Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 November 27

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 26 November	28 November >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect to Olympians (Marvel Comics)#Known members where the character is already covered. If necessary, more material can be merged from the page history. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:35, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Artemis (Marvel Comics)[edit]

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 23:47, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 23:47, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 23:47, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or Merge to Olympians (Marvel Comics). BOZ (talk) 23:55, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Olympians (Marvel Comics) where the character is already discussed. I do not see enough coverage to support stand-alone notability, but this could be a valid search term and since a redirect target does exist already with information on the character, I think that would be preferable over deletion. Aoba47 (talk) 02:21, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (I am fine with soft delete through redirect). Fictional character. No evidence of stand-alone notability. Not a shred of analysis. Pure WP:PLOT and list of appearances in media. Fails WP:PLOT, WP:GNG, WP:NFICTION. BEFORE shows nothing that's not in passing or a plot summary. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:23, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Olympians (Marvel Comics), where the character is mentioned. WP:GNG is not met for a standalone article.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:09, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non notable fictional character, fails WP:GNG. Or can also be redirected to to Olympians (Marvel Comics) - Jay (talk) 05:53, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or Merge to Olympians (Marvel Comics). Lightburst (talk) 21:56, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pure PLOT. Fails GNG/NFICTION. Not opposed to redirect.Kacper IV (talk) 11:46, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. BD2412 T 04:03, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Philipp Offenthaler[edit]

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

I am fully aware that someone who plays in the 'Austrian second division football' is presumed notable under WP:NFOOTY, however, after searching for any sources I could add to the article, I'm not seeing any sources that can demonstrate notability in this case and am contesting the presumption of notability. The article was added with only links to stats pages at Soccarway and WorldFootball.net (not significant coverage), without any attempt to demonstrate the that the subject meets the general notability guideline (A practice all too common with low-level sportspeople).

I can't find any sources that have significant coverage of him at all.

The only mentions of him in the news that I can find are these: [1], [2], [3]. they don't even approach that is necessary to satisfy the GNG (one line mentions only). The only other sources online are a multitude of stats pages on aggregation sites, which also don't represent significant coverage. If anyone can actually find sources that demonstrate notability, I'm happy to withdraw this nomination. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 17:51, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 17:51, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:43, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL, is a young player with an ongoing career. This is not the same as a player with one appearance twenty years ago. The presumption that GNG is met applies. Giant Snowman 11:40, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GiantSnowman, Are you trying to imply that NFOOTY gives a presumption of future notability? That is a WP:CRYSTAL argument and you know it. GNG is not met, I’ve searched, so there is no longer any such presumption. Have you found anything? — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 19:50, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is a presumption of current notability. Not being able to find a glut of online sources in a foreign language is not the sole indicator. Giant Snowman 20:01, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GiantSnowman, Then why did you point out "ongoing career". I'm not talking about requiring a 'glut'; there aren't any available. The whole point of the GNG is because we need sources with significant coverage to be able to say any more than "this guy exists". If there aren't any, he doesn't pass the GNG and we can't expand the article. Also, I would argue that your position would make a lot more sense presuming notability for a player from twenty years ago, as it would be more plausible that the sources would not be online. This guy is contemporary, in the internet age, where pretty much all news/coverage that would satisfy the GNG is posted online in some form or another (even regional newspaper coverage). As for foreign language; Google search works just as well in German as it does in English, so the foreign language argument doesn't hold much water with me (this might be different if he was Chinese or something). The sources just are not there, and there is no reason to presume that offline sources exist that are not available online for a contemporary sports figure of the internet age. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 22:49, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please, continue to be aggressive, that will certainly help me change my mind. Giant Snowman 09:35, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GiantSnowman, have you found any sources to support notability? As I said in the nomination, I'm happy to withdraw if anyone can find anything that can demonstrate that he meets the GNG. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 17:20, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think notability is established. Celestina007 (talk) 15:45, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is common, check the archive for examples, to keep footballers with ongoing careers when NFOOTY is satisfied; especially ongoing NFOOTY, subject played again just a few hours ago (per Soccerway). R96Skinner (talk) 00:48, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the NSPORTS SNG says that subjects are 'presumed' to be notable. In other words, we presume, without having to do a detailed search, that the subject meets the GNG based on the fact that subjects at that level generally do meet the GNG. Presume means "suppose that something is the case on the basis of probability". It's important to note that the SNG does not create notability, it is just an indication of who generally meets the general notability guideline (without having to go through the complicated business of searching and evaluating sources). However, if you actually do a thorough search and find nothing, then you know that the presumption turned out to be wrong. This might be because the subject simply didn't do much of note in their career, when others of the same level generally do. Or because the Wikiproject that decides what levels of FOOTY are presumed notable has been too generous. I'm not sure which of these is the case, but from my searches, available sources do not seem to suggest notability under Wikipedia's guidelines for this subject. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 10:16, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – fails GNG; I'm only finding brief mentions in game reports. The article has no secondary sources (see WP:USEPRIMARY), and we need secondary sources to base an article off of per WP:V. Right now, we just have stats, and we are WP:NOTSTATS. I've never been a fan of the "young and playing" rule – that local consensus shouldn't trump the global consensus of core policies like V and NOT, and in any event, consensus can change. – Levivich 05:17, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Or draftify – Per the source analysis below, it looks like there is one marginally-GNG source, and the player is still playing in a fully-professional league, and I think in such situations draftification makes sense in case a second GNG source may be written in the next six months. – Levivich 18:28, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As others have explained, a clear pass of WP:NFOOTY. The question isn't are there sources in the article, the question is do sources exist. Smartyllama (talk) 19:52, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Smartyllama, I would never claim that notability depends on whether the sources are in the article. You are 100% correct; question is "do sources exist". But based on the searches that I have done and that Levivich has done, we can't find any secondary source that can be used to support the article (aside from brief mentions in game reports, which don't support notability). Your comment implies that you do believe such sources exist. Have you found any that you can point me in the direction of? As I said above, I'm happy to withdraw the nomination if a couple good sources can be found. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 20:44, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The keep votes aren't really addressing the question of GNG sufficiently to close as keep at the moment.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 23:46, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am looking through the sources and I see a brief mention of him winning Austrian Amateur player of the year here and the fact that he only 15km outside of his current club that he plays for in this reference. The rest of them at the moment I see only brief mentions of him in his match reports but isn't that what most pages on Wikipedia are like with football players. There is also the fact that he has played for 1274 minutes in an eligible WP:FPL league which would swing me over to a Keep for now. HawkAussie (talk) 03:09, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1274 minutes is less than one season's worth of football, isn't it? In a second-tier league? I'm not at all surprised that there is no in-depth coverage of this player. Why would there be? Readers can look up his stats at Soccerway or Worldfootball.net... what is the point of copying those stats to Wikipedia? I don't get it. – Levivich 06:30, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep easily passes WP:NFOOTY. While there is some consensus that one or two appearances may be the exception to the presumption of notability, there hasn't been consensus to toss existing notability standards out the window in this manner. Nominators should improve the article, not ignore consensus. Nfitz (talk) 18:49, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nfitz, I tried to improve the article. That is generally my first action with these Stats-only player pages; find a couple sources and then add them. The issue here is that no sources can be found that can be used to meet the GNG. (And NO, NFOOTY does not let us ignore the GNG or WP:V). NFOOTY is only a rule of thumb for what generally meets the GNG (that's why it says presumed notable, not *is* notable); NFOOTY does not determine what is notable and what isn't. I hate to beat a dead horse, but honestly, it is 100% against policy to say that something that can't be demonstrated to meet the GNG is notable because of NFOOTY, and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS can't override policy either, so just voting in numbers is not a solution either. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 19:21, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Improve the article then - the German version is far more extensive. The whole point of notability guidelines, is we shouldn't having to be wasting our time with such nominations, when there's been little attempt to improve the article. Nfitz (talk) 19:43, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nfitz, The "far more extensive" German stub is full of either unsourced info or is just "he moved from X division to Y division on Z date" because that's all that can be verified via stats pages. No sources are available (that I have seen) that would enable me to meaningfully expand the article with encyclopedic content, that's why I brought it to AfD. Once again, I am happy to withdraw if 2 or more sources of decent quality can be found. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 01:33, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't say you tried to improve the article then - when there's easy ways to do so, and you didn't do it. Nfitz (talk) 03:50, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Improve it with what sources? – Levivich 04:07, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The ones I mentioned above. They would improve the article, and WP:ATH has been met, and as WP:DINC, any source would help improve the article. Nfitz (talk) 18:37, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I'm not seeing where you mentioned any sources above? You only mentioned German Wikipedia, which we can't use as a source, and their article is sourced to statistics websites (like transfermarkt) and a fan blog (fansports.com), which also can't be used to improve the article. So, what sources do we use to improve the article? – Levivich 21:11, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not only can those sources be used to improve the article (there's other stats sites that confirm the transfermarkt information), there's more prose there as well. Nothing precludes article improvement. Claiming that one tried to improve the article, when one didn't, is not right. Nfitz (talk) 00:10, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You keep saying "the sources", "those sources", etc., what sources are you talking about??? Are you saying we should cite our article to the German Wikipedia article? Or to Transfermarket? Or Fansports.com? Or if not those, then to what are we citing? – Levivich 00:48, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What I said was pretty clear. I think your time would be better trying to improve the article, rather than forever arguing with people who disagree with you. Nfitz (talk) 19:40, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to improve this article. What sources shall I use? – Levivich 19:54, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, others have done this. Nfitz (talk) 00:17, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nfitz, With regards to insinuations that I am lying about trying to improve the article; let me be clear. Many sportspeople pages are created with only links to stats pages and little to no other info. This is generally in violation of WP:NOTSTATS, but it is fine so long as better sources exist that can be used to expand the article later on. When I said that I always try to improve these articles, what I mean is that my first action is always to search for additional sources, and at the very least add a couple of them to the article (perhaps with some additional info about the subject that would be useful/interesting to the reader). I tried that with this article, but found zero sources of sufficient quality to add anything meaningful to the article. What you are talking about (if I am reading correctly) is expanding the article to merely include more statistics info sourced to stats pages. Expansion is not necessarily improvement, especially if that expansion is merely more meaningless statistics. So no, I'm not going to expand it with more statistical info, especially when the result would still be an article which fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines that I would still be obligated to bring to AfD. Do we know anything about this guy at all aside from some numbers about what games he has played and what teams he has played for? Due to the plethora of stats paged fueled by fantasy football leagues, those sorts of statistics can be looked up for virtually any amateur player as well (from levels well below the threshold for notability). Links to stats pages without any significant coverage about the person do not support notability. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 19:31, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't insinuated you were lying. I insinuated that you had significantly exaggerated that you tried to improve the article. I see no edits that attempted to improve the article. When the article was 38 minutes old, you tagged it for issues. One minute later you fixed a typo. And then you waited 12 minutes before sending it to AFD, despite knowing the subject easily meeting WP:NATH. I don't see that this is trying to improvie the article. Please don't claim you've made edits, that you haven't made. Perhaps you could apologize for this, by now trying to improve the article! Nfitz (talk) 19:40, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nfitz, I have explained what I meant. In any case, even if a subject meets the criteria for WP:NFOOTY, if sources cannot be found for the subject to meet the WP:General notability guideline, then the presumption of notability made by NFOOTY does not apply. NFOOTY does not create notability, it is merely a general rule of thumb to indicate at what sporting level athletes will often meet the GNG. However, they still have to meet the GNG to be considered notable. This seems to be a concept that keep !voters saying "passes WP:NFOOTY" do not understand (despite the fact that I explained it in the nomination and several times in this AfD). If keep !voters are going to ignore how our notability guidelines work and !vote 'keep' anyway, they I would suggest that the closer discount such !votes in the close; a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS or simple majority of !voters cannot override policy and guidelines. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 00:49, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just a rule of thumb, it's a guideline. A guideline to create a black line, so that we don't have people wasting our time with endless debates about which point younger players are notable. If cases where there's one fully professional cap of a few minutes, and no coverage, then that's an exception that's worth talking. But a young player, who made their first fully professional cap only 16 months ago, and has since had 17 caps, with sources that support this, is well past where the black line has been set. By pushing a more discerning standard here, rather than at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports), you just serve to create confusion, and potentially waste the time that this black line is meant to save. Nfitz (talk) 03:44, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nfitz, I've explained this several times before on this page. Please look up the definition of 'presumed'. NFOOTY does not say that players that pass it's arbitrary thresholds ARE notable, it says that they are "presumed notable". Presumed means "suppose that something is the case on the basis of probability". They still have to pass the GNG; NFOOTY just tells us what is likely to pass the GNG. This guy does not pass the GNG. I admit that the sports notability guidelines are confusing but the word 'presumed' was chosen intentionally. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 11:06, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you really suggesting that we must now start carefully examining hundreds of players a year (a month?) who achieve full professional status, and are at the beginning of their career? There's no lack of sources to confirm what this player does, from reliable sources, and they are playing almost every week. GNG doesn't trump common sense - the amount of extra work for the project from your interpretation of how to deal with this, could be immense, and it is entirely unnecessary based on a poor intepretation of non-existent rules. It's easy enough to improve the article - if you'd actually done what you claimed to have done in the beginning. Nfitz (talk) 14:21, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nfitz, When creating articles, authors should provide sources showing that the subject is notable. If they don't, they should at least verify that such sources exist. If they can't, perhaps they shouldn't be so hasty in creating an article on a player who has just started their career and may or may not end up getting significant coverage in reliable sources? Doing otherwise is contrary to WP:V and WP:RS. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 00:31, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Insertcleverphrasehere I think you are confusing WP:V,WP:RS, and GNG. V requires that the information in the article is verifiable - and it surely is. RS requires that reliable sources be used, and surely they have been. Your issue seems to be that you want longer, more detailed articles, to meet GNG (though I think we are pretty close to that already). But that doesn't mean there are any WP:V orWP:RS issues. Nfitz (talk) 03:55, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

