antrocent (♫♬) 01:55, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hi, article has a lot of different sources. 🌝Lucas🌞B🌎1991 (talk) 21:06, 24 June 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:10, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Bernstein[edit]

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

Tagged for peacock for 10 years, but IMHO the more serious issue is that he fails WP:NBIO. BEFORE gets a ton of hits (still active journalists) but no in-depth coverage. He won a few awards but they seem minor (none is notable on its own and they are not referenced). In the end, he seems just like someone doing their job, but not encyclopedic. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:04, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 06:17, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 06:17, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 06:17, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are several in-depth sources for an event of several years that this person had a pivotal rôle in, but I haven't found much in the way of an actual biography covering this person's life and works in general; and the person's rôle is already mentioned, albeit cursorily, in other articles. So too is this person's job, in the article on the radio show — ironically sourced to the radio show's own WWW site here in this article. There are no good biographical sources at all cited in the article. Uncle G (talk) 02:22, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:09, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it has been here, virtually unsourced and tagged refimprove since 2008, and in all those years no one has added anything resembling WP:SIGCOV. He was involved in a minor dust-up of some kind at the radio station he worked for back in 1999 that appears to have drawn a bit of attention. His name is very common, so we could be missing something, I suppose. But I found nothing like a profile of INDEPTH analysis of his work, or a major story where his work was written up by other news outlets. Fails WP:BASIC. fails WP:CREATIVE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:19, 20 June 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)} 16:19, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hat Na Tai[edit]

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

I put this article up for PROD as it was unsourced. DePRODed by another author with the rationale ‘loads of reliable sources exist using the name "Natai Beach" ’. I can see lots of sites listing hotels, villas and Airbnb at Natai beach and I can see a ref in the Lonely Planet guide, but that’s all I can find. Nothing discussing the beach itself, just a location for hotels etc. It therefore does not seem to me that this topic is notable. Mccapra (talk) 05:03, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:03, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see some mentions in passing for "Natai Beach" but no in-depth coverage. I'd suggest am merger to 'landmarks' or such to Phang Nga, assuming that is the correct target. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:09, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Should be Phang Nga Province or Takua Thung District. --Paul_012 (talk) 21:02, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:43, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:09, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or merge to Phang Nga Province if there's enough worth keeping. Bondegezou (talk) 15:38, 22 June 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) 18:40, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Kligman[edit]

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

Not notable lawyer. Fails WP:GNG ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:57, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:57, 20 June 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? 12:57, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:57, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:57, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:58, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:13, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BIO. Page is adequately sourced with independent secondary sources, several of which discuss the subject exclusively. Yoninah (talk) 18:28, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It has significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 00:54, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable.A.Jacobin (talk) 14:54, 27 June 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. Appears to be WP:TOOSOON. Ping for an undelete if he does meet whatever WP:NSPORTS qualification and gets coverage. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:41, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Parsons (runner)[edit]

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

Does not meet notability criteria for either WP:NCOLLATH or WP:NTRACK Mightytotems (talk) 21:58, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Mightytotems (talk) 21:58, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:56, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:56, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. He reached the final of the European indoor championships at 3000m, and if the claim that he will represent Germany in the World Championships in three months time can be verified, then he will clearly be notable once he has competed there. --Michig (talk) 08:34, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Based on WP:NTRACK, criterion 2, he has to finish in the top 8 at European indoor championships to be notable; he finished 12th. -- Mightytotems (talk) 11:03, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: We cannot adjudicate based on potential notability in the future — a million different things could happen between now and then to impact his potential participation. At the very least, the creation of this page has to wait until the official entry list to the World Championship is released, and even then that's still not a guarantee that he will actually compete until after the event actually takes place. I suggest the original creator of the page (or whoever) keeps the current content in their own sandbox; once/if he actually meets notability criteria then the page can be re-created. -- Mightytotems (talk) 10:58, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This suggestion would lose substantial edit history and author attribution. Better to delete without prejudice and go for a WP:REFUND when notability becomes clear. ~Kvng (talk) 15:41, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 12:16, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Randykitty (talk) 15:03, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Colorado MahlerFest[edit]

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

Promotional and not clearly notable. Scarpy (talk) 18:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a well established festival that has been running for more than thirty years. There are refs in Colorado press as well as this and this for example, so it seems sufficiently notable to me to have its own article. Mccapra (talk) 18:43, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:00, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.

CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:00, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:01, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as per Mccapra, and here and here are two further references. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:42, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment other than the Denver Post article, the refs either seem to be from blog-like sources or don't seem to cover the toopic in-depth. I'd ideally want to see several like the Dever Post article. - Scarpy (talk) 20:23, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the sources I pointed to weren’t ‘blog-like’. One was a Google book ‘Gustav and Alma Mahler: A Research and Information Guide’ and the other was Audiophile.com. There are other blog-like reviews out there too which I avoided. The festival is a series of concerts which are pretty uncontroversial in themselves so I’m not sure what kind of in-depth discussion you’d expect to see about them. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mccapra (talk • contribs) 21:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mccapra: To quote the first paragraph from audiophilereview.com AudiophileReview.com is a leading high end audio and audiophile *blog* covering topics like speakers.... There is no significant coverage of MahlerFest in the book you mentioned. I'd like to see indepth discussion from reliable sources so that the topic meets the general notability guildeline. Are you new here? It's like you've never been in an AfD before. - Scarpy (talk) 23:28, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG due to insufficient sustained WP:SIGCOV. The Denver Post article is good, but this event has not received significant coverage outside of Colorado, so it is just a local festival with local coverage, which means WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Newshunter12 (talk) 01:48, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - [12] and [13] would indicate that it is not just a series of concerts, but that significant academic discussions regarding Mahler and his work take place at that time. Recordings from the concert series get a review from The Absolute Sound somewhere around issue 130, should someone have access to that publication. MahlerFest recordings also get significant press in the Times Colonist (Victoria, British Columbia, September 16, 1999) 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:52, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 12:14, 20 June 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. Randykitty (talk) 17:07, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Dylan Goodwin[edit]

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

I can find no coverage of this writer or his work, even in the usual suspects like PW and Kirkus. The only reviews I've found are amazon and goodreads, neither of which add any value to determining notability. I don't know if it's too soon but he currently fails GNG and WP:NAUTHOR.