... and WP:BLP and WP:NOR and the first pillar. – Levivich 00:51, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's no original research here - and you know it. And I don't see any BLP violations either. I don't know if you are just throwing stuff out there, without thinking about it, or if you really don't understand these policies - but either way, you can't argue it this way. Nfitz (talk) 03:55, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A BLP that is based on primary sources violates the WP:BLPPRIMARY part of WP:BLP, and the WP:PSTS and WP:SYNTH parts of WP:NOR. – Levivich 04:22, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any primary sources in either the English-language or German-language versions. There's certainly nothing in the article that's not confirmed by secondary sources. I don't see how this is an issue. What words in the article do you consider original research or a BLP violation? Nfitz (talk) 06:06, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't see primary sources in the article, you need to reread WP:PRIMARY and WP:USEPRIMARY and look again, particularly at the statistics websites and the reports of contemporaneous events, like matches and transfers and such. Nowhere did I say there are words in the article that I consider BLP or OR violations–I guess you should re-read my comments above, too, if that's what you took away from them. I'm done here, Fitz. – Levivich 18:37, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source analysis – going off of this version of the article:
1. [4] stats only
2. [5] stats only
3. [6] one-sentence mention
4. [7] team's website
5. [8] Local paper, 6-sentence routine report that he won an "amateur player of the season" award
6. [9] About 275 words in the same local paper about the player, a routine transfer ("new-guy-on-the-team") report, but arguably SIGCOV.
7. [10] Same local paper, 6-sentence routine coverage
8. [11] Same local paper, 8-sentence routine transfer report
9. [12] One-sentence mention that he signed a contract. – Levivich 18:28, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a lot more substantial than User:Insertcleverphrasehere indicated in the nomination, where they said that there was "one line mentions only". I also note you ignore other sources that are easy to find and discussed in this AFD, such as those that appear in the German-language version - de:Philipp Offenthaler. Nfitz (talk) 20:06, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, let's go through the five sources in the German version: stats, stats, stats, FanReport.com (discussed below), FanReport.com extremely brief mention. And the three sources in the nom: stats, stats, listed in a list of players. And the two sources in Hawk's !vote are #3 and #9 on my list above. I think I have now literally linked to every single source in the article, on this AfD page, and in the German article. Did I miss any? – Levivich 20:16, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Seems like a lot of WP:Wikilawyering to me - and I note that every time I see you get into this going through the sources in detail supporting a delete, it ends up a keep example 1, example 2, example 3, example 4! If there are dozens of borderline sources on a very young player who is getting a lot of fully-professional starts, then we are very far past the black line! Nfitz (talk) 20:28, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer about DRV – Closers may want to be aware of this potentially related DRV, filed today. – Levivich 18:31, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point made by User:Levivich. A review of that DRV makes it clear that, especially as noted by User:Dream Focus, "WP:NOTABILITY clearly states an article is notable if it passes the GNG or one of the subject specific guidelines. It has never had to do both". As this AFD is a much larger pass of NFOOTBALL (over 17 appearances for a 22-year old who is starting regularly, versus 3 appearances about 70 years ago) and has by far better references and sourcing, then, there should be no doubt that the delete votes here should have no weight! Nfitz (talk) 01:08, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In only a few minutes of Googling, I found several, sources discussing the player in great detail. The second discusses the same award as one of the sources, but Sky Sports is a much more significant source than some local website and goes into more detail too I think, though admittedly I'm relying on the translation. I'd imagine if I had hours to look through Austrian media and newspapers I could find even more. I would argue the Sky source definitely satisfies GNG, and while I'm not sure on the reliability of the first source, if it is reliable, it too satisfies GNG. It has "Fan" in the name but not everything with "Fan" in the name is a blog - see FanGraphs - and maybe "Fan" means something else in German than it does in English, I really don't know. I'd also argue that several of the local sources satisfy GNG, including the one about the award. And I'm not even sure how local that website is. Smartyllama (talk) 19:35, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- FanReport seems to be an WP:SPS, as suggested by the author being the administrator of the website. Where on this SkySports page do you see significant coverage of Offenthaler? All I see is a video clip of the award ceremony where he was presented with the amateur award. Is there a different Sky Sports page you meant to link to, or am I missing something on the page? – Levivich 19:45, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't speak German and Google Translate doesn't work on videos, but it appears to be about him winning the award. It includes a clip of him receiving it, but that doesn't appear to be the entirety of it. Someone who speaks German will have to say for sure, though. Smartyllama (talk) 19:51, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - And clicking on a handful of random articles on FanReport, they have at least two other authors, one of whom is listed as a "Redaktuer" (editor, according to Google Translate) so I don't think it's an SPS. Maybe an Austrian equivalent of SB Nation (which has had mixed opinions on whether it and its associated sites satisfy GNG), I'm not sure. Smartyllama (talk) 19:55, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - You don't need to speak German to see that the Sky Sports video is a two-minute clip of an awards ceremony. First they announce who the winner is, then he comes up from the audience to receive the award, and the hosts ask him some questions. You can't seriously be suggesting that this is SIGCOV, or even a reliable source?As for FanSports, I don't see any information about editorial control or oversight on that website. On this page, the owners of the website disclaim any responsibility for the content. That some of their authors are labeled "editor" or "administrator" suggests to me it's like a forum. Appears to be user-generated or SPS, but I don't see anything on there suggesting it's an RS. – Levivich 20:02, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's a standard legal disclaimer that you see on just about every website, even the Washington Post. And Sky Sports is one of the best-known sports media sources in the world, I'm shocked you don't consider it an RS. Smartyllama (talk) 00:58, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Nein, I don't think it is a "standard" legal disclaimer, at least not for publications. Another example is that it refers to itself as a "channel" and "platform" but not as a creator of content: "LAOLA1 versteht sich als Info-Channel für sport-relevante Informationen, sowie als Plattform für den Informationsaustausch zwischen sportlich interessierten Internet-Usern" (LAOLA1 sees itself as an information channel for sport-relevant information, as well as a platform for the exchange of information between sport-interested Internet users.). I don't see anything like that in WaPo's TOS that you linked to, or in Bild's TOS, either (to take one German example). As for the video of the awards ceremony... I'm incredulous at the suggestion that a two-minute video of the subject receiving an award at an awards ceremony meets SIGCOV, even if it's hosted by Sky Sports. I mean, that's not secondary, it's not in-depth, it's not independent, it's not reliable, it fails on every single criteria of SIGCOV. – Levivich 01:24, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Sky Sports isn't secondary? That's absurd. Just about everything you've said in this AfD is absurd. It's clear where consensus is going so I'm just going to leave this be and hope we see a reasonable close and not a supervote from a certain admin. Smartyllama (talk) 02:56, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        No, "Sky Sports" isn't secondary. Of course not, that's a nonsensical statement. A publisher can't be a "secondary" or a "primary" source. It depends on the document you're analyzing. When Sky Sports publishes a sports analysis article on its website, then yes, of course it's a secondary source. When Sky Sports publishes its address on its website, then it's a primary source. It all depends on what you're looking at. And when you're looking at an awards show host announcing who won an award, that's a primary source. It doesn't matter if that video is hosted at Skysports.com or at YouTube, it's a primary source–it doesn't get more primary than a video of an award being announced. That's the equivalent of sourcing an article about a football match to a video of that match. Of course that's primary! Just about everything you've said in this AfD is absurd is, frankly, exactly how I feel about your comments here as well. I'll agree with you to disagree with you and leave this here. – Levivich 03:39, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Unless the article is about "Sky Sports" or a Sky media program, then Sky Sports is a secondary source. Nfitz (talk) 03:55, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        No, that's not correct, you're confusing WP:ABOUTSELF with WP:SECONDARY. A secondary source is a source that's based on other primary sources. A Sky Sports reporter who interviews people and reads documents and writes an article about Sky Sports's history that's published on Sky Sports... that's a secondary source. It's not independent, it's ABOUTSELF, but it's secondary. A match report is a primary source when it's reporting on what happened during the match, but it can be a secondary source when it's providing analysis, future predictions, or history of recent games, etc. See WP:USEPRIMARY. A video of an awards show is a primary source; there's no editorial there at all. It's like a photograph. In fact, it's 60 photographs per second. – Levivich 04:22, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        No confusion about aboutself ... but I agree, for something like that award video, that would be primary - but a typical soccer broadcast and most of Sky Sports content, is a secondary source, as it's full of analysis and history. I'm not sure how it's not a reliable source though - we've got two secondary sources already confirming this, and here's a primary source, which there's no prohibition about using, given we've got secondary sources confirming this. Nfitz (talk) 06:03, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Sure there's no prohibition on using it, but it doesn't contribute to notability. The Sky Sports link is not a WP:SPORTBASIC/WP:BASIC/WP:GNG source, because the video is not a secondary source. Other than arguably #6 on my list above, I'm not seeing that there's any other sources so far in this discussion that meet SPORTBASIC, etc. – Levivich 06:15, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Here is another source that could be used to meet GNG that was apparently not considered. But undoubtedly Levivich will find some flaw with that too. Despite the fact that by my count we are now well over a dozen sources, not to mention easily clearing the NFOOTY bar (not marginal at all unlike some at AfD) somehow none of them are OK. At this point I'm not convinced he'd be satisfied with any source. Smartyllama (talk) 17:23, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:SPORTBASIC/WP:BASIC/WP:GNG don't say "any source". SPORTBASIC specifies (1) multiple, (2) published, (3) non-trivial, (4) secondary, (5) reliable, (6) intellectually independent, and (7) independent of the subject. So yeah, if you put forward a dozen sources that do not meet those criteria, then they don't count as sources supporting notability. You waste everyone's time by suggesting that sources that obviously don't meet the criteria, are actually sources that meet the criteria. Statistics websites, routine transfer reports, brief mentions that are only a few sentences long, primary sources, team websites, self-published sources, and so many more, do not satisfy the criteria. Here, again, you put forward this Heimatsport article that has two sentences reporting on the player's contract signing. It's trivial (two sentences), and it's primary (a contemporaneous report of an event: the contract signing), and it obviously isn't a SPORTBASIC/BASIC/GNG source. That's not nitpicking, that's not wikilawyering, that's just applying the guideline to the source. Source #6 on my list above is one that arguably meets the criteria. But we need "multiple", per the guidelines, and I'm not seeing a second. I find your refusal to actually apply the SPORTBASIC or GNG criteria to the sources you put forward to be tendentious. You need to at least make a good faith argument that those boxes are checked. – Levivich 18:37, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        I suggest you read WP:PRIMARY. By your logic everything is a primary source since it reports on something that happened. That's absurd. I have explained why I believe these sources support GNG. So have other editors. You either can't be bothered to read, don't care, or are deliberately misinterpreting what we are saying. Smartyllama (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Are you saying that when a newspaper publishes an article that says "John Smith signed a contract with the local football team", that's NOT a primary source? The Heimatsport article you just put forward says "Philipp Offenthaler (18) vom niederösterreichischen Landesligisten SC Union Ardagger wird unter Vertrag genommen" which Google translates to "Philipp Offenthaler (18) from the Lower Austrian Landesligisten SC Union Ardagger is taken under contract". That's primary, not secondary. It's a contemporary newspaper story. You haven't explained how that source meets the 7-part criteria–you haven't analyzed any source in this entire discussion. You're just posting links and making assertions. And your assertions, such as that the Haimatsport article is primary, are just flat wrong. For the love of Jimbo, read WP:USEPRIMARY, particularly the WP:NEWSPRIMARY part, particularly this:
        ... an event may happen on Monday afternoon, may be written about in Tuesday morning's newspapers, and may be added to Wikipedia just minutes later. Many editors—especially those with no training in historiography—call these newspaper articles "secondary sources". Most reliable sources in academia, however, name typical contemporary newspaper stories as primary sources.
        — WP:NEWSPRIMARY
        But really, I'm done here. – Levivich 18:55, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        If you are still falsely claiming after all these years, that a newspaper report about a transfer, is a primary source, you should be topic-banned from AFD, and all your past votes should be stricken! The lack of competency shown here is stunning! Nfitz (talk) 19:00, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, it's primary, it's a contemporaneous report of an event. There is no analysis of other primary sources involved, which is the hallmark of what makes a secondary source, a secondary source. The report of the fact that the transfer occurred is primary. If someone writes an analysis of how the transfer is going to affect the team's chances, or how this transfer fits into a team's overall strategy for the season, that would be secondary. But article reporting that "John Smith was signed today" is a primary source. I do agree that editors who don't understand the difference between primary and secondary sources shouldn't be participating in AfD discussions. – Levivich 19:06, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        No it's not primary. There's nothing in WP:PRIMARY that talks about contemptuous media reports, which by their very nature are one step removed from the event, and are secondary (assuming they aren't verbatim regurgitation of press releases - which don't appear to be the case here). I can't even fathom where you are getting this from! Perhaps you can quote whatever policy you are seeing? Nfitz (talk) 19:11, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Are you trolling? I quoted it above. In a frickin' colored box. With an ALLCAPS link. WP:PRIMARY is part of the WP:NOR policy, and WP:NEWSPRIMARY is part of WP:USEPRIMARY, the explanatory supplement to the NOR policy. USEPRIMARY goes into detail about things that PRIMARY doesn't, like contemporaneous media reports–that's specifically what the WP:NEWSPRIMARY section of USEPRIMARY addresses. I've linked to USEPRIMARY like half a dozen times now, and I just quoted NEWSPRIMARY in a quote box. How is it possible that you can't even fathom where I are getting this from? I'm getting this from WP:NEWSPRIMARY. – Levivich 19:17, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Please AGF - I didn't read that far, and only read the diff, which doesn't have the highlighting or colours (or colors!). Okay ... looking at that other NEWSPRIMARY essay ... that's in complete conflict with Wikipedia policy, and states clearly at the top that it's not policy. It's completely out-of-sync with the discussions we've been having at AFD for years. Please stick to policy - to try and introduce an essay about academic sourcing, that conflicts with our notability guidelines is blatant wikilawyering! Nfitz (talk)
        AGF that you commented before reading? LOL! Consider reading before you write a comment. For example, if you read NEWSPRIMARY, you'll see it's not an essay. It's part of USEPRIMARY, which is an explanatory supplement. If you look at WP:PRIMARY (part of the NOR policy), you'll see that it links to USEPRIMARY in the "Further information" hatnote. But if you want to believe that it doesn't have broad consensus, you're welcome to that opinion. – Levivich 19:27, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm sorry I assumed good faith, and that you were sticking to policy, rather than essays other documents that state they aren't policy! The amount of TLDR and WP:BLUDGEON you've accomplished here is astounding. NEWSPRIMARY states at the top that This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community.. Stop the wikilawyering. Nfitz (talk) 20:01, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Now you're arguing WP:ONLYESSAY while accusing me of wikilawyering for viewing a contemporaneous news report as a primary source. – Levivich 20:46, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Again, by your insane troll logic, all news reports are primary and nothing can possibly satisfy WP:GNG until years later. That's insane and if you truly believe that, I'm with Nfitz. You should be topic-banned from AfD since you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Smartyllama (talk) 19:59, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Can you three just move this chat somewhere else as you are going completely off-topic now. HawkAussie (talk) 01:21, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL, Lightburst (talk) 21:58, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets NFOOTY. Lepricavark (talk) 13:29, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Smartyllama (talk) 02:13, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Monica Lopera[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO and WP:ENT. Unable to locate any biographical details in reliable secondary sources to support notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:30, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:28, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:28, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:28, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:54, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:54, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:54, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:55, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:55, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: there are some mentions in reliable sources, but I'm not sure they're enough to make a decent article. She has actually won two awards in her home country for "Best Newcomer" in 2002 – one from the Premios India Catalina, which is a fairly big deal as the major TV awards ceremony in Colombia, run as part of the prestigious Cartagena Film Festival, and the other from TVyNovelas soap opera magazine awards, which is rather less of a big deal [13]. She's also been nominated twice more at both awards. There's a source here [14] for her going to London to star in the Between Two Worlds film, but it's a primary source interview. Richard3120 (talk) 13:02, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NACTOR doesn't actually require "biographical details in reliable secondary sources to support notability", it says "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". It seems that she has appeared in significant roles in multiple notable production: as Isabella in En los tacones de Eva, for which she was nominated for 2 awards; as Clara Arango in Francisco el Matemático, where she appeared as a permanent character in 4 seasons, and for which she won a Premios India Catalina award (this source [15], which Richard3120 found, is an article in El Tiempo (Colombia) about that character); as three characters in An angel named Blue [es] for which she was nominated for an award; and she won a Premios TVyNovelas award for her role in Isabel me la veló [es]. The article needs improving, but she does meet notability guidelines. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:39, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NACTOR the actress has "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". Lightburst (talk) 21:59, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as well as having significant roles she has also won and been nominated for a number of significant awars as detailed earlier in the discussion, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:03, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:26, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Aoina[edit]

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

Noticed this since it was deprodded, probably correctly looking at the history, but it's a badly undersourced WP:BLP. My source search brought up only mentions in match reports from local New Zealand leagues, which are routine. Fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 22:07, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 22:07, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 22:07, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:56, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough sources to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:09, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG - Jay (talk) 05:44, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:27, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Avalanche the Architect[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO and WP:MUSICBIO. No charted songs or awards. Sources are links to videos and promotional websites. Many of the sources discuss a legal proceeding this person was involved in, though these alone do not support notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:05, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:08, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:08, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the singer meets WP:BASIC, and some in WP:MUSICBIO, and I just looked up about him on the web and he has met some notability to have an article. He has no songs on the chart or won any awards, but I don't see if every musician on Wikipedia have their songs on the charts. I will suggest to put "Template:BLP sources" tag until someone finds better sources and add in the article. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 09:01, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Captain Assassin!: Thanks for that. Could you share some of the links? All I found were trivial mentions, legal proceedings, and promotional pages. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:29, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You might have seen those too (less reliable sources other than his legal proceedings), and that's why I am suggesting to put "BLP sources" tag for now. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 13:11, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a WP:BLP1E. While it's true that charting and awards aren't the only notability criteria in NMUSIC, this article isn't properly demonstrating that he passes any of the others either. The sourcing for his music career itself is entirely to hip hop promotional blogs rather than notability-making sources — and what little genuinely reliable source coverage he actually has is entirely in the context of a criminal proceeding, so the only notability criterion I can actually evaluate this against is WP:PERP. But under PERP, we don't necessarily keep an article about every criminal who exists just because a few hits of media coverage can be found — if the person wasn't already notable enough for an article before the criminal allegations, then we need to see a credible reason why the crime was of enduring national or international significance before we consider him notable as a criminal per se. But just showing a couple of purely local hits of crime coverage in Toronto's local media doesn't demonstrate that, so it doesn't add up to enough coverage to override his lack of solid sourcing as a musician. If two or three hits of purely local coverage in the crime context were all it took to make him notable enough for an international encyclopedia, we would have to keep articles about Chair Girl and Crane Girl too. Bearcat (talk) 17:00, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it. Avalanche the Architect has several significant sources. --John Ranchie —Preceding undated comment added 10:08, 4 December 2019 (UTC) [reply]
Blocked sock. MER-C 08:24, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as undisclosed paid-for spam. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/John Ranchie. MER-C 08:24, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:MUSICBIO - Jay (talk) 05:45, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Kirarin Revolution. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:48, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MilkyWay[edit]

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

Not really sure how to categorize this. Music group did have two charting releases but article is a stub and WP:OVERLAPs with Kirarin Revolution and Kirarin Revolution discography, of which they were only created as a promotional tie-in for the series. There is no notability outside of Kirarin Revolution -- Members of the group are also playing their characters in music releases. Main articles better describe their activities and releases. (see WP:NMUSIC #10). lullabying (talk) 21:56, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:11, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:11, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 02:30, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Kirarin Revolution as not enough sourced content for a seperate article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:44, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Kirarin Revolution as above. Add tag R from fictional element as fictional band name. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:13, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Kirarin Revolution Lightburst (talk) 21:59, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. In addition to the concern about notability, the descriptions of the journals appear to have been copied directly from the website in violation of copyright, so unfortunately I cannot userfy the content. RL0919 (talk) 21:41, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Philippine E-Journals[edit]

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

This is basically a list of the journals contained in a directory. No independent sources. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:10, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:10, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No independent sources => no notability. Delete. --Randykitty (talk) 21:45, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Can this be userfied or transwikied? It's useful for our core readership although not obviously notable. (I realize this is not an argument.) Bearian (talk) 15:27, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Treating as an expired proposed deletion due to lack of participation. WP:REFUND applies. RL0919 (talk) 21:26, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

.70-150 Winchester[edit]

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

Not a notable notable cartridge. It was a theoretical cartridge that probably never existed and was never chambered for a firearm. No widespread civilian use, adoption by any nation's armed forces, or use by police forces. Efforts to find reliable sources does not lead to anything.--Molestash (talk) 21:00, 27 November 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) 21:20, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SAS (Action Force)[edit]

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

I can't find any independent reviews or media coverage, so WP:GNG isn't satisfied. A redirect to Action Force is questionable, as I'm not sure that article is worth keeping either. Note that Z Force (Action Force) has also been nominated separately (below) for deletion. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:21, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:54, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:54, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fictional organization/toy line. No evidence of stand-alone notability. Not a shred of analysis. Pure WP:PLOT and list of appearances in media. Fails WP:PLOT, WP:GNG, WP:NFICTION. BEFORE shows nothing that's not in passing or a plot summary or a list of merchandise. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:24, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - None of the establish notability. These belong on a fan wiki. TTN (talk) 02:06, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - None of them meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:07, 30 November 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:27, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dmitry and Natalia Baksheevy[edit]

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

This article consists primarily of rumors surrounding Dmitry and Natalia Baksheevy, two individuals who have been arrested but not convicted for a crime in Russia. (The article even describes these allegations as "rumors"!) This is violative of WP:BLPCRIME and should be deleted. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 15:10, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 15:14, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 15:14, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Original article in Russian says that both have been convicted by June 2019. This version article needs updating to reflect this, but not a reason to delete.--Auric talk 21:40, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but what makes this encyclopedic? Not every murderer receives a Wikipedia page, even if the murder gains media coverage. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 14:38, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:56, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appear to be more notable than the average run-of-the-mill murderers, given the possible nature of their crimes. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:23, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 20:00, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. They have SIGCOV in global WP:RS/P like The Washington Post, The Independent, and Time Magazine. Britishfinance (talk) 20:38, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG per the WP:RS which NEXISTS. The Washington Post Wm335td (talk) 22:37, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus indicated that there are enough reliable sources for the subject. Nom also withdrew. (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 20:01, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Assist-2-Sell[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. No external references. Rathfelder (talk) 19:52, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 19:52, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:03, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

McCrea, Bridget (2004). Real Estate Agent's Field Guide: Essential Insider Advice for Surviving in a Competitive Market. New York: AMACOM. pp. 117–119. ISBN 0-8144-0809-5. Retrieved 2019-11-30.
Irwin, Robert (2002) [1993]. The for Sale by Owner Kit (4 ed.). Chicago: Dearborn Trade Publishing (Kaplan, Inc.). pp. 38–39. ISBN 978-0-7931-5026-7. Retrieved 2019-11-30.
Helmke, Kathryn (2005-01-16). "Helping hands: Discount real estate firms boast of lower commissons or flat fees for their services". Naples Daily News. Archived from the original on 2019-11-30. Retrieved 2019-11-30.
Orenstein, Beth W. (2007-08-12). "Top of its class: Valley's Assist 2 Sell franchise is nation's No. 1 for the past 18 months" (pages 1 and 2). The Morning Call. Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2) on 2019-11-30. Retrieved 2019-11-30.
Gardyasz, Joe (2000-02-06). "$etting up a lower standard: Assist-2-Sell shaking up real estate world with flat fee". The Bismarck Tribune. Archived from the original on 2019-11-30. Retrieved 2019-11-30 – via Newspapers.com.
Cartwright, Vanessa. (2002-07-05). "Assist-2-Sell, Help-U-Sell say they offer discounts, quality" (pages 1 and 2). Reno Gazette-Journal. Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2) on 2019-11-30. Retrieved 2019-11-30.
Swanepoel, Stefan (2006). Swanepoel Trends Report 2007: Top 10 Real Estate Trends. Lagune Niguel, California: RealSure. p. 115. ISBN 978-0-9704523-8-2. Retrieved 2019-11-30.
Rafter, Dan (2004-11-01). "Browsing To Buy". Fortune. Archived from the original on 2019-11-30. Retrieved 2019-11-30.
Jares, Andrea (2000-02-01). "Flat-Rate Brokerage Opens Here - Assist-2-Sell hopes flat rates per sale will undercut competition". Corpus Christi Caller-Times. Archived from the original on 2019-11-30. Retrieved 2019-11-30.
Moore, Linda A. (2003-03-02). "Flate-Rate Agents Offer Real Estate Option - Assist-2-Sell More Help Than FSBO, Cheapter Than 6%". The Commercial Appeal. Archived from the original on 2019-11-30. Retrieved 2019-11-30.
Genthner, Cathy (2000-03-31). "Real Estate Firm Sets Its Fees in a Different Way". Portland Press Herald. Archived from the original on 2019-11-30. Retrieved 2019-11-30.
Orenstein, Beth W. (1997-07-27). "Discount Brokers - Pennsylvania Marketplace Reflects New Alternatives to Conventional Agencies". The Morning Call. Archived from the original on 2019-11-30. Retrieved 2019-11-30.
Levin, Julie (2005-02-13). "Real Estate Services at Discount". Miami Herald. Archived from the original on 2019-11-30. Retrieved 2019-11-30.
Knightly, Arnold M. (2006-04-24). "New ways to sell real estate are popping up: Help-U-Sell, Assist-2-Sell use bare-bones approach to cut traditional fees". Las Vegas Business Press.
McGinn, Daniel (2004-04-05). "Breaking the Brokers - As housing prices keep heading through the roof, more sellers are balking at paying full commissions. Some agents are even joining in this homegrown rebellion". Newsweek. Archived from the original on 2019-11-30. Retrieved 2019-11-30.

Sources with quotes

McCrea, Bridget (2004). Real Estate Agent's Field Guide: Essential Insider Advice for Surviving in a Competitive Market. New York: AMACOM. pp. 117–119. ISBN 0-8144-0809-5. Retrieved 2019-11-30.
The article notes:
The Internet was purely an educational tool when Assist-2-Sell came into being, but that didn't stop the company from planting its roots the old-fashioned way, then speeding up its reach with the advent of technology and the World Wide Web. The Reno, Nevada-based firm was formed out of sheer frustration on the part of its cofounders, Lyle Martin and Mary LaMeres-Pomin, back in 1987.
...
The company has since grown from a single location to 281 locations in 45 states and Canada. Early on, customers paid a flat fee of $1,495—after their homes were sold—for the same services that traditional agents were providing. For an additional, competitive co-broker free, customers could also have their homes listed in the local MLS.
Today, the firm's flat fee ranges from $1,995 to $5,995, depending on geographic location. The company began franchising in 1995, handles over a hundred transactions monthly from its Reno office alone, and operates in large and small markets alike. The concept works well in "hot" markets, where Martin says homeowners are more reluctant to pay a high commission, as they know homes sell easily. In slower markets, home sellers also welcome the concept, as the commission savings allows them to price their home more competitively.
Irwin, Robert (2002) [1993]. The for Sale by Owner Kit (4 ed.). Chicago: Dearborn Trade Publishing (Kaplan, Inc.). pp. 38–39. ISBN 978-0-7931-5026-7. Retrieved 2019-11-30.
The book notes:
This is the position of "Assist2Sell," a relatively new discount brokerage company out of Reno, Nevada. Assist2Sell claims nearly 150 franchise offices across the country. And it says it is able to sell real estate and provide full service for less than traditional agents.
The company generally (each franchisee operates somewhat differently) offers advertising, answers phone calls, and shows property in addition to handling documents and managing escrow. It does all of this for a fee structure ranging from $1,500 to $4,000 per home.
It provides this service by paying salespeople a flat fee that is typically much lower than the commission they might otherwise receive. Additionally, the broker's office also makes a much lower fee. However, by putting through many more deals, they claim to make it up on volume.
Assist2Sell says it provides:
- Advertising
- Field phone calls
- Shows your property
It apparently, however, does this primarily through its own network of agents. It will not list your home on the MLS (Multiple Listing Service) for the discount fee structure. However, because its agents are Realtors, it can list on the MLS, if you are willing to pay the buyer's agent commission.
Helmke, Kathryn (2005-01-16). "Helping hands: Discount real estate firms boast of lower commissons or flat fees for their services". Naples Daily News. Archived from the original on 2019-11-30. Retrieved 2019-11-30.
The article notes:
Assist-2-Sell calls itself as a discount real estate firm, but says there's nothing cheap about its services.
The national franchise started in Reno, Nev., in 1987, and has since spread across the country and Canada with 435 offices.
The primary difference between it and your standard local real estate office is that the Assist-2-Sell franchise charges either a lower commission or a flat fee for its package of services.
...
LaMeres-Pomin and her partner Lyle Martin practiced as traditional real estate agents for 10 years before starting Assist-2-Sell.
...
Reno's housing market wasn't strong at the time. LaMeres-Pomin and Martin wanted to find a way to help their sellers, she said.
...
In the last three to five years the company has taken off, she said. Between 10 to 15 new Assist- 2-Sell offices open each month.
The company has 435 offices across the United States and Canada including 82 in Florida.
The article includes analysis from Raymond Bowie, a local real estate lawyer:
Agencies like Assist-2-Sell are the "wave of the present" in some parts of the country, Bowie said, but it will take time in Southwest Florida.
Orenstein, Beth W. (2007-08-12). "Top of its class: Valley's Assist 2 Sell franchise is nation's No. 1 for the past 18 months" (pages 1 and 2). The Morning Call. Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2) on 2019-11-30. Retrieved 2019-11-30.
The article notes:
For the past 18 months, Sadler's has been No. 1 in sales among the 615 Assist 2 Sell franchises in the United States and Canada. Recently, he even topped the company-wned office in Reno, Nev., where Assist 2 Sell was founded and is based.
...
At training, the franchisees learn all aspects of operating an Assist 2 Sell franchise from setting up back-office systems, running the office, recruiting agents, attracting customers and marketing homes to working with other real estate companies and handling customers.
The article includes quotes from people affiliated with Assist 2 Sell.
Gardyasz, Joe (2000-02-06). "$etting up a lower standard: Assist-2-Sell shaking up real estate world with flat fee". The Bismarck Tribune. Archived from the original on 2019-11-30. Retrieved 2019-11-30 – via Newspapers.com.
The article notes:
Assist-2-Sell was started in 1987 by two brokers in Reno, Nev., as a way to compete with big real estate offices.
...
Assist-2-Sell has grown rapidly since it began franchising in 1994. The company now has 87 offices in 32 states, each independently owned and operated.
...
Like traditional firms, Assist-2-Sell only collects the fee when the house sells.
...
Another option Assist-2-Sell franchises offer, on an hourly basis, is to handle all the paperwork for people who are selling their house themselves. No one has requested this option yet and the fee hasn't been established, Puklich said.
Cartwright, Vanessa. (2002-07-05). "Assist-2-Sell, Help-U-Sell say they offer discounts, quality" (pages 1 and 2). Reno Gazette-Journal. Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2) on 2019-11-30. Retrieved 2019-11-30.
The article notes:
"The main misconception about Assist-2-Sell comes from our competitors trying to make people believe discount is a dirty word and it isn't," said Mary LaMeres-Pomin, co-owner and co-founder of the Reno-based real estate company she started with partner Lyle Martin more thann 15 years ago.
...
One of North America's largest residential discount realty companies, Assist-2-Sell provides all the services offered by traditional brokers for a single, set fee of $2,995.
...
Assist-2-Sell can charge considerably less because of its high volume system and experienced professionals who handle everything from advertising and showing the home to overseeing the closing process, LaMeres-Pomin said.
Swanepoel, Stefan (2006). Swanepoel Trends Report 2007: Top 10 Real Estate Trends. Lagune Niguel, California: RealSure. p. 115. ISBN 978-0-9704523-8-2. Retrieved 2019-11-30.
The book notes:
Assist2Sell