I can also find no source to support the lead which states that his series is "acclaimed". Praxidicae (talk) 14:33, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:44, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:45, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It does say his books are acclaimed "in the world of genealogy", and that is probably true. I've certainly read reviews of his books in the newsletter of a genealogy website I subscribe to. That newsletter, and similar ones, and genealogy blogs, would not count as reliable sources, though, so the question would be whether published magazines, for example, have written reviews or profiles of him. I see there's a link to an interview published in Family Tree Magazine, which would not meet the requirement for being independent ...... I will see what I can find, though possibly this is going to be a case of someone well known in a particular field, who doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability criteria .... RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:06, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why are all his external social media links listed? I'n not going to delete them but if the page stays, they should go MaskedSinger (talk) 18:16, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've deleted a few external links, unnecessary italicising and a wiki link. I note that there is WP:CoI - the info box names his spouse as Robert John Bristow, and the creator of the article is Rjbristow. In terms of sources, the most I've found so far (apart from reviews in blogs) are reviews in genealogy society newsletters: The Livermore Roots Tracer Vol 38, No 3, August 2018, p 7 [14]; the Boulder Genealogical Society Quarterly 2015 Edition, Vol 47, No 3, August 2015, p 56 [15]; and on a website called Genealogy Magazine [16]. It's not looking like enough for either WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR, so far. RebeccaGreen (talk) 03:10, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hello all - I am pleased to work with your discussion to improve the page so that it does not get deleted. This is the first page that I have created and I am a little crestfallen to find that I have not correctly done it, as it is done in good faith. Yes, I am his husband, but this is because I am the other half of the company set up to promote, market, distribute and maintain his public profile (in place of an agency or publishing firm). I will take any action to remain within wikipedia policy, where I have fallen short. I will monitor comments here and improve the page to avoid deletion. With regard to the WP:COI, I noted the guidance but kept the post strictly to advocacy comments - you will note that opinions are given in interviews and not by me. I am creating this page 'professionally' impartially as CEO of The Novel Guys Ltd. but explicitly noted my relationship to the subject in the information box RobertJBristow (talk) 09:29, 13 June 2019 (BST)

Hi, RobertJBristow. You may want to look at Wikipedia:Reliable sources for the kind of coverage that Wikipedia requires for someone to be considered notable in Wikipedia terms. There are various notability guidelines - I referred to two above, WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. Both require writing by others in independent, reliable sources, either about the subject or about the subject's books. That's what I'm unfortunately not seeing - most reviews of the books are on blogs, e-commerce or user-generated websites like Goodreads, and they are not considered reliable. Interviews with the subject are not considered independent, whereas articles about a subject can be. Sources do not have to be online (nor in English), so if you know of published reviews in independent, reliable print sources, please add citations to them. If not enough sources can be found, the article may well be deleted - that does not reflect in any way on any subject, it just means that the current very specific Wikipedia policies aren't met. That could change in the future, eg if more sources meeting Wikipedia's requirements are published or found. Hope that helps. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:45, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Rebecca talk. I have spent today building up reliable sources and notable links and references. I have addressed the GNG and Author guidance policies. I have included refs and articles about the subject now instead of only 'with'. How do I know if I have done enough to prevent its being deleted? Will I have the chance to 'rescue'/save my work? It has been interesting to learn all this and I do not want to waste my efforts. I do appreciate the constructive feedback, though, so, thank you for any help. RobertJBristow (talk) 14:52, 13 June 2019 (BST)

I'm doing some reformatting at the moment, so don't worry if it changes. It's not necessary to reference books to themselves - the ISBNs can be added alone, and then the reviews can be added as references. I'll do what I can now, which may give you an idea of how it might be better to show the references - I'll try to do more later too, if it's confusing.

As for what happens now - this Article for Deletion discussion will remain open for other editors to comment on, and vote Keep or Delete, for at least one week from the time it was first listed. It may be relisted if there is no clear consensus. If the decision is to delete it, you can ask for it to be moved back to your user space. But there are several days to go before any decision. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:35, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete despite the work of RebeccaGreen the article still retains the sort of COI induced promotional language which explains why we require AfC. If he were notable I would suggest draftify. However given the lack of coverage that I can find for his books in book journals, it seems he's not notable. Perhaps there is a geneology and book fandom site Mr. Bristow could put this work on? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:10, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that the article still contains promotional language, and is written from the point of view of someone connected to the subject. However, I do see "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews", sufficient to satisfy WP:NAUTHOR. Genealogical society journals are periodicals. Some of the reviews included are from societies of which Goodwin is a member (Kent and Norfolk), so 3 of the reviews can't be considered independent. That still leaves at least 14 reviews from places such as Boulder, Colorado; Bergen County, New Jersey; Livermore, California; Cardiganshire, Wales; Wakefield, West Yorkshire; and Cheshire; as well as national UK genealogy magazines Family Tree Magazine, Your Family Tree, and Your Family History Magazine. I don't see a requirement in WP:NAUTHOR for reviews to be in "book journals", and newspaper reviews are generally considered acceptable, so I don't see why genealogical journals and magazines shouldn't be, especially when they are from such a wide geographical range and include national titles. The article does still need clean-up, and it would be better to have information from the reviews about the books and characters. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:41, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
RebeccaGreen, there is a big difference between a genealogical journal that is national in reach and has a firm editorial process and a newsletter which might be national (or not) and could well have an editor without firm editorial processes. The first source you listed above is a newsletter - which I would nearly always suspect of not having the sort of editorial guidelines and controls we demand of RS. What are your WP:THREE best sources? Right now it seems like reviews that are equivalent to well written reviews on Amazon or Good Reads as opposed to the kind of reviews I'm used to seeing to establish book notability. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:58, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm assuming that I am allowed a vote in this. Moreover, I have done a lot of work with helpful, constructive advice received and by following the signposts to relevant policies - I am grateful for these interventions by other editors. I am still working in order to improve the article, as I am sure other editors will along the way. I must say that I have added many more references to back up assertions and facts, including those of notability, way beyond those of many other longstanding pages that I have seen on wikipedia. I will await the outcome but, in the event of deletion, I would like the page saved back to my sandbox / user space in order to continue to develop it further for re-publication. Thank you. (RobbieBMilo (talk) 23:49, 17 June 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Comment, i was quite excited coming accross this afd about an author of books about Hastings, where my dad came from, but on digging a bit deeper ... library holdings are a bit light on (single, double figures - just click on any of the books here) (just to repeat i see high library holdings as a good indicator of useable reviews being available, plus its an easy way to check on number of editions, lots may be an indication towards the works being "well known"), all/most books appear to have been selfpublished (nothing wrong with that but may not bode well for reviews), and there doesn't appear to be any reviews available apart from geneology publications, again not in itself necessarily of concern but it would be nicer if there were some "mainstream" reviews (of concern is there doesn't appear to be anything from the Hastings & St. Leonards Observer, surprising that he is/was a local lad. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:42, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, A quick google (instead of a proper newspapers.com search for Nathan Dylan Goodwin, turned up two Hastings & St Leonards Observer articles straight away. I will add these two shortly and then farm more into the page. I assumed that others would also add to these beginnings. New reviews, articles, interviews are occurring all the time...=== Dwelling on the past pays dividends for author - Hastings Observer ===

[17]

22 Apr 2014 - DWELLING on the past has paid off for author Nathan Goodwin. Fans of his first crime novel are snapping up more than 100 downloads of the book every week. ... It has taken two years to write Hiding The Past while Nathan studied for an MA in creative writing. The story is a geneological ...

[18]

Nathan Goodwin, who wrote Hastings at War in 2005, said his latest publication Hastings: Wartime Memories and Photographs is intended to be a sequel to his ...

This will be added to the main page shortly for you, along with others. Thanks for pointing out the gap! (RobbieBMilo (talk) 07:24, 19 June 2019 (UTC))[reply]

thanks for the above Rjbristow, my gsearching isn't so good at the moment:)), looking at the observer articles some editors may suggest that they are "run of the mill" but rather than a reluctant delete i will now remain neutral (being secretly hopeful of a keep:)), hopefully ARSE .... oops! editors from the Article Rescue Squadron:)) will bring their considerable skills to focus on this article. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:56, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 12:01, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I remain committed to addressing any issues ongoing raised in feedback (for which I have been grateful) and, of course, it is hoped that others will also add to this page going forwards. A lot of work has now been put into correcting all so that the article is in line with wikipedia's policies so that editors feel able to vote to Keep the page.(RobbieBMilo (talk) 15:03, 23 June 2019 (UTC))[reply]
Delete per WP:CSD#G11 as spam. Harsh, I know, but that is what it is, and the COI SPA (that's what we call a single purpose account with a conflict of interest) who created it has done nothing else since registering in 2016. If the subject accumulates genuine notability, other editors will eventually write an encyclopedia article about him here, but this is not it, not by a very long shot. – Athaenara ✉ 14:51, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is not factually true. I have contributed to and edited numerous other pages. Indeed, I had to have done to become an editor at all in the first place. I would be pleased for editors (including me) to be left time to improve the page. I am confused why in the time-frame set out in the deletion guidance a consensus was achieved and ignored. I suspected that the relisting served only to create artificially the impression that consensus had not been achieved as per policy in order to cultivate hitherto non-existent ill-will against the page. This now seems to be being borne out. I note from your userprofile page that you have deleted 100+ wikipedia pages and have only helped 1 (forgive me if that isn't what the stats mean, but that has been my interpretation) - I believe that the guidance expects more experienced editors to be welcoming and constructive (as indeed all have been up till now): "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page...Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page...issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used first...Disagreement over a policy or guideline is not dealt with by deleting it...After a deletion debate concludes and there is no consensus or the consensus is in favor of keeping the page, users should allow a reasonable amount of time to pass before nominating the same page for deletion again, to give editors the time to improve the page. Renominations shortly after the earlier debate are generally closed quickly. It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome [as has been attempted here]..." (Wikipedia Policy - various). (RobbieBMilo (talk) 15:31, 25 June 2019 (UTC))[reply]
Comment Apologies, I hadn't quite finished: "If a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text written from a neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion." as per your ref to WP:CSD#G11. Pursuant to this, I shall vet the text for any areas where there might possibly be deemed not to have a neutral point of view. This will not affect referenced / cited elements. Thank you for making a constructive steer on this article on this point. (RobbieBMilo (talk) 15:38, 25 June 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Rjbristow If you haven't already been told, you only get one vote. Do not preface future comments with "keep" you've already done so above, several times. Second, you need to assume good faith and not accuse people of having ulterior motives just because you don't like what they say. The act of relisting a discussion is done to achieve consensus which is not based on the number of keeps or deletes, so your assessment that consensus had already been reached is blatantly untrue. Praxidicae (talk) 16:16, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I wasn't sure if my previous "Keep" would have carried across as the AfD was relisted. I take your point on the second point about good faith and have calrified / expressed my thoughts on my talk page with apologies. Thank you (RobbieBMilo (talk) 16:36, 25 June 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