Instead of offering just one marketing program, Assist2Sell (www.assist2sell.com) offers sellers a "menu" of services from a paperwork-only low "flat fee" to a full-blown MLS marketing program. The company has 630 offices in 46 states and in Canada.
Rafter, Dan (2004-11-01). "Browsing To Buy". Fortune. Archived from the original on 2019-11-30. Retrieved 2019-11-30.
The article notes:
Assist-2-Sell, based in Reno, Nev., helps do-it-yourself sellers by providing home-sale support on an à la carte basis. After franchising its network of discount real estate brokerages in 1995, the company evolved into an Internet-powered service that reduces transaction costs while offering sellers direct access to buyers. Assist-2-Sell charges a fee of about $3,500 or a 4.5 percent commission on the final sale price, depending on what level of service a seller requires. "I'm sure traditional brokers wish that we would just disappear," says Assist-2-Sell co-founder Lyle Martin.
The company's growth seems to bear this out. Assist-2-Sell handled 11,831 home sales in June, up 50 percent from the year before. Its network of offices has expanded to more than 400 local franchisees scattered across the country. (These are also a moneymaker: Owner-operators pay Assist-2-Sell $19,500 for a franchise, plus an additional 5 percent of the commission of every home they sell.) Assist-2-Sell reported revenue of $4.2 million in 2003, up from $2.8 million in 2002. The company's founders say it's already profitable and on track to generate revenue of $6.5 million by year's end.
Jares, Andrea (2000-02-01). "Flat-Rate Brokerage Opens Here - Assist-2-Sell hopes flat rates per sale will undercut competition". Corpus Christi Caller-Times. Archived from the original on 2019-11-30. Retrieved 2019-11-30.
The article notes:
Nevada-based Assist-2-Sell opened up its first Texas franchise this month off South Padre Island Drive. The growth of the company is based on the concept that if a real estate company not only charges a flat fee, but undercuts the price of other real estate agents, its phones will ring.
And they've been ringing a lot. The company has more than doubled its presence throughout the country every year since branching off into franchises in 1995. There are now 90 Assist-2-Sell offices in the United States.
Lyle Martin of Reno, Nev., who co-developed Assist-2-Sell in 1987, predicts that by this time next year, there will also be offices in Dallas-Fort Worth and Houston.
Assist-2-Sell will sell houses for a flat, $1,995 fee - regardless of the selling price. In a market where last year's selling price averaged $95,435, a typical 6 percent commission would cost about $5,726.
Moore, Linda A. (2003-03-02). "Flate-Rate Agents Offer Real Estate Option - Assist-2-Sell More Help Than FSBO, Cheapter Than 6%". The Commercial Appeal. Archived from the original on 2019-11-30. Retrieved 2019-11-30.
The article notes:
The way it works is simple. Assist-2-Sell will list and market homes for a flat rate of $2,995.
That includes a sign, newspaper advertisements, brochures, contracts, a key box for the house and showings. Customers have the option of being listed on the Memphis Area Board of Realtors Multiple Listing Service (MLS) and must agree to pay a 3 percent commission if an outside agent brings the buyer.
With offers presented to sellers not on the MLS, the outside agent includes his commission with the buyer's offer. If the seller accepts the offer, it includes the commission.
...
In some respects, Assist-2-Sell falls between using a traditional real estate firm and selling your home yourself.
Genthner, Cathy (2000-03-31). "Real Estate Firm Sets Its Fees in a Different Way". Portland Press Herald. Archived from the original on 2019-11-30. Retrieved 2019-11-30.
The article notes:
Word of Assist-2-Sell's rates and reputation has gotten around the realty circle with reaction ranging from skepticism to intimidation. Dan Boothby, a broker with Century 21 Balfour in Portland, said Assist-2-Sell had not affected sales within his firm and questioned the reality of the $2,995 flat rate.
"It would be hard for me to sell a home at that fee and make money," Boothby said. "So many issues can arise during the negotiating part of the contract. The whole concept is vague."
Boothby also questioned being excluded from MLS.
"If you are not in the MLS, how can you get the best price for the seller? You are limiting the number of potential buyers," said Boothby. "I have a word of caution to the consumer -- to check out a realty firm before you sign on. As with an attorney or a doctor, you wouldn't go to someone just because they are the cheapest."
Orenstein, Beth W. (1997-07-27). "Discount Brokers - Pennsylvania Marketplace Reflects New Alternatives to Conventional Agencies". The Morning Call. Archived from the original on 2019-11-30. Retrieved 2019-11-30.
The article notes:
Assist-2-Sell brokers offer home sellers two fee structures.
One is a flat rate of $1,995 regardless of the property's selling price, which is the program that worked for the Rogers. Under this program, sellers are required to help sell their house, often holding their own open houses.
The other is a full-service program with a commission of 4.5 percent of the sale price -- a break of 1.5 points off the rate charged by most brokers.
The main difference between Assist-2-Sell's two programs is how the property is marketed. Homes in the flat-rate program are not included in the multiple-listing service, a computerized directory of listings in an area which Realtors from all agencies search when matching buyers and sellers.
...
Lyle Martin and his partner, Mary LaMeres-Pomin, who had been traditional brokers, opened the first Assist-2-Sell office in Reno, Nev., in 1987. Since they began franchising their concept two years ago, about 30 Assist-2-Sell offices have opened around the country, he says. Each is independently owned and operated. Sadler's is the only franchise in Pennsylvania. However, Martin expects at least 20 more franchises to open this year, some of them in Pennsylvania.
Levin, Julie (2005-02-13). "Real Estate Services at Discount". Miami Herald. Archived from the original on 2019-11-30. Retrieved 2019-11-30.
The article notes:
Assist 2 Sell is part of an innovative chain of real estate offices designed to sell homes, assist buyers and save clients money. Gone is the traditional 6 percent commission. Clients pay one flat fee for a complete package of services.
...
Assist 2 Sell is one of the fastest-growing companies in the real estate industry. It has 435 offices across the United States, including 82 in Florida. Malone said it offers franchises only to experienced agents, with proven track records.
...
Assist 2 Sell offers sellers an effective range of advertising to make the sale. Marketing includes newspaper, magazines, direct mail, signs, brochure boxes and its exclusive HotSheet, a free "drive-by" list of homes for sale.
And with more and more buyers using the Internet, Assist 2 Sell offers clients iHouse2000.com, a website that provides sellers with the best Internet exposure available.
Knightly, Arnold M. (2006-04-24). "New ways to sell real estate are popping up: Help-U-Sell, Assist-2-Sell use bare-bones approach to cut traditional fees". Las Vegas Business Press.
The article notes:
This is the argument that Reno-based Assist-2-Sell, and its main competitor, Help-U-Sell, make in their pitch to customers.
...
Reno-based Assist-2-Sell was founded in 1987 by Lyle Martin and Mary LaMeres-Pomin. The first Las Vegas franchise did not open until 2001.
...
Assist-2-Sell generally offers two different marketing plans: "Direct to Buyer" and "MLS for Less," a multiple listing system tool that markets properties to other real estate agents.
With the "Direct-to-Buyer" plan, the agent facilitates for the seller like a traditional broker: advertises the property, actively sells the property and handles all the paperwork. "MLS for Less" includes all the above and the property is additionally listed on the MLS.
McGinn, Daniel (2004-04-05). "Breaking the Brokers - As housing prices keep heading through the roof, more sellers are balking at paying full commissions. Some agents are even joining in this homegrown rebellion". Newsweek. Archived from the original on 2019-11-30. Retrieved 2019-11-30.
The article notes:
Another threat comes as a small but growing number of homeowners try new ways to sell a home. The two largest "flat-fee" brokerages, Help-U-Sell and Assist-2-Sell, are well over a decade old, but in the past year their networks of franchises have exploded; together they now have nearly 900 offices nationwide.

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Assist-2-Sell to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

Cunard (talk) 11:40, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I rewrote and sourced the article. Cunard (talk) 11:40, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to withdraw this proposal. Rathfelder (talk) 18:04, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: At time of nom the article was not fit for mainspace but now quitable per Cunard's rewrite. Some sources look passing but overall others appear sufficent for keep. thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:06, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:RS and improvements to the article Lightburst (talk) 22:01, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Soft redirect to wiktionary. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:55, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Know-it-all[edit]

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

WP:NOTDICTIONARY. This article is only a dicdef and the term is more fit for Wiktionary. The AfD 10 years ago resulted in zero improvement. Should simply be deleted, then redirected to the disambiguation page (which should be moved to Know-It-All). _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:43, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:43, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Soft redirect to wikt:know-it-all. Simple as that. ミラ P 21:05, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My reading of the 2009 AfD is consensus that the article has potential, based on earlier versions that were not mere dictionary definitions. I notice, though, that those versions assert that know-it-all is partially a synonym for smart aleck and partially for polymath. As Smart aleck (disambiguation) and Polymath currently exist as separate articles, keeping this title seems to violate the spirit of NOTDICT. In its current state the article is about the word as a word. Unlike, say, thou, however, there is no evidence that the word know-it-all as such has social or historical notability. There are some works called "Know it all" (eg. Jacobs 2005, Chakrabarti et al. 2008), but none of them are about the word nor the type of person the word refers to. Therefore, I would delete per WP:WORDISSUBJECT and WP:GNG. Cnilep (talk) 02:40, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum: Given the number of incoming links from fictional characters such as Cliff Clavin and Oscar Martinez (The Office), a soft redirect is appropriate, as Miraclepine suggests. Cnilep (talk) 02:45, 28 November 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 deleted. Primefac (talk) 19:40, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Asterisk Art Project[edit]

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

Not sure why this was declined as "not promotional" when it was tagged for notability but it fails pretty much any N criteria I can think of. It's received no coverage in media outlets and nothing as far as books go. Praxidicae (talk) 19:37, 27 November 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. WP:G8 applies to redirects to non-existent targets. – bradv🍁 20:00, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cunt hair[edit]

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

Attempted to RFD this but isn't allowed since it's not an actual redirect here. There is no point in this soft redirect as no such title exists on Wiktionary and it seems an unlikely search term here, so unnecessary. Praxidicae (talk) 19:20, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was I who removed the A3 tag guessing that the nominator wasn't familiar with wiktionary redirects. Seeing as it doesn't actually have a target, it should be deletable through G8. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 19:26, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm okay with that but wasn't sure how to go about it given the back and forth tag removal. Praxidicae (talk) 19:29, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per emerging consensus at Mizzle/Mizzles. Why aren't we allowed to have soft redirects to Wiktionary? We should be trying to promote use of Wiktionary and it's a very valid slang term to refer to a very fine unit of measurement. I agree, though, that this isn't eligible for CSD. Alternatively, let's give it 3-6 months to see how many people are entering this term and, if there's at least a half dozen (or so) unique visitors, per month (or two), to the page title, then it may be worthy of a soft redirect. --Doug Mehus T·C 19:47, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no entry at Wiktionary...and what consensus? I don't see any established consensus for this. Praxidicae (talk) 19:49, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Praxidicae, The emerging consensus to redirect Mizzle/Mizzles to Wiktionary even though they're not mentioned on Wikipedia. Click through to the articles and note the RfD discussion. Doug Mehus T·C 19:51, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also We should promote use of wiktionary um...why? This isn't urban dictionary. I sincerely doubt people are coming to Wikipedia to look up "cunt hair". You cannot apply consensus from an entirely different subject matter that is in no way similar to this situation. Praxidicae (talk) 19:51, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Praxidicae, Wiktionary refers to a variant term, with the adjective red preceding it. It's a very common term with its origins in the construction trades, as I understand it. I've never heard using the adjective red to precede it, but the term I proposed is definitely the common term. I would actually recommend renaming the Wiktionary term to drop the red reference. But that's another discussion. Doug Mehus T·C 19:53, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I also think you're misunderstanding consensus. Two "redirects" in a 6 day old RFD, one of which is by you is not "emerging consensus" Praxidicae (talk) 19:52, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Praxidicae, You're forgetting the nominator, who wasn't opposed to a redirect, and the commenters who expressed no !vote either way (including for deletion). Doug Mehus T·C 19:54, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dmehus there is absolutely no emerging consensus to redirect a title here to a non-existent title elsewhere. Two votes is not a consensus for broad topics. Praxidicae (talk) 19:55, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Praxidicae, I respectfully disagree that G8 applies. Why would we have a soft redirect template to Wiktionary then? Bradv, can you clarify? To me, I see no problem with using soft redirects to Wiktionary for terms that don't exist on Wikipedia. After all, Wikimedia's other properties are under-utilized. Doug Mehus T·C 19:57, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The term literally does not exist on any project. Praxidicae (talk) 19:58, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Praxidicae, So, you're saying I should've proposed to rename the term on Wiktionary to the common usage, then proposed this soft redirect? Doug Mehus T·C 20:00, 27 November 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 and redirect to A-Next. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:33, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklight (MC2)[edit]

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 19:02, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:02, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:02, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to A-Next. Seems like a valid target with a prime spot for a merge that is only being used to point to this article. -2pou (talk) 01:02, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fictional character. No evidence of stand-alone notability. Not a shred of analysis. Pure WP:PLOT and list of appearances in media. Fails WP:PLOT, WP:GNG, WP:NFICTION. BEFORE shows nothing that's not in passing or a plot summary.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:25, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pure PLOT. Fails GNG/NFICTION.Kacper IV (talk) 11:46, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non noted fictional character. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFICTION - Jay (talk) 05:47, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 21:55, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Satya Brata Das[edit]

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

Very poorly sourced BLP. There are claims to notability but no independent sources cited to verify the claims. The entire article includes only one citation, and it is from a journal for which Das was an editor.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:47, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The promotionally worded article text replicates the text from the subject's Amazon page, which may fall under WP:COPYVIO? AllyD (talk) 19:31, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 19:35, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 19:35, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is very clearly promotional/advertorial in intent, and claims nothing about him that would be "inherently" notable enough to override how weak the actual sourcing is. Writers are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because their books happen to be available for sale on Amazon; board members of organizations are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist; TEDx speakers are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because their speech has been posted to YouTube; and on and so forth. Since the article was created by a user named "Edmontonpolicy", and the subject is a policy consultant in Edmonton, this is almost certainly an WP:AUTOBIO — so I don't think copyvio is the clinching argument here, because he probably put both copies on both sites himself. But the fact that his notability hasn't been properly demonstrated in the first place is more definitive. Bearcat (talk) 16:20, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:GNG. The claim for notability is that somehow this subject is carrying on the work of Gandhi. I don't see any proof of that in reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 15:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 22:21, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Max Lovely![edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK; article has no sources; subject has no official English translated version nor adaptations. lullabying (talk) 18:07, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:01, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:01, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Erika Kurahashi. She is the author. ミラ P 14:59, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I could find nothing to establish nobility here. I would not redirect to the author as she appears to lack notability as well with her Japanese Wiki article tagged as having zero sources, and no articles for any of her works. [16] - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:38, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 21:55, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seishun Shiterukai![edit]

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

While the article seems to have potential and information, it does not pass WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. Any source (be it obscure, since the manga was published in 1998) has not been noted on the page, leaving the article completely unreferenced. There are also no adaptations to note. lullabying (talk) 17:50, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:01, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:01, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non notable book series by a non notable author. I looked for reliable sources under the Romanji and Kanji names in both English and Japanese sources and came up with nothing. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:57, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 21:55, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hot Pod[edit]

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

No evidence this is a notable podcast. See also Nicholas Quah Praxidicae (talk) 17:43, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. UnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 22:07, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. UnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 22:07, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Jmertel23 (talk) 20:52, 29 November 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)} 14:15, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Quah[edit]

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

No meaningful coverage, most hits are written by him and I cannot find any real coverage about him. Praxidicae (talk) 17:26, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Praxidicae. I've posted in Quah's talk page, but now realize that this is where the discussion is supposed to go. I do see you are saying that most of the sources about Quah are written by Quah himself. The google news feed has tons of articles written by him on Nieman Lab, Politico, Vulture, Hot Pod (of course). All total his name comes up in like 3150 articles if you go to Google and search for his name.

However, lumped in there are lots of references to him speaking and being quoted in the press as an expert on podcasts. Here's a few examples:

He's quoted here for a paragraph in API: https://www.americanpressinstitute.org/need-to-know/need-to-know-nov-21-2019/

And he's mentioned here as a commenter on the presidental debate with Politico https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2019/11/20/democratc-debate-format-ideas-072011

On stage here at WBUR, Boston: https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2019/07/23/peak-podcast-business-apps-audio

He's also quoted here by Barron's as an expert on the podcast industry: https://www.barrons.com/articles/podcasting-is-now-a-big-business-can-it-grow-its-advertising-base-51555708418

Of course, my feeling of his notability is probably because I subscribe to his newsletter and have taken him as an authority on the podcast business for many years. So maybe I'm biased and that's really the core of the problem.

Anyway, I very much appreciate Praxidicae (and DESiegel Contribs)'s help getting me up to speed on how to edit correctly. I'm reading up on the guidelines as fast as I can, but it's going to take a little while before I'm comfortable here.

Switfoot (talk) 18:11, 27 November 2019 (UTC)switfoot[reply]

None of those are coverage, I'm afraid. They're interviews or quotes. Praxidicae (talk) 18:16, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Praxidicae. Interesting. This is helpful. May I ask what defines "coverage" if not being interviewed or quoted in mainstream publications? Do you mean that there needs to be articles in the mainstream press specifically about Quah, rather that just using him as a source in discussions about the topics that he writes on? Switfoot (talk) 18:21, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Switfoot, exactly. There needs to be other people writing about Quah, not just evidence of people quoting him. It needs to be more than just a brief mentions, some detailed content about him by people not closely associated with him, Critical reviews of his work, also in some detail, can also count, as per WP:NAUTHOR. The political source above is too cursory to be of help here, and the others are all by him, quoting him, or interviews whill will mean largely him speaking. Sometimes an interview has an introductory section in which the reporter writes about the subject in detail, and those can be useful, but most interviews don't have any independent content. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:37, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Jmertel23 (talk) 21:47, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:47, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG. The article looks promotional - Jay (talk) 05:48, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) -Nahal^(T) 10:59, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Congress of Chiropractic State Associations[edit]

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

Ineligible for PROD due to previous AFD. Does not meet organisation notability criteria. SITH (talk) 16:57, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:04, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:04, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see no reason to overturn the previous AFD. Simply stating that the article "Does not meet organisation notability criteria" is not helpful, what part of that guideline or how does it apply? Further, a quick google search shows that the organization is covered in the news on some level and therefore seems to pass WP:GNG. Plus, articles on national medical organizations such as this one are normally kept. I don't see any policy violation. It's a stub.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:23, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a tiny stubby article but it's notable. Previous AfD remain keep votes still apply. I'll put it on my list of articles that need attention. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 20:06, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Wizardman, Leoniceno, Cameron, Stormbay, Peterkingiron, and Spartaz: Ping previous AFD participants. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:36, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:DELAFD vexatious renomination Lightburst (talk) 22:03, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I do think people here have oversold how notable this organization is and the importance of the last AFD. The last discussion was a lightly-attended AFD from more than 10 years ago where literally half the !votes were to delete. The closer explicitly stated that it was hung either way, so it wasn't exactly a boat of confidence that the article didn't see any improvement until less than a week ago.
Even though I tried contributing to the article, I wasn't really sure this passed WP:GNG until after Semmendinger's recent additions. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:44, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see no reason to overturn the previous AFD because the latest discussion more than 11 years ago.-Nahal^(T) 09:39, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 18:03, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Edward Kocol[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previous AFD from 2006 resulted in "merge", that appears to have been undone, opting for an AFD over BLAR to re-determine notability or lack thereof. SITH (talk) 16:50, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:04, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:04, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there are no reliable sources. Two are primary sources that merely show someone of this name exists, not even that he was a musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:02, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V, WP:42. I looked. There's not a single national news nor newspaper article about this subject. Bearian (talk) 15:49, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus was this subject passes WP:LISTN. (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 17:53, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of mechanical keyboards[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Wikipedia isn't a buyer's guide. Also, this list will never become exhaustive and it's not worth spending so much effort to keep it up to date. ««« SOME GADGET GEEK »»» (talk) 15:51, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ««« SOME GADGET GEEK »»» (talk) 15:51, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete WP:NOTDIR and per nom. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:05, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:05, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:05, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIR WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Ajf773 (talk) 19:13, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP I have contacted everyone who participated in the previous AFD for this to tell them someone decided to nominate it again already. List articles do not have to become "exhaustive", nor do they have to be up to date. Many articles are not up to date. Not valid reasons to delete. This aids in navigation, plenty of blue links to articles for mechanical keyboards, so is a valid list article. Dream Focus 02:41, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per WP:LISTN, "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list". Mechanical keyboards have been discussed as a group by reliable sources as discussed in the previous AFD. Lack of exhaustiveness/lack of maintenance is not a WP:DELREASON. Wikipedia is not a catalogue, but this article is not written in catalogue style and as such this does not apply.

I'm not particularly down with messaging all the previous participants because often these discussions need a new set of eyes, but messaging everybody who previously discussed it is acceptable and should not draw accusations of WP:CANVAS. FOARP (talk) 08:08, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The hostility to this topic seems odd when here we are, all using keyboards. Familiarity breeds contempt, I suppose. Anyway, the topic easily passes WP:LISTN – see PC News, for example. The rest is then a matter of ordinary editing not deletion per WP:ATD; WP:IMPERFECT; WP:NOPAPER; WP:PRESERVE; &c. Andrew D. (talk) 10:50, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — The article doesn't include prices for the keyboards which does not make it a buyer's guide. Everything in the article is backed up by sources. The list passes WP:LISTN, without a hitch. There aren't any good points made by the nominator nor participants to delete the article. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 11:49, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per everything said in the previous AFD. The new argument here is that we are not a buyers' guide. Very true, we are not, but per Capt. M., a buyers' guide includes prices. It also requires the commodity to be buyable, which in many cases, such as the IBM Model F keyboard, they are not. However, I would support tightening the inclusion criteria and purging the entries that do not meet it. The ones with bluelinks to articles are ok, but for the others, a reference to the manufacturer's marketing page is just not acceptable. An independent ref with some encyclopaedic discussion needs to be provided. SpinningSpark 14:21, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not sure if there is a policy-based argument to this, but Wikipedia has a lot of CRUFTy lists; this is a borderline case of those. I've seen a lot CRUFTier lists, some of which have survived AfD. Doug Mehus T·C 16:55, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:29, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Manthan International School[edit]

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

Does not appear to have garnered significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources and therefore fails the organisations and general notability guidelines. SITH (talk) 15:51, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:56, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:56, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:56, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete searching online I was able to find mere mentions, but not much else. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:38, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete the article is about 3 different branches, or maybe three separate schools run by the same governing body. None of the three has significant coverage in reliable sources and therefore fails the organisations and general notability guidelines. The wikipedia article itself reads like a listing. —usernamekiran(talk) 01:12, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL and WP:GNG. Hundreds, possibly thousands, of schools in India offer the same programs and opportunities. There's no proof from reliable sources that these schools are special in any way. Bearian (talk) 15:36, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. A range of views with none particularly dominant. Results and coverage a week from now could lead to a prompt renomination, or make it clear that the subject is notable, but for closing this for now as no consensus. RL0919 (talk) 23:16, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CumbriaFirst[edit]

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

Non-notable political party Meatsgains^(talk) 02:10, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:46, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:09, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect A single person is not a party. Reywas92^Talk 04:44, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand why this page has been nominated for deletion, but I have now improved the citations and added local election results (see CumbriaFirst) which lists candidates other than the leader. PinkPanda272 (talk) 18:31, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CumbriaFirst are an officially registered UK political party and are more than one person. every party in the global political system started with someone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.249.9.71 (talk) 01:26, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:44, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete They dont appear to be particularly noteworthy looking at even local media coverage, no prejudice against recreation if Davies becomes an MP as it will make his party of some note but not at the moment. MilborneOne (talk) 18:16, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a candidate was elected in the local elections, enough coverage exists, these are usually kept. Peter James (talk) 16:33, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to a relevant list. Ambrosiawater (talk) 08:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lets decide on 13th December. Rathfelder (talk) 08:53, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While there was some sightly yet equally persuasive discussion from the keep, delete, and redirect camps, the low volume of discussion warrants an extra week to give better closure here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ミラ P 22:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MILL - it's contested three elections, one of which its candidate won. Bearian (talk) 20:22, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Which is more than the Roman Party ever did, and there was consensus to keep that article. Peter James (talk) 11:22, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:43, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is now into the third week of AfD discussion, and it would be useful if we could come to some form of consensus. I have tried to improve the article in question up to a standard comparable with similar pages (see Category:Locally based political parties in England), so I think it should be kept. I get some people feel it is just not notable enough, but it has District Council representation and as Peter James said above, other articles like this have been kept in the past.