Apology I have reviewed my comments and I wish to apologise to @Athaenara, as my earlier striken comments were mistaken - I have completely confused you with another user in another interaction and for that, I am sorry. I do not assert this to be true but have left them there for transparency (RobbieBMilo (talk) 17:31, 25 June 2019 (UTC)).[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO and because it fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:GNG. This is a self-published author of a series of mystery novels about genealogy and it has as serious WP:G11 and WP:CITEKILL issues. My primary objection, however, is that tit lacks sources. Most of the sources are genealogy newsletters an magazines, and it seems unlikely that they exercise significant editoral control over their writers. A proquest news search turned up only one hit on his name. It was in the The News-Gazette (Champaign–Urbana) (Mystery novel is genealogy case study, Griffis, Joan. News Gazette; Champaign, Ill. [Champaign, Ill]11 Nov 2015: B.7. ) and it looked OK at first. 3 paragraphs about the book that look OK until the final sentence "More information can be found on his website at nathandylangood... " shows that it is a press release. It turns out to be one of three press releases on geneaology that the paper ran as a group, the other two PROMOted the research services of "The American Battle Monuments Commission (ABMC).... click on the Learning and Resources link for access to other material related to veterans. Teachers will find links to many helpful classroom activities." and the "The Illinois State Genealogical Society (ISGS)... clerks can also provide copies of death certificates but they usually are certified copies and are more expensive than the amount charged by ISGS. For example, Cook County charges $17 as shown on their website at http://tinyurl......" It is a geneaology column: Queries, genealogical questions from researchers and genealogical materials readers would like to share will be printed in this column free. Joan Griffis may be reached via email at jbgriffis@aol or by sending a letter to Illinois Ancestors, c/o The News-Gazette, P.O. Box 677, Champaign, IL 61824-0677." Very few of the sources on the page are linked; not necessarily a problem, although the fact that these are such minor, hobbyist publications is. Sources on that page that are linked, such as New book on Hastings in wartime out this month are unsigned, making it unlikely that they were written by a staffer of the publication, and, yet again, the closing sentence makes it clear that teh article is PROMO for a book signing. Fails WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:10, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have looked at each of your WP refs and see that in most cases, I disagree that the article could be deemed beyond repair, or that all references and links can be dismissed out of hand by the flaws of one. In most issues of policy, repair/re-edit is stated as preferable to deletion. Also, there is often too much room for subjectivity in deciding on a matter, which is causing our difference of opinion, here, possibly; particularly when you consider that the policy itself allows for between 1 and 4 inline citations before it considers readability to be compromised, or the lack of listed examples of infringments matching up to the quality and content of this article (see below). Even then, it is not advocating deletion but improvement. I find statements that would, in my eyes, suggest that there is merit in the article's remaining and being improved: WPG11 - "Any article that describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion"; Promo - the piece is written in an objective and unbiased way (although I completely do see it wasn't when it first was AfD-ed) - any opinions offered are those of third party publications / citations, etc. and not that of the originating editor; CITEKILL - has nothing to say about this article in terms of deletion but instead says, "A good rule of thumb is to cite at least one inline citation for each section of text that may be challenged or is likely to be challenged, or for direct quotations. Two or three may be preferred for more controversial material or as a way of preventing linkrot for online sources, but more than three should generally be avoided; if four or more are needed, consider bundling (merging) the citations"; the GNG elements of coverage, source and independence elements give examples of poss article weakness and this article extends way beyond what appears to be problematic there - again, I understand that this may be subjective to an extent beyond their examples, but again, not a strong enough element for deletion but rather improvement. Elsewhere in this discussion, I have made other comments which have answered to similar issues to these raised here and continue to offer my view for record whatever the outcome (RobbieBMilo (talk) 11:12, 27 June 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:18, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Lederman[edit]

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

Local radio presenter who has apparently appeared on national radio. I don't think article this passes WP:NOTABILITY. There are sources listed, but the majority just give a name check. Not only that, but most of the article appears to be a CV WP:NOTRESUME so feel it needs to be toned down. Most of the edits are by the same Wiki user which points to possible self promotion? - Funky Snack (Talk) 09:59, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:18, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:18, 20 June 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. Nobody really argues to keep this and as has been pointed out, if at some point our inclusion requirements are met, the article can easily be undeleted, whereas a draft could linger for a long time, even if our criteria are never met. Randykitty (talk) 17:03, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lazar Stojsavljevic[edit]