Cheers, PinkPanda272 (talk) 17:51, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per WP:MILL. The article and coverage do not appear to be particularly noteworthy. Agreed with comments above for deletion reasons - Jay (talk) 05:52, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A political party with a candidate who actually won an elected office would seem to be notable enough to be encyclopedic.4meter4 (talk) 21:18, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:33, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Akra Krishnanagar High School[edit]

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

Other than JustDial, Facebook and LinkedIn, there doesn't appear to be much coverage of the school at all. Secondary schools aren't inherently notable and still have to meet the criteria for organisation notability. There doesn't appear to be significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources. SITH (talk) 15:20, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:28, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:28, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

comment I am usually (well, mostly) all in for deletion of secondary schools. But it is claimed that this school was established in 1924 (pre-independance era), which is sort of big deal. It also has a pretty large number of students. On that basis, i would have opposed the deletion, but again, I couldnt find any reliable source to corroborate these claims. So I am sort of confused. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:39, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, the editor had already created the article on 16 October 2019‎ as AKRA KRISHNANAGAR HIGH SCHOOL which was also unsourced, it was moved by Comatmebro to Draft:Akara Krishnanagar High School. They are pretty much identical with the same picture. Not sure why the editor has gone and created it in mainspace, but they should work on it in the draftspace. In fact, the moving editor has made the mistake of not notifying the user of the moving, which is what should have been done. Steven (Editor) (talk) 01:10, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just noticed a typo was also made when it was moved, I've sorted this, now at Draft:Akra Krishnanagar High School. Steven (Editor) (talk) 04:14, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - completely unsourced article about a run of the mill school and does not pass my standards. This school is not so ancient that it might be considered historic, and news coverage is spotty and incidental. Bearian (talk) 15:57, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 21:55, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agnieszka Rejment[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSKATE and WP:GNG. Hergilei (talk) 22:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:41, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:52, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable athlete.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:28, 30 November 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 Blue (Da Ba Dee)#Music video. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:06, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blue (Da Ba Dee) (music video)[edit]

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

Really not seeing how the video is independently notable from the song itself, especially after a quick Google search where almost all the results were unreliable sources and the couple that seemed reliable focused on the song rather than the video. Also worth noting that all but three of the sources cited in the article are primary, further suggesting a lack of reliable non-primary sources confirming the video's notability, and that much of the information in the article could easily be merged into the article about the song. Vaporgaze (talk) 14:27, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, albeit selectively, to Blue (Da Ba Dee)#Music video. There's a tiny bit of useful content which is present in the nominated article but not the linked section, but the nominator is entirely correct, there's nothing special about this music video and we don't usually fork off sections on music videos from their songs into new articles because there isn't much to say. Indeed, Bohemian Rhapsody, regarded by some publications (e.g. 1 and 2) to have popularised the trend of making accompanying videos for songs, does not have its own article. Yes, I know other stuff not existing isn't something we should talk about, but the point stands that music videos don't get their own articles because there's no need for it. SITH (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any reliably sourced content to Blue (Da Ba Dee)#Music video as above as the music video is not independently notable from the song imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:07, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:06, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cognoscenti (comics)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable fictional topic TTN (talk) 14:18, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:18, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:18, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations. BOZ (talk) 15:15, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Straightforward failure of WP:GNG. Nothing worth preserving in any way. --Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 15:36, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not finding a single reliable source that mentions this group at all. Outside of the usual Marvel wiki-type sites, the only thing I'm finding for them is an entry in a Marvel published guide book which, obviously, is a primary source. I was unable to find anything in reliable secondary sources at all. Rorshacma (talk) 15:46, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No real world notability, fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:09, 27 November 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) 15:07, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kid Commandos[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional topic. TTN (talk) 14:16, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:16, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:16, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations. BOZ (talk) 15:14, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fictional organization. No evidence of stand-alone notability. Not a shred of analysis. Pure WP:PLOT and list of appearances in media. Fails WP:PLOT, WP:GNG, WP:NFICTION. BEFORE shows nothing that's not in passing or a plot summary. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:26, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - more fancruft. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:05, 30 November 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) 15:07, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Norns (comics)[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional topic. TTN (talk) 14:15, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:15, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:15, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations. BOZ (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fictional organization. No evidence of stand-alone notability. Not a shred of analysis. Pure WP:PLOT and list of appearances in media. Fails WP:PLOT, WP:GNG, WP:NFICTION. BEFORE shows nothing that's not in passing or a plot summary. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:27, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Piotrus' assessment is spot on. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:04, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per above, the group fails the WP:GNG due to a lack of coverage in reliable, secondary sources. It could potentially be used as a Redirect to Asgard (comics), where they are already listed, but there is no content that needs to be merged. Rorshacma (talk) 00:42, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify and salt. Looking at the arguments below (as well as the history of the article and the discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Draft:Delete_this_page), the unusual step of moving the content to a draft and salting the article title actually appears to be the most appropriate option. This solution prevents the loss of the work done already, while also preventing recreation without review. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:08, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Truth or Legends: In Your Hometown[edit]

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

Non-notable show that hasn't even been released yet. Has virtually no coverage outside of hyper-local markets and even that is thin. Fails WP:NTV Praxidicae (talk) 13:43, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per television and general notability guidelines. Three local publications with little to say other than "this show is scheduled for this time and is about that" isn't enough; no prejudice against recreation after airing if it turns out to garner more widespread attention and reviews in critical sources. SITH (talk) 13:52, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:58, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hard Keep How about giving it some time for more sources to come out that can be added? This page has only been live for less than twelve hours, if there were no sources period (and there are thousands of pages that don't that are still in existence), then I can understand that. But this page was in draft for months so that sources can be made and sources have been made, thin or not. I don't want to have to recreate this page from scratch in seven months when it does air. If you were going to put a delete notice on it after I took it live, you should've just done it when the page was first created instead of letting me waste my time and then try taking it away. Jeremyeyork (talk) 14:48, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because that's not how Wikipedia works. This has been explained to you and you still move-warred it to mainspace, so the only solution is to request it's deletion. Even in 7 months after it airs, it does not mean it will be notable. Praxidicae (talk) 15:32, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It is far WP:TOOSOON for this show to be considered notable. The handful of extremely local coverage is pretty much all that there is as far as secondary coverage goes. No prejudice for recreation if it does become notable in the future, but for now, it completely fails the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 17:00, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - which is where this was, with the condition that an admin, AfC reviewer, or NPP reviewer be the one to move it in to mainspace if and when notability criteria are satisfied. I had gone to review this earlier, and the current sourcing (and a wp:before) did not turn up enough to really solidly pass GNG. I had been on the fence, but after taking a look at the sources again, sending this back to draft would most likely be the most appropriate course of action. My one concern is the seeming advocacy of the editor who continues to promote this article, and due to that, Delete might be the way to go, and salt it so that it can only be created with the approval of an admin.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:46, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify and Salt. Back into the woodwork with you!! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:59, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify and salt is never appropriate. Salting is done to prevent recreation, drafting is done to allow recreation if the article becomes suitable. It can't be both. Smartyllama (talk) 02:17, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to prevent recreation except after a review from an admin? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:12, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Redirect at editorial discretion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:10, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gamling[edit]

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

The article as it is written lacks any sources. It makes assertions like "this is not actually his name", unless we can find somewhere where Tolkien explicitly says this, we cannot claim it. The Wikia article on this character does have a reference to the LoTR companion. His role is not in any way substantial, and this is not wikia. We do not cover every person mentioned in a work (despite our article on Queen Berúthiel. My search for reliable, secondary sources on Gamling came up with nothing. While he does seem to have an expanded role in The Two Towers as opposed to the books, in part because of reimagining on the proper interactions between king and troops, it still does not rise to a role that is significant enough to the plot of the film to justify an article on him. John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:33, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:58, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:14, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - An extremely minor character in the LotR. As mentioned, there are currently no sources being used in the article, and a lot of the content appears to be WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. Searching for any kind of sources that discuss him turns up nothing in-depth. He's not even mentioned in the article for the novel of The Two Towers, and is only mentioned in the cast list in The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, making neither one an appropriate redirect target. Rorshacma (talk) 17:09, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Battle of the Hornburg. Gamling is too minor to have his own page, but he's mentioned at the Battle of the Hornburg page (better known as Battle of Helm's Deep), and his in-universe significance is mostly in relation to that battle, so it's a good redirect target. Hog Farm (talk) 18:37, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fancruft without even a single reference. Fails GNG in any case. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:29, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG. TTN (talk) 01:32, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Faolin42 (talk) 18:33, 29 November 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) 15:10, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Hiller[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NOTABILITY or WP:ANYBIO. The article appears to be well-referenced, but most of the references aren't about the subject, merely mentioning him in passing. ubiquity (talk) 13:00, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've done a full source analysis (numbers correspond with reviewed version at Special:Permalink/928197567) and I'm pasting it below, I'll base my !vote off it once I've had time to consider it. SITH (talk) 14:39, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update: now done, please see below. SITH (talk) 14:59, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
1	User editable profile.	Just for verifying his own name, yes.	No, it doesn't say much.	✘ No
2	? Appears to be offline version of first source.	? Unfamiliar with source.	It is a directory, no significant coverage.	✘ No
3	No apparent affiliation.	? Unfamiliar with author.	Mentioned once.	✘ No
4	No apparent affiliation.	~ Looks like a legitimate source, the story is filed under "Q&A" though, which leads me to suspect it is more interview-based.	~ He appears to be the main topic of coverage, putting to partially due to potential interview-based approach (full text behind a paywall).	~ Partial
5	No apparent affiliation.	Title clearly takes sides.	~ It is an interview.	✘ No
6	Description indicates affiliation.	YouTube video by affiliated group.	By virtue of being a video of him.	✘ No
7	No apparent affiliation.	No reason to doubt reliability.	~ Main focus is the rally, however, Hiller appears to be heading the rally so it does cover him, but only in relation to the rally.	~ Partial
8	No apparent affiliation.	No reason to doubt reliability.	Quotes him extensively, although the girl and her case is the main topic of coverage the quotation is extensive enough to warrant significant coverage.	✔ Yes
9	Similar to number 8.	Similar to number 8.	Similar to number 8.	✔ Yes
10	? It's Wikipedia, anyone can edit it.	Wikipedia is not a reliable source.	Does not mention "Hiller".	✘ No
11	~ Clearly aligned with the aforementioned case due to nature of publication.	? Staff writer for unfamiliar publication.	Transcludes self-published biography, note also source 33.	✘ No
12	It's Reuters.	It's Reuters.	Single quote, single mention, it's about the decision in the aforementioned case.	✘ No
13	No reason to doubt independence.	~ Forbes is generally considered reliable, however, reliance on tweets, while now widespread, is a bit questionable.	~ Forbes transcludes some of Hiller's tweets about the case but doesn't mention him other than that.	~ Partial
14	Official transcript.	Official transcript.	By virtue of the case, his oral arguments are published, this is an official transcript, it does not give weight to them.	✘ No
15	No reason to doubt independence.	~ It is filed under "Analysis" and described as an opinion piece.	? I can only read the first few words, the rest is paywalled.	? Unknown
16	No apparent affiliation.	? Unfamiliar with publication.	~ Borderline, it gives a few quotes.	? Unknown
17	New York Times.	New York Times.	A few quotes, still not the primary topic, but it mentions multiple case work so yes.	✔ Yes
18	? Unable to access my JSTOR account at this moment.	? Unable to access my JSTOR account at this moment.	? Unable to access my JSTOR account at this moment.	? Unknown
19	No reason to doubt independence.	? Unfamiliar with publication.	Doesn't mention him at all. Mentions Community United, the uploader of the cited YouTube video.	✘ No
20	No reason to doubt independence.	Curbed is usually blog-based but this appears to be not user-generated.	Quotes him several times.	✔ Yes
21	Likely, WSJ.	Likely, WSJ.	? Paywalled.	? Unknown
22	No apparent affiliation, local publication though.	? Unfamiliar with publication, odd that it is published on ISSU.	He is the primary topic of coverage.	? Unknown
23	? Op-ed.	Op-ed.	Single mention.	✘ No
24	? Chummy wording and unfamiliarity with publication raises an eyebrow.	? Unfamiliar with publication.	He appears to be one of the primary topics covered.	? Unknown
25	Reuters.	Reuters.	~ Ehh, single quote again.	~ Partial
26	No reason to doubt independence.	? Unfamiliar with publication.	Several quotes, still not primary topic of coverage.	? Unknown
27	Official transcript.	Official transcript.	By virtue of him being on a case transcript sites will document it, doesn't add weight or significance as it is autogenerated coverage.	✘ No
28	See above.	See above.	See above.	✘ No
29	See above.	See above.	See above.	✘ No
30	See above.	See above.	See above.	✘ No
31	Appears to be profile which subject can edit.	~ For basic details, yes, but as an advert it will have flaws in areas.	By virtue of its lack of independence.	✘ No
32	? Bare link, no parameters given.	? Bare link, no parameters given.	Appears to be simply a directory.	✘ No
33	? 404, please note that the title is identical to number 11.	? 404, please note that the title is identical to number 11.	? 404, please note that the title is identical to number 11.	? Unknown
34	? Poorly designed website, obscure activist group, notes award, potential client?	~ That they gave him an award? Yes. Anything else? No.	Mentioned once.	✘ No
35	No apparent affiliation.	? Unfamiliar with publication.	Mentioned once.	✘ No
36	Identical to source 5, please name the reference and invoke it.	Identical to source 5, please name the reference and invoke it.	Identical to source 5, please name the reference and invoke it.	? Unknown
37	Identical to source 8, please name the reference and invoke it.	Identical to source 8, please name the reference and invoke it.	Identical to source 8, please name the reference and invoke it.	? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Reversed !vote.

Keep by a gnat's whisker. Wikipedia isn't the place for your curriculum vitae. However, I get that a lawyer will generally be covered secondarily to their casework, so I think giving him the benefit of the doubt on articles where he's quoted extensively such as in sources 7, 8, 9, 16 and 17 is fair. The article is a mess though, there are plenty of sources as per my analysis below, based on Special:Permalink/928197567, that are totally unnecessary for various reasons such as linkspam with sources 1 and 2, affiliation or lack of neutrality with sources 5 and 6, circular referencing with source 10, further linkspam and likely self-published nature of sources 11 and 31, etcetera, etcetera. But Wikipedia is a work in progress, and we can fix all that instead of deleting it. While it is a borderline case, in my opinion the biographical and general notability guidelines are just about satisfied by virtue of sources 8, 9, 17 and 20. If kept, I think tagging this article for BLP source improvement is a must and potentially a conflict of interest tag, because a lot of the unreferenced personal material does not appear to be published on the internet, indicating that a contributor could have a conflict of interest. SITH (talk) 14:59, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: amazing work, SITH. I'm still not convinced, though. Taking the article paragraph by paragraph, I see:

1. Somewhat promotional. "Protector of the Little Guy", indeed.

2. Says he founded his own firm. In most cases this is not notable, some people do it because they can't get into an already existing good firm. The entire rest of the pp is about someone else. I do not have a WP article. Can I get one by saying I was inspired by Alan Turing?

3. Entire pp is about a case-not-covered-by-WP, not Hiller.

4. Lots of this pp is not about the subject; what is about the subject is promotional. Of the 10 references, SITH's analysis shows only two clearly valid ones, and even they are not about the subject himself.

5. Seems promotional. No valid refs according to SITH's analysis.

The rest of the article is about his personal life, which doesn't seem particularly notable to me. Yes, he got a good degree from a good law school, but so did my brother, my sister, my dad and my son (none in WP). Because I am familiar with lawyers, I know that being named Superlawyer is not necessarily an indicator of notability (again, my brother, sister, dad and HIS brother got this -- my son didn't, but he's quit law to become a Hollywood screenwriter). He taught law at John Jay but nothing in the article says that was notable. He wrote two screenplays, neither was filmed, and one lost three rounds before the end of a contest (which means his name does not appear in the WP article he references). I'm sorry, I'm just not impressed. The article seems like a vanity piece to me, without any of the real meat of notability. ubiquity (talk) 16:30, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ubiquity, thanks! I've been mulling this one over and I think I may have been a bit hasty in deciding on keep from the analysis. The main delete argument would come from ANYBIO in conjunction with BLP1E or NOTINHERITED. I'll take a look at the sources again and weigh it up and update accordingly. For now I've just withdrawn my !vote. SITH (talk) 18:10, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per the table, and the promotional/COI nature of the article. Basically, notability here would be marginal at best, with a following wind and a few nice glasses of port. There's really nothing to make this guy notable, just a lot of fluff whipped up to look impressive. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:50, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (switched from weak keep): reading over the sources again, I'm seeing a few of the quotes being repeated, so they were likely given at press conferences. None of the sources which meet all three criteria (independence, reliability and coverage) actually cover his role in the cases as the primary topic of attention. Again, it's marginal but the promotionalism both in the article and in many of the sources also fares poorly. SITH (talk) 14:13, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article engages in NPOV violating promotionalism.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:50, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while his work is no doubt laudable, he's not notable per WP:GNG (as seen in the table of sources above), nor even one factor for my standards of notable attorneys. Bearian (talk) 16:03, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 12:43, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Bowler[edit]

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

Article on non-notable journalist which appears to be created by someone with a close relationship with the subject (if not the subject themselves). Article reads substantively like a CV or LinkedIn profile. There is nothing here (or that I can find as part of a reference/sources search) to indicate that the subject is any more notable than the thousands (millions?) of other journalists in the world. To extent that WP:GNG or WP:JOURNALIST is met. There is, for example, no independent coverage of the subject's work or life or otherwise. Guliolopez (talk) 12:28, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 12:30, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 12:30, 27 November 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 November 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:41, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GNG fail. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:00, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG in addition to the (relatively) obvious self-promotion. Taewangkorea (talk) 18:17, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Spleodrach (talk) 12:55, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Does not pass WP:GNG threshold. Also fails WP:JOURNALIST. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 20:55, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no claim nor proof of passing WP:GNG. Seems like a run of the mill journalist to me. Bearian (talk) 16:04, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:30, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edith Espie[edit]

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

no apparent notability There do not seem to be any references psecifically about her. DGG ( talk ) 11:45, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. DGG ( talk ) 11:45, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:03, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have access to the offline sources? DS (talk) 14:47, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Having a street named after you satisfies WP:ANYBIO, in particular, "received a well-known and significant award or honor". WWGB (talk) 23:53, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the precedent that "eponym of a street = notability" would set, honestly. DS (talk) 02:28, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. A town's street being named after one is hardly "a well-known or significant honor." DiamondRemley39 (talk) 15:03, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edith Espie was a significant woman who made a large contribution to the community of Alice Springs by caring for people and making a success of her life even after being institutionalised as a young child as a part of the Stolen Generations. It is also notable that she was a successful jockey in the 1920s as an Aboriginal woman. It is also notable that her son William "Bill" Espie became so successful. The lack of resources about her are not the fault of her but a lack of care taken to record women is history; especially those significant for caring roles. User:Aliceinthealice —Preceding undated comment added 06:29, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But there is not significant coverage of any of these things in the article. As she was a locally significant person who lived and died in modern times, could you find an obituary or a "hometown heroes" type of write-up about her? Were there newspapers that mentioned her jockey career? DiamondRemley39 (talk) 14:50, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Her son being the subject of a Wikipedia article does not help her case for notability. See Notability: people. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 15:03, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's incorrect to say that there is no documentation of her life in the article, even including the horse racing. Two books, which unfortunately I don't have full access to, indicate that the information is in there. AGF means we need to assume that the article is correctly documented even if we don't have full access. Maybe someone from Australia, like Casliber might have better luck getting full access. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 05:09, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, User:Megalibrarygirl... I did not say there was no documentation of her life in the article. The issue is that the coverage provided does not make a strong case for the subject passing Wikipedia notability guidelines (it has improved over the last day thanks to the work of User:RebeccaGreen). It is not a question of whether the information is in there, but what information is in there. Consider that the sources that mention Espie but are primarily about her son are passing mentions. Espie is mentioned in a self-published book about street names in Alice Springs and the book about horse racing in the area. The details about horse racing are scant, but could probably be better--she was in-demand as a jockey when she was a teen; her being an Aboriginal woman jockey makes her unique (enough for a Wikipedia article?? Are there any details that would allow her to qualify for notability as a sports person?) It may be that the sources given have more information and could be used to significantly improve the article, but most of us do not have access to them. Agreed that someone from or with research connections in Australia may be able to access more. I will keep researching to see whether it sinks or swims. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 01:03, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete or merge~~ The article cited has no significant coverage specifically about its subject. What there is in the sources isn't enough. If a journalist ever did a deep-dive into the life of Espie by talking to some of the children she helped, or if Espie received newspaper coverage when the street was named after her, please add those sources. If those don't exist or can't be found, this article just doesn't cut it. Consider merging existing facts into the article about her son. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 15:03, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a person from the stolen generation who died in the 1980s. Both situations present problems for several reasons. Those in the stolen generation are marginalized people. People living before we digitized everything often don't have the coverage in news sources (esp. if they're part of marginalized groups) saved fully to databases. Nevertheless, she was documented in a book with biographies about people in Alice Springs. She was also an early horse jockey. Even if we don't have full access to the books, we need to AGF that the information in the books has been faithfully represented in the article. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 05:14, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have looked at this about five times and spent a considerable amount of time researching it. I think you must assume the person who wrote this is doing their best for the encyclopaedia. Personally, I've created articles with references that are only archive numbers, as that is all I have received from the university. You don't know if what your getting is genuine. So there is a level of peer trust, that must exist for the whole article to come into existence. So I think it is genuine. I can't see it as being a hoax. It is worth noting we are drastically short of these kind of articles. Probably not the best reason to keep, but I don't see any reason to see it be a hoax, fake or false and must assume then she is notable as it is well referenced. scope_creep^Talk 12:49, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the assumption of good faith that offline books have more detail (which they generally do). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:53, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is built around verifiability. This means that people must source the information. If it is true that people of her ethnic group at the time received little coverage, we cannot fixs that. Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs. We are here to reflect secondary source coverage of a topic, and we are not seeing that here. Having a street, or a school, named after you is not a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:17, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable figure in central Australia across several different fields, and with some quite remarkable accomplishments. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:30, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Drover's Wife. What remarkable accomplishments? duffbeerforme (talk) 08:01, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sources in the article are enough to establish notability, and on the basis that the article was created in good faith and offline sources would be able to establish more information. The assumption that "if it's not online it mustn't be notable" (or its relative "if I can't find it on the first page of a Google search it mustn't be notable"), which seems to inhabit AfD discussions, is a terrible precedent to set. Bookscale (talk) 00:45, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't agree that having a street named after you gives presumed notability, but I believe that she meets WP:BASIC. This article has been further improved with more sources. I have been meaning to go to the Northern Territory Library to check the books given as sources, and I will still try to do that. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:49, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~Weak delete Changing vote in light of detailed information from additional sources found by User:Oulfis and User:RebeccaGreen. Good work! I will keep trying to research this too. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 15:03, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Where's the notability? What's she done that's noteworthy? She looked after some local kids, she participated in local sports, she sold food, she served beer, she ironed shirts, she what? The coverage? The majority is about her son with passing mentions. The exceptions, Petrick is locally self published. The racing one is by a tiny local publisher who lack a reputation of fact checking, lacks any real reputation. The last is a personal anecdote, not independent coverage. The street? Not a major honour, especially for that crappy little street. duffbeerforme (talk) 22:02, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Megalibrarygirl, Scope creep, Cas Liber, Bookscale, RebeccaGreen. It's not just about assuming good faith, we also need to evaluate the reliability of the sources. As for the assuming good faith, everyone can check a few things. Petrick, Jose (1989). The history of Alice Springs through street names. Note, 1989. From the Place Name Register, "Date Registered 10 May 2000". Hmmm. Not likely to be in that book. Bulldust & bough shades .... What does that verify? "This was during ... was very unusual". That whole section could be verified by a book that doesn't even mention her and there is nothing in that passage that suggests the book mentions her.

So instead of assuming let's look at facts. Petrick 1989 does not have Espie St/Edith Espie but they do appear in the 2005 and 2010 editions. Has about the same as the Wikipedia article apart from some details about her 7 children. What it does not do is support the peacocked claim of being a "sought-after" jockey. "A keen horsewoman she became a jockey in her teens riding in colours at local races". Skirting uncomfortably to very close paraphrasing as does other parts. Dale 1981 covers over a hundred years in a 52 page book. If Espie is even mentioned in there I didn't see it. There is definitely no depth of coverage about her. Looking through the book the section in this article that it follows appears to be pure synth, original research, the big industry claim being particularly dubious. So no, don't just assume.

What we have is one source that goes into any depth about her but that source is self published. One non RS is not near enough for GNG or basic. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:01, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is very tenuous. There is not single a fact you can state that would prove that she was notable. She seemed to exist as much as I can say. I've removed the Ancestry ref. Its non-rs. scope_creep^Talk 08:15, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What good does only removing the citation do to this already weak article if its information is going to remain? Consider either removing the information (the dates) that I added in my edit or adding a citation needed tag. Additionally, the citation to the index of probate records, which provided dates for Espie's common law husband (and further evidence of his existence), is a reliable source; it is an index to government legal records that has been purchased by or donated to Ancestry. It is not user-generated and can't be edited or manipulated by Ancestry users. But I can see how those unfamiliar with Ancestry would follow the general guideline of the perennial websites list without evaluating the source, and won't try to fight that battle here. I have found another source for the index and cited it, though this does not include the reference number to the record of the man in question. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 13:04, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have obtained Espie's funeral notice and the pages from the much-discussed book of street names. Nothing of interest in the funeral notice, though it does have her interment location which I shall add to the article if it isn't already there. The street names book's copyright page does not have a date. There are a few paragraphs about Espie, but none of it is detailed. More than half of it is about her children and what they have done in life. This level of detail may have been appropriate for a woman who lived, worked, and played a sport in, say, the 1200s, but doesn't quite cut it for the 1900s. She does not seem to qualify for any major "FIRST" either. When I had changed my vote from DELETE to KEEP, one of the major things that swayed me with the finding of Olive Ververbrants' paper that is cited in the article. While I am reluctant to dismiss anecdotal evidence, especially for BLP, I can't say it pushes Espie over the notability threshold either. (On a side note, the article on Gloria Ouida Lee, who is mentioned in Espie's article, was created last month and may be about another non-notable person from the same area.) I have changed my vote above and am, as ever, eager to change my vote yet again if compelling evidence is found. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 18:40, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable figure in Australia in several different fields. Wm335td (talk) 22:34, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Megalibrarygirl and Cas Liber. Pleased to see that the AfD has had one good result, which is significant improvement of the article. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:03, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 12:33, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Air China Flight 818[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Engine fires are quite common. Aviation Safety Network's database is full of them. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:30, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:30, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:30, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:30, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:30, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG, non-notable engine incident, posting a video on youtube does not confer notability. Does not even warrant a mention in ANY Wikipedia article or list!!--Petebutt (talk) 01:19, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not Notable. - Samf4u (talk) 16:49, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete correct call from the nom clearly not noteworthy for an aricle. MilborneOne (talk) 18:16, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 21:55, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RJ Agustin[edit]

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

not enough to establish notability Singer, Does not meet criteria of WP:GNG. fails WP:GNG. this singer seems to be too early in the concept phase for any such coverage to exist then it means WP:TOOSOON. WP:TOOSOON for this young singer. not receive any award. -Nahal^(T) 10:58, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:08, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:08, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:22, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! This is Ran. Good day! It's nice to hear from you. This page has reputable references please check. Also kindly consider that there is no advertorial content on the page. Please consider. —Preceding User:RanSJ17 (T) comment added 12:37, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there's no evidence that this person meets WP:MUSICBIO, much less WP:SIGCOV. YouTube and other social media are not reliable as we define it. Thousands of Filipinos are musical artists, including professional singers, but are run of the mill. There's been some news coverage but not deeply about the subject. This article is too soon. Bearian (talk) 16:13, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The YouTube links need to go. Though, it needs more sources. [17], [18], [19] and [20] may help. _SUPER ^ASTIG 23:54, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Response. fails as a RS as it has no attributed journalist. Leaving that aside, it is neither significant coverage no WP:MUSICBIO. and Those side are word-press related side, i didn't think pass WP:GNG-Nahal^(T) 08:39, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 12:33, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of the State of Palestine in Sri Lanka[edit]

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

Fails WP:GEOFEAT/WP:ORG - embassies are not inherently notable. Sources are primary sources. Dan arndt (talk) 09:40, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 09:40, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 09:40, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 09:40, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The legality of the subject is unsettled. Bearian (talk) 16:06, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 12:34, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PANTHEON.tech[edit]

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

Non notable software company. Abishe (talk) 01:54, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 01:54, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 01:54, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 01:54, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Abishe, I added some sources I found regarding this company (in case of publications and such). The reason why I wanted to create a page for this company was, that I saw it at a few conferences I attended in 2019 and was intrigued by what they were doing. I don't know if this is the place to discuss their contributions to open-source software and so on, but please let me know what I can do, in order to improve the site and avoid deletion. Thank you! User:Tchdown svk (talk).