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

PROD contested by article creator. Player fails WP:GNG (lack of significant coverage) and WP:NFOOTBALL (as he has not played in a fully-professional league. Being signed to a club in one is insufficient; many players never make the first team and fade in to non-league obscurity. Assuming this guy will play is WP:CRYSTAL. If he does then the article can be easily restored at that point. No point DRAFTifying as, as the PROD contester said, there is nothing else to add at this stage of his career. Giant Snowman 08:02, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:03, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft I was looking through the citations, I don't see enough for me to pass WP:GNG, feels way too WP:LOCAL, WP:ROUTINE. I think it's only fair to put the article in draft space for now, and see if the player makes his debut the first month or not, as it's a decent enough start on the article. Govvy (talk) 10:06, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Govvy: but there is no point DRAFTifying because, as the auricle creator/PROD remover admits, "this represents the most comprehensive documentation on this now-professional player's career to date". There is nothing to add/improve until he makes his debut, and then the article can just be restored. Giant Snowman 10:55, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete - The player currently fails WP:NFOOTBALL, having never played in a fully professional league or a senior international fixture, and I don't believe there's enough coverage beyond routine transfer info to meet WP:GNG. Kosack (talk) 11:45, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON WP:CRYSTAL coverage is wP:ROUTINE. ClubOranje^T 12:39, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draft The article is not worth deleting, as the season begins in two months and it would waste user time recreating an article that has been previously deleted, despite being sufficiently high quality and independently referenced. Lower league professional football on wikipedia needs more wide coverage and deleting this article will only dilute the coverage. However I recognise it may be lacking in detail relating to his early career and DRAFTing would allow other users to research this more closely, in time for when the player makes his debut.
Regarding the already sourced material however I feel the article meets WP:GNG because
1. There is significant coverage of the subject in referenced sources relating to his match performances for Woking and his recent signing with Newport, both of which were noteworthy events in local and national football and news sites, newspapers, and blogs.
2. The sources and information are reliable and are of a secondary nature. There is reliable and reputable sources discussing the subject in the aforementioned news sites and blogs and do not rely too heavily on information sourced from the subject or his associations.
3. There are sufficient quality independent sources discussing the subject, as above, in The Non League Football Paper, London News Online, Pitchero, getsurrey, and the South Wales Argus. These sources cover regions of large populations and readership figures are large, meaning that the information is of importance and relevance to a large number of wikipedia visitors interested in sports, Newport County AFC, South Wales culture, and the UK football industry more widely.
Llemiles (talk) 21:25, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draft He fails WP:NFOOTY but could be notable very soon. There's an argument for WP:GNG here if you look at sources not in the source-bombed article (remove all the tweets!), but National League players don't get the benefit of the doubt. SportingFlyer T·C 04:04, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if this article is DRAFTed (and again, there is no point and the creator admits there is nothing to add/improve on until he makes his debut) then I ask it's please merged with my earlier sandbox at User:GiantSnowman/Lazar Stojsavljevic. GiantSnowman 07:43, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @GiantSnowman: No need for that, surely? If there's anything in your sandbox stub that isn't in this article already, wouldn't it be simpler if you just added it to the draft by normal editing, if it is drafted? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:43, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - History merge is standard for a case like this where there is no parallel history. What would you do if I had created my draft at Draft:Lazar Stojsavljevic? GiantSnowman 09:09, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - History merge certainly isn't standard practice. If the creator of this article had copied your sandbox, then that would need a histmerge to preserve the attribution. But otherwise, if I have a sandbox draft and someone else creates an article in mainspace, I look at my content, and if there's nothing worth adding to the new article I blank my sandbox draft. If there is something worth adding I add it, by normal editing. I'm guessing that's what most editors do. As to a draft already in draftspace when a mainspace article was created and then draftified, I'm guessing they would need merging. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:57, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFOOTY failure. I will happily restore on request if/when he passes it. Number 5 7 09:24, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draft The article is reasonable as a start but is in need of expansion upon the player making his start, so I would recommend more additions to the player's earlier career and his season debut when it happens, as said above he is a first team signing Gwrandewch (talk) 16:24, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draft as we'll surely be recreating this when the Football League kicks off in a few weeks. No prejudice against deletion if somehow he doesn't stay with the squad. Nfitz (talk) 00:41, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTAL. I've lost count of the numbers of drafts I've had to delete for players who never made it... Giant Snowman 07:50, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't crystal. This is a 21-year old defender who has signed for a 4th level club just before the season starts, and who was playing at the 5th level two years ago. Newport isn't signing such players for academies and not to play. As such this is something that is almost certain to take place very shortly. Looking at (arguably GNG) other sources the manager is looking for him to be part of the squad. To be honest, I don't see the point of starting deletion discussions on articles like this, rather than applying WP:NORUSH and seeing what the line-up looks like. Nfitz (talk) 13:30, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is. I created drafts on Callum Gunner and Tom Clare after they signed for Bradford City and were destined to play for the first-team; both have now been released without ever playing (or, IIRC, even making the subs bench) and will inevitably play non-league. I created a draft on James Finnerty after he signed for Rochdale; he lasted six months (making one first team appearance, and not enough to meet NFOOTBALL) before returning to semi-pro in Ireland. DO you want more examples of the many, many youth players who never played for a club, even in the English 4th division? And no, GNG is not met, that is not an argument anybody else has put forward before (and for a good reason). Giant Snowman 13:44, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference between a 3rd-level team signing teenagers clearly destined for the academy with no previous professional experience, to Newport signing 21-year olds with two years already under their belt, just before the season starts. Draft-space is the appropriate place for an article like this with at least 3 active editors, rather than everyone having articles in their own sandbox. I didn't claim GNG was met. Nfitz (talk) 14:16, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The creator admits there is nothing to add, and nobody has edited/improved the article since it was nominated. What more is there to say until (if/when) he makes his big debut? Giant Snowman 15:13, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Giantsnowman. That's not accurate, as per my earlier comments, I do feel there is more to add to the article. I agree with Nfitz, this is a case of WP:NORUSH. Newport have a small squad and the player has repeatedly been referred to as a first team signing, the season for which is now less than 6 weeks away. Much of this policy is relatively new to me as a newer user, but I have noted the comments above for future articles. In this instance a lighter touch is more justified. Llemiles (talk) 17:03, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Except you said that "There is very little reliable documentation on the player's career on other websites, and as such this represents the most comprehensive documentation on this now-professional player's career to date" (my emphasis). Giant Snowman 09:48, 27 June 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. Randykitty (talk) 16:22, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amara (Stone trilogy)[edit]

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

Fictional world. Unsourced fancruft. See MOS:REALWORLD, WP:GNG, WP:V. Sandstein 05:26, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Merge with and redirect to Stone and Sky. This is a fantasy world in the novel of that name, and Wikipedia might be easier to follow if the contents of this article were merged with the article on the novel. The article on the novel has notes on the characters in the novel - these do not have separate articles in Wikipedia, so why should the article on the universe in which the novel is based? Vorbee (talk) 10:37, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose a merger because there is no sourced, out-of-universe content that could be merged. All existing content is worthless in terms of Wikipedia content. Sandstein 10:53, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the comment above. There is no point in merging unsourced fancruft anywhere. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:18, 27 June 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. RL0919 (talk) 05:49, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gokul Butail[edit]

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

Non notable strategist/politician. Being a Data Analyst for a political party is not notable in itself, and the IT advisor to the Chief Minister has more to do with his political lineage Jupitus Smart 03:08, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 03:08, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 03:08, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 03:08, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:27, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Firstly, being a data analyst for a political party is not an "inherently" notable political role that would guarantee him a Wikipedia article just for existing, but the sources here are nowhere near good enough to get him over WP:GNG: one is a primary source, two are glancing namechecks of his existence in articles whose core subject is something or someone else, and three are short employment announcement blurbs that are not substantive enough to be notability-clinchers if they're the best sources on offer. Secondly, this is not a significant improvement over the version that was deleted in 2016 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gokul Butail. Thirdly, the article was created by an WP:SPA, so there's a possibility of conflict of interest editing by himself, a friend or relative of his, or a public relations consultant he paid to put him in here — the creator of the 2016 version, while not the same username as this one, definitely had a COI, as they've retained the complete deleted original version as their own userpage (which should probably also be deleted, as userspace is not a free webhost for maintaining unmainspaceable articles about yourself either). Bearcat (talk) 14:51, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This was already deleted once, and appears to be conflict of interest. The spamming of a copy of this into user space is not in itself a reason to delete but is an indication of further bad faith. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:17, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete I second the above sentences. Masum Reza^📞 19:06, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - since already deleted once, I think there's a possibility of conflict of interest- --MA Javadi (talk) 19:17, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sourcing is significantly lacking and fails to establish how this BLP passes the WP:GNG. Chetsford (talk) 08:15, 26 June 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. Randykitty (talk) 16:52, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sanitary garden[edit]

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

This article is sourced mostly to the organisation’s own website. The references in mainstream media are sparse and overall this looks like a site of local interest rather than a place that meets our notability guidelines. Mccapra (talk) 04:51, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 04:51, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 04:51, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 04:51, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 04:51, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in the version I worked on, there were three independent sources and no references (other than an external link) from the organization's site. Perhaps the nom meant to say the text was sourced form the organization's site? The refs are decent and establish GNG. I added one more, and applied TNT to the unsourced portions of the article.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:53, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment yes indeed I meant that most of the article’s text is only sourced from the organisation’s own website. The refs in the article show that the place exists and has some local notability but they don’t support most of what was included in it. I agree your edits improve it considerably. Mccapra (talk) 06:44, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:52, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Unique museums should be included in an encyclopedia. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 06:21, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it isn’t a museum. Mccapra (talk) 08:38, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets GNG through significant coverage in national newspapers Times of India [19] and The Tribune (Chandigarh) [20]. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:16, 27 June 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 American Idol (Season 5). Any content worth merging is available from the article history. Randykitty (talk) 15:22, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rhonetta Johnson[edit]

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

Non notable singer. Got a little interest as a very minor part of Idol but music wise has made no further impact. Got some run ins with the law but nothing to build a BLP on. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:58, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:33, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:33, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:33, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:33, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:34, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:34, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — One or two of the sources are questionable but the other reliable sources covers the subject in-depth. Also, notability is not temporary. The subject was viewed as notable to be covered by RS. The rationale for delete is unsatisfactory. I think the nom meant SUSTAINED which is a different policy. At the very least, the subject passes BASIC.Tamsier (talk) 09:01, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tamsier, there is a long running precendent that Idol etc also rans are not given there own page. There's not a single RS here that is not purely about her in the context of Idol. Basicly a BLP1E thing. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:12, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:50, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to American Idol (Season 5), as per the decision of the previous AfD. Bondegezou (talk) 15:50, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as above, not qualifying for a stand-alone article and the tone is close to overwhelmingly negative for a blp, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 16:59, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Randykitty (talk) 15:19, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

VIMCAS[edit]

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

I’ve added the two refs I can find to this but not sure if it meets the notability bar (tagged since 2015). May be a candidate for merge but I’m not sure to what. Mccapra (talk) 07:42, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 07:42, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 07:42, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 07:42, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 07:42, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears a significant enough system with the coverage in Lewis and a number of academic papers that cover it to some extent. --Michig (talk) 09:04, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:47, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:49, 20 June 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 Justin D. Fox. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:47, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Impossible five[edit]

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

No evidence that this term has any wider cuurency that the cite, a book which seems to be the target of the hits I get when I googled the term. These are not strong enough to establish notability for the book, btw; neither is there an article on the author. TheLongTone (talk) 13:48, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:27, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Justin D. Fox which is the author's wikipedia article. What coverage there is of this term seems to be related to the book and I cannot find the kind of sourcing for the book which would establish notability. But we have an author to redirect to as an alternative to deletion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:52, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:48, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 04:02, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I agree the Justin D. Fox article is the best place for this material.TH1980 (talk) 10:59, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Justin D. Fox - The information is interesting, if vague. Yet unless the term catches on it should be in the article of the terms coiner, which could use more content. --Nessie (talk) 15:18, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I believe the best alternative would be Justin D. Fox for this material. --MA Javadi (talk) 18:11, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, as others. Bondegezou (talk) 15:51, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Justin D. Fox per all of the above. 111.68.115.165 (talk) 07:26, 27 June 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. Randykitty (talk) 15:10, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Solomon B Taiwo[edit]

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

This appears to be a paid piece of a questionably notable musician/actor. I can't find anything in the way of independent coverag of this Taiwo, the awards he's won don't appear to be notable and his music hasn't charted nor has his acting career met WP:NACTOR.