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Nahal^(T) 09:36, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most references are mentions-in-passing with some churnalism-type profile/interviews. None of the references in the article are of use to establishing notability. After a further search I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:13, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 12:34, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sandoz (Youtuber)[edit]

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

Non notable YouTuber and doesn't have links with other articles. Abishe (talk) 02:01, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 02:01, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 02:01, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 02:01, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 03:51, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the mentioned has 147k subscribers at this moment, I believe this makes the channel somewhat relevant, it is a stub but it can Be worked on. Dellwood546 (talk)
Keep There are more than 147,000 users who follow his youtube page, which is a recognized influencer on the Internet. In addition, many renowned sites relay its investigations .He was interviewed by serious sites. The person is in adequacy with the criteria of notoriety in force on Wikipedia. It has its place on Wikipedia.-Susanowoo (talk) 23:30, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- "Has many Youtube subscribers" is not an assertion of notability, because (like 'has many Twitter followers') it's way too easy to game. Am I saying that Sandoz bought tens of thousands of fake subscribers, no. But it can be done, and as such it does not show notability. Remember Goodhart's law. DS (talk) 06:14, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Cannot find any significant coverage from reliable sources that indicate subject passes WP:GNG. Amount of followers doesn't indicate notability, only indepentant, non-primary coverage. Of the sources, #1 is just analytics, #2 is Primary, #3 looks like a blog post, #4 is Primary, #5 will not load for me, #6-8 is not about the subject, #9 is primary. --Darth Mike^(talk) 15:34, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Nahal^(T) 09:36, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Darth Mike's source analysis, he doesn't appear to satisfy the web, biographical or general notability guidelines. I'd like to also take this opportunity to yet again restate one of the fundamental truths of Wikipedia: a subscriber, follower, like or view count does not endow someone with notability. SITH (talk) 15:03, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete per Darth Mike, and Sith (StraussInTheHouse). Combinedly, they've said what I was going to say. Amount of followers is not an indication of notability (followers can be purchased), the subject doesnt have significant coverage, and thus fails general notability guidelines. —usernamekiran(talk) 02:55, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails the WP:GNG guideline for talent/authors. Graywalls (talk) 06:55, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. as per Darth Mike.-Nahal^(T) 11:06, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 147,000 followers makes one famous but not notable, which requires significant coverage in reliable sources, which is missing badly here. Bearian (talk) 16:16, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 12:34, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Z Force (Action Force)[edit]

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

No indication this toy line related to a fictional military organization (from a game/action product series) passes WP:NFICTION/WP:GNG. Pure WP:PLOT+WP:OR. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:09, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:09, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge. It is an incontrovertible fact that Z Force is a fictional military organization, as part of the Action Force universe. In that context there is plenty of evidence in the written comic book archive (Battle Action Force etc) and the derived toy-line (Palitoy) that Z Force was an important part of the Action Force narrative (the European equivalent of the GI Joe universe). Whether it has enough global reach and notability that it warrants its own in-depth article is perhaps the issue that is up for debate, as has been the case with other elements of the Action Force narrative, see Q Force. Although I note that SAS Force, Space Force and perhaps most clearly the Red Shadows and Cobra are equivalent and to-date retain articles in their own right. The article is some 10 years old without any previous AfD. It strikes me this is about subjective perception from the POV of the OP.--Dick G (talk) 11:59, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails NFICTION/GNG. Wikipedia is not a toy store, eh? Kacper IV (talk) 09:23, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Nahal^(T) 09:35, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find any independent media coverage. I'm also going to nominate SAS (Action Force), Space Force (Action Force), Red Shadows and AF (action figures). Clarityfiend (talk) 20:16, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - simply does not meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:07, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG.-Nahal^(T) 11:07, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus of he discussion is that coverage is either not from reliable sources or does not constitute significant coverage. RL0919 (talk) 05:44, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Callahan (guitarist)[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG, WP:COMPOSER, or WP:BAND. In a WP:BEFORE search, I could only find the interview for a blog already linked in the article and a mention about the blog interview. The other linked source in the article is a sheet music listing and not significant coverage by a reliable source either. — MarkH21 (talk) 05:41, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 05:41, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 05:41, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 05:41, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An interview with Classic Guitar is not a reliable source? Of course he won't fit into WP:COMPOSER, or WP:BAND because he is not. He does however fit into WP:MUSICIAN. Have the nom thought about this category?--Biografer (talk) 06:43, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Biografer: The blog Classical Guitar, where the interview is from, is not the same as the magazine Classic Guitar. WP:BAND is the same as WP:MUSIC (and WP:MUSICIAN is a Wikiproject, not a notability guideline).
If you mean the sheet music listing (by Classical Guitar magazine), the post describes it as an instance of sheet music sent to us by various publishers year ’round, where we also occasionally announce recent print music releases... these are not reviews per se. It's not an interview, but the subject describing his own sheet music that was sent to the magazine. — MarkH21 (talk) 07:34, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The artist is reviewed here, Others cover his music, he played Carnegie Hall, covered by Brazilian guitarist and reviewed in the New York Times. There is more, but his music appears to pass WP:NSONG and he passes WP:CREATIVE. Lightburst (talk) 15:52, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The first link is the sheet music listing I mentioned earlier, not a review. The second link is his music being covered on YouTube. The latter two are performances by other people of his work and are actually relevant. WP:NSONG doesn’t seem applicable based on any of the sources so far, while those are reviews of the performances by the performers rather than the work. We only have confirmation that his work was played at Carnegie Hall in a performance reviewed by the NYT, but that is a convincing pass of which of the points at WP:CREATIVE or WP:COMPOSER? — MarkH21 (talk) 19:14, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Does it matter which guideline it passes? I personally don't see him as a composer, because, while Classical Guitar does claim him to be one, I see that other sources bring him out as a performer/musician. The creativity is dubious too, but, if he is mentioned in the New York Times, that will automatically will be a pass regardless. I at first overlooked the New York Times article, assuming that one tiny fragment in it wont make him notable. 90% of the article talks about Odair Assad's performance at the Metropolitan Museum of Art.--Biografer (talk) 19:49, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the notability guidelines definitely matter because if he is mentioned in the New York Times, that will automatically will be a pass regardless is false. That's just not how notability works on Wikipedia. If it covered the subject in significant detail, then it would counts towards WP:GNG. If it verified the significance of the subject through another notability guidelines, that's fine too. But just a mention by the NYT is not an "automatic pass".
The NYT article only mentions Callahan very briefly: he gave a spellbinding performance of Kevin Callahan’s “Red Fantasy,” an inviting study in chordal melodies, speedy single lines and occasional bent pitches. The other sources do not mention him at all as a "performer/musician", but just mention that other performers played his composition. — MarkH21 (talk) 19:57, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Classical Guitar article on him is very short, I've seen a ton of better blog posts or user comment reviews. He did have a few concerts or such but they do not seem to have generated much coverage. The other sources listed give him about a sentence coverage. So he fails WP:GNG, and I am not hearing any arguments on how he passes WP:NMUSICBIO (frankly, I find music and sports notability criteria arcane, but the point is, no awards, no competitions won, no reviews). Not all musicians are notable. At best, WP:TOOSOON. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:04, 6 November 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? 13:19, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:19, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MarkH21: If it is a blog, according to you, then explain to me why it doesn't say so in the url x/blogs/x?--Biografer (talk) 23:12, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Biografer: Because it calls itself a blog, others call it a blog, and not all blogs have "blog" in their url. — MarkH21 (talk) 23:23, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Then we should see what the end result gonna be...--Biografer (talk) 23:31, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 06:32, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | [confess] || 05:53, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't find any reliable source, i don't belive that he pass on WP:GNG. maybe it also WP:TOOSOON.-Nahal^(T) 10:38, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The keep votes above are based on faulty interpretations of sources, which has been successfully refuted by other editors. The Classical Guitar website specifically has been mistaken for something that it is not. Bottom line: the subject seems to be talented enough to work in their profession at the highest level , but there no significant coverage in RS to lift achievements beyond routine, just trivial mentions and/or routine verification of existence. ShelbyMarion (talk) 15:10, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with regret. The sources in the article are passing rather than significant coverage - a few words in a multiple-article paragraph about other musicians. They could be used to source an article when he becomes notable. Bearian (talk) 16:21, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 12:34, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ME Productions[edit]

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

Florida events company. Appears to have been local in scope and won a number of awards that don’t seem to me to make it notable. Most of the article has been unsourced since 2007. Does not pass WP:GNG or WP:CORP. Mccapra (talk) 06:59, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:59, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:59, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:59, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Nahal^(T) 09:29, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - coverage is entirely run of the mill or local, rather than significant. Bearian (talk) 16:23, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Pass WP:GNG (non-admin closure) -Nahal^(T) 07:58, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Moreira[edit]

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

Article about a business person who is the MD of a large organisation but who does not appear to meet WP:N. Being head of a notable organisation is not of itself notable, and the only refs I found were either (a) primary, or (b) regarding an accusation of bullying in the workplace - a WP:1E, covered at Transparency International. Dorsetonian (talk) 19:39, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Dorsetonian (talk) 19:39, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 20:24, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:16, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:16, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:17, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She is not a businessperson. She is an anti-corruption campaigner and the sort of person that businesses like to silence. I find her views widely quoted in reliable sources thus indicating that she satisfies the GNG rule. In addition to which she has been international recognised by two U.N. bodies as a board member of the United Nations Global Compact and a Council representative on the International Land Coalition. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:08, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm recusing myself from voting because page author notified me about this nomination on my talk page. I've added some citations to the page since the nomination; she's cited in lots of news coverage of various corruption scandals. So the interpretation of 1 event to me seems somewhat ambiguous, because although this is the first time she's been in the news for a scandal about her *personally,* she *also* is known as a spokesperson about corruption. It's not unusual for a single recent event (negative or otherwise) to push a person into sufficient notability to merit an article. Mvolz (talk) 11:18, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with comment and keep above. I see no advantage in deleting the article. Whispyhistory (talk) 14:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Leaning to a Keep; try one more re-list
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 10:14, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Nahal^(T) 09:27, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bad rationale. She is notable with quite an enormous amount of coverage. scope_creep^Talk 11:45, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is not a businessperson, and heads up the largest NGO in its field. Enough coverage out there to pass WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 16:01, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. The article has been vastly improved. Bearian (talk) 16:24, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I'm goingto be bold and close this as delete. The challenge in the deletion rationale was not, "does this player pass NFOOTY", but "is the presumption of GNG afforded by NFOOTY justified in this instance"? There has been a lot of discussion, but tellingly, nothing from any of the keep votes asserts GNG, with sources provided in the article being only the briefest of mentions by name. There are clearly sources covering this time period of football in Poland but, tellingly also, none to date unearthed that discuss this player in detail Fenix down (talk) 17:32, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ryszard Walkiewicz[edit]

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

Professional football did not exist at the time this footballer played, but he did feature in the highest league of a decent footballing nation – on a single occasion. I firmly believe the spirit of the inclusion guideline is to set the bar higher than that. The WikiProject Football has a couple of AFD outcomes where current players, who played a single match on an actual professional level, had their articles deleted after it became clear that the single game was their only accomplishment. Geschichte (talk) 11:00, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:01, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:01, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:01, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the spirit of the guideline is to include those who have appeared in a single game or more - if the guideline for inclusion were two games, it would be two games. The articles mentioned above were deleted after it was demonstrated WP:GNG had not been satisfied. Here whether WP:GNG is met is a bit obfuscated, as the article's a bit overly reliant on lechia.net, but he made multiple appearances for the team (including cup appearances) and while not much else comes up on the internet I'm entirely unable to search period Polish pieces of the era. SportingFlyer T·C 11:37, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets the requirement. The spirit or letter of SNG is perhaps whatever the WP:LOCALCONSENSUS says it is. The article should be developed and WP:PRESERVE WP:NOTPAPER Lightburst (talk) 15:38, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:43, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:44, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NFOOTBALL is met. We're not really going to have a GNG discussion about a 1950s Polish player are we, with no access to Polish media from the immediate post-war period? Nfitz (talk) 19:41, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm really not seeing GNG here, can keep voters please indicate why someone who made a very small number of appearances can reasonably be presumed to have garnered sufficient coverage to satisfy GNG? That seems counter intuitive to me.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 22:50, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as stated NFOOTBALL is clearly met, however if this discussion is now about GNG then I would like to add my thoughts on the topic.

- Significant coverage "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." - In terms of the subject, Ryszard Walkiewicz, I feel there significant coverage about his time with Lechia Gdańsk, in terms that it proves he played with them and clearly states which games he played. While it is not as clear how many times he played for Unia Tarnów, there are two different sources proving that he did.

- Reliable "means that sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability" & sources "should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability" - As of the reliable source guideline this article does not fail this section. I would argue that two of the references are secondary sources. His time at Lechia is shown simply by the facts, so primary, but that does not mean it's unreliable. As mentioned above by Nfitz - "We're not really going to have a GNG discussion about a 1950s Polish player are we, with no access to Polish media from the immediate post-war period?" the sources section clearly states, "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage", in terms of 1940's-60's Poland, coverage wasn't an important issue. What I have done is provide the coverage and depth available, from as many sources as available.

- Independent of the subject: doesn't even need to be looked at as none of them are written by the subject.

- Presumed "means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" - I agree with this section, however due to NFOOTBALL Ryszard Walkiewicz is entitled to an article.

OLLSZCZ (talk) 05:41, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources satisfy the "significant coverage" requirement by addressing the topic in detail? – Levivich 21:40, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep per above. Seems like all the conditions are met. RockingGeo 岩石 Talk 17:16, 13 November 2019 (UTC)~~ Sock strike. – Levivich 19:51, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – per longstanding consensus that a bare NFOOTY pass (like one game) is not a reason to keep an article when there's a total failure of GNG. – Levivich 00:04, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, The rules might be different when there was no professional football and the number players was limited. Alex-h (talk) 15:19, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NFOOTBALL as well as WP:GNG. Smartyllama (talk) 13:23, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Based on what sources does it pass GNG? Unless I'm missing something, I've seen zero potential GNG sources put forward so far. The sources in the article right now are either statistics or merely the player's name listed in a list of players. – Levivich 01:16, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keeps need to be aware that technical passes of NFOOTY, but with a full fail of GNG (e.g. no decent RS), are often deleted UNLESS there were several games played (e.g. a stronger pass of NFOOTY); try one last re-list
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 11:14, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 12:34, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hillary O'Connor Mueri[edit]

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

Fails NPOL. Congressional candidates aren't automatically notable. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:07, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In 1993, the Combat Exclusion Policy was lifted for women in aviation positions (ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_Exclusion_Policy). O’Connor Mueri began flight school in 1999 and was one of the first female pilots to be trained for aviation combat. This would make her notable even outside of her current congressional bid.Safecontrib22 (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:07, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:07, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:07, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep subject of article qualifies as per WP:GNG a google search shows she is fairly notable. emphasis on the word “fairly” Celestina007 (talk) 01:023, 15November 2019 (UTC)
Weak keep as subject is slightly more notable than mere candidacy. Tessaracter (talk) 