If this is deleted, Solomon B Taiwo filmography should be as well, so I'm basically bundling this. Praxidicae (talk) 15:13, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:22, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:22, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:22, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:22, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:25, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Hi Solomon B Taiwo is a notable actor/personality. This is article has not been created for money and also has not broken any rules. His notable for the Channel 5 proggram Stripdate. --Great013 (talk) 07:26, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:47, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both as WP:TOOSOON as although he has a few prominent roles they are not in notable productions meaning they have not been reviewed/featured in multiple reliable sources so WP:NACTOR is not passed and appearing in a few music videos is not meeting a criteria of WP:NMUSIC. Also, if he is notable for Stripdate why isn't it mentioned in the article or eben the filmography? thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 21:24, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are few reliable sources on google which note him being notable under the name of Solomon Taiwo Justified.i Do think this article can be improved with more references. His definitely a notable public figure. Also, there are articles covering his appearance in stripdate. He has also been featured on The Voice Magazine and other reliable sources. Famous birthday as credible TV Actor. If you Type in Solomon/Stripdate All information and Articles will pop up. Also, if you type in Solomon Taiwo Justified. you will get a clearer Picture of other sources Thanks Great013 (talk) 23:56, 22 June 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. Mccapra has pointed to various sources which seemingly establish notability. Their comment has not been challenged. (non-admin closure) MrClog (talk) 15:01, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GO-ESSP[edit]

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

No notability found. All references are broken and there is no notable trace. AmericanAir88^(talk) 20:46, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep available sources include this, this, this and this. Mccapra (talk) 21:37, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 23:49, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 23:49, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 23:49, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:13, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:47, 20 June 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. Randykitty (talk) 15:01, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

42Gears[edit]

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

Promotional article about a company that fails WP:CORP and WP:SIGCOV. Note that it was declined in AFC but the author still ignored review and moved to main-space anyway.

At this point it's just passing mentions and regular press release piece. Lapablo (talk) 18:13, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lapablo (talk) 18:13, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Lapablo (talk) 18:13, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lapablo (talk) 18:13, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am the author, but I have not ignored the review to move the article to main-space,i have edited the article to include more notable references, can someone please tell me what other notable references can be added? As I would like to create the entry for all Unified endpoint management tools which is an upcoming technology in the mobile device management category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manisha13 (talk • contribs) 06:11, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:19, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:46, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I read over all the sources, and none of these provide any substantial detail about the company - they're inclusions in lists of similar companies or announcements of what looks like not very notable awards. One is a reposted press release. - MrOllie (talk) 19:49, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete The company was one of the 14 companies in Gartner Magic Quadrant among big ones including Microsoft,IBM,Citrix,VMWare etc. Magic Quadrant is one of the most notable recognition in the enterprise software industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Userosp (talk • contribs) 05:46, 21 June 2019 (UTC) — Userosp (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Weak Keep I can't find very many reliable sources that have significant coverage of 42Gears, but one is the Gartner UEM MQ. The public-facing report doesn't have any info on 42Gears, but the full report does. Gartner's full reports are generally behind paywalls as their business model is to sell their research, but companies featured in the report tend to buy the reprint rights. I did manage to find a freely available reprint on wordpress here, which I validated to be the same report as on gartner.com by registering for the official reprint on Microsoft's website. I also found a second potentially reliable source on the Silicon Review; I found nothing about this website on WP:RSN, and it is used as a reference on about 16 or so articles. This article claims to have been written by the review staff and not lifted from a press release. Unfortunately everything else I found was mainly press releases or passing mentions. CThomas³ (talk) 00:20, 22 June 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 as a fork of the List of Jews in sports, which would otherwise be excessively long. Renaming is left to editorial discretion and/or the requested moves process as needed. RL0919 (talk) 05:48, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jewish sports commissioners, managers and coaches, officials, owners, promoters, and sportscasters[edit]

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

WP:IINFO and WP:NOTDIR #6. As the name should indicate, this is a weird mixture of Jews (and often non-Jews) who have some sort of relationship with sports. I'm always hoping these indiscriminate lists of things will be deleted. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:42, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:42, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:42, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:42, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:42, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:42, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:42, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:42, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:42, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:42, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Unless I'm reading the history wrong, the nominator of this AfD is also the creator of the article. Can I ask what your original intention/purpose was in creating this page?Gilded Snail (talk) 16:29, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The reason is at Talk:List of Jews in sports/Archive 1#Splitting time. The source list became so huge it took forever to load and/or edit, so I volunteered to split off parts of it that weren't really part of the main topic. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:20, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR #6. This is a completely non notable cross-categorisation. We seldom categorise by religious beliefs. Ajf773 (talk) 19:55, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ajf773, You don't have to be religious to be Jewish Shrike (talk) 20:50, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, but WP:NOTDIR #6 still applies. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:57, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of Jews in sports if possible, otherwise Keep as a valid fork. The topic of Jews in sports has been covered in numerous reliable sources and the information should be somewhere. Ideally we'd only have one list article article, but if it's too big, this fork is potentially valid. Smartyllama (talk) 12:59, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:45, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per WP:NOTDIR #6.--Goldsztajn (talk) 22:52, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Smartyllama. Would be more suitable if the merged list was reliably sourced. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 12:39, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Switch to keep and rename due to new evidence. Still insisting on the "reliably sourced" part. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 17:41, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename - I agree with Smartyllama's reasoning and do not agree with the categorization of this list as a directory. Merge would be ideal, but since the target list is too large this should be kept. But the name is unwieldy and should be changed to something like "List of Jews in sports (non-players)." Rlendog (talk) 21:02, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Rlendog and Smartyllama. This is a valid spinout from a long list. As Smartyllama states above, and as prior discussions (notably Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jews in sports (3rd nomination) have substantiated, the subject is widely covered in reliable sources, and the substance of that coverage clearly extends to non-playing participants. A few examples of scholarly and popular coverage include:

Jews and the Sporting Life: Studies in Contemporary Jewry XXIII (Oxford U.P.), notably the chapter (beginning on p.87) entitled "From Participant to Owner: The Role of Jews in Contemporary American Sports";
"Why Are So Many Pro Basketball Owners Jewish (like Donald Sterling)?" (The Forward);
"Who’s the Greatest Jewish Athlete? An interview with Franklin Foer about Jewish jocks, and how they changed sports history" (Slate)("Our interest was in documenting the history of sports. The locker room, press box, and sideline are often the most interesting (and influential) places in the arena. Why would we exclude them?")

As Rlendog says, the current title of this sublist is unnecessarily byzantine and could be cut to something more natural like "List of Jews in sports (non-players)" or perhaps "List of Jews in sports (sportscasters and executives)".--Arxiloxos (talk) 21:43, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Rename can see validity in points from Arxiloxos et al., would recommend "List of Jews in sports (sportscasters and executives)".--Goldsztajn (talk) 16:01, 26 June 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. Randykitty (talk) 14:57, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Free Spirit World Tour[edit]

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

As nothing more than a list of tour dates, this fails WP:NTOUR --wooden superman 09:52, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:13, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:13, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:13, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:14, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:14, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:14, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:43, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Woodensuperman, you are stating that the article is nothing more than a list of tour dates, which is true, as it has not much other content, but this could be improved. I checked with a quick Google search and the subject is covered in many sources independent of the subject. Instead of being an article for deletion, this one just needs major improvement. WikiSmartLife (talk) 16:09, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:44, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WikiSmartLife. 111.68.115.165 (talk) 07:29, 27 June 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) 08:46, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I Wake[edit]

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

No reliable secondary sources on notability. Current references consist only of online storefront reviews and other non-reliable reviews. No awards or other indication of notability or importance. Sasquatch t|c 19:42, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Sasquatch t|c 19:42, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added extra reviews to the 'reception' section. This book meets the Wikipedia:Notability (books) criterion 'The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews.' Alarichall (talk) 08:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:26, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:NBOOK (two or more independent reviews), article reflects this with reviews (now) listed. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:56, 25 June 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) 08:46, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Scott (author)[edit]

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

Could also maybe redirect to Living Dead Girl (novel).

Only reliable secondary source simply mentions that the author is writing for an imprint. No other indications of notability other than writing one book, Living Dead Girl (novel), which appears to be notable as a winner of several young adult book awards. Fails to meet WP:AUTHOR in my eyes.

Also, see related AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/As I Wake. Sasquatch t|c 19:47, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Sasquatch t|c 19:47, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:59, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The notability criteria for creative professionals include 'The person has created ... a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews'. I've added reviews of her works and see that most of them have had multiple reviews in the specialist press. So Scott seems to meet this criterion quite readily. Alarichall (talk) 08:24, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:25, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article could be expanded, yes, but Elizabeth Scott has had quite a few books published, and she has enough third-party sources to establish notability.TH1980 (talk) 05:01, 20 June 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) 08:46, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gigi Gonaway[edit]

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

Essentially no significant coverage in independent sources is available, does not meet WP:GNG. Provided sources are mere-mentions, interviews, and database listings. Searching online led me to more of the same. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:16, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:16, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:16, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:16, 13 June 2019 (UTC)~~23:54, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:52, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:52, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:52, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Has done work with some notable artists and has been covered by some sources. Foxnpichu (talk) 09:18, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:12, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia notability criteria struggle a bit with sidemen. He's been performing at a significant level in Mariah Carey's band. If the band had a name, he'd be notable. Bondegezou (talk) 16:20, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

if the band had a name we'd redirect to that band per the italic text at the bottom of WP:MUSICBIO _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:08, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Only if the individual has not done anything else notable. Bondegezou (talk) 06:49, 24 June 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 Shaheen Air. postdlf (talk) 22:22, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Shaheen Air destinations[edit]

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

Defunct airline. So are its destinations. Störm (talk) 18:45, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 06:52, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 06:52, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 06:52, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 06:52, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 06:52, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep just because the airline no longer exists doesnt stop it and its destinations being noteworthy for an encyclopedia. MilborneOne (talk) 15:31, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Shaheen Air is short enough as it is. Reywas92^Talk 17:36, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment – For whatever reason, this discussion was listed on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 June 12 page (diff), despite being created on 15 June 2019 (link). This relisting has placed the discussion on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 June 20 page (diff), which is only five days, but it corrects the log placement error. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:57, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:52, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Shaheen Air is the best option.TH1980 (talk) 05:03, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Shaheen Air. The length of both pages makes them suitable for a merge. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:05, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Shaheen Air just because the airline no longer exists and suitable for a merge. --MA Javadi (talk) 20:26, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttps://dangerouscase.org/

[2] ttps://dangerouscase.org/

[3] ttps://www.mdedge.com/psychiatry/article/159384/personality-disorders/goldwater-rule-should-be-modified-debate-audience

[4] Horsley, Carter (May 3, 2016). "Skyline Wars: New Jersey's Waterfront Transforms With a Tall Tower Boom". Retrieved June 24, 2019.

[5] Cotter, Robert; Wenger, Jeff (2015). "Jersey City on the Rise". {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help) quoted in Horsley, supra,

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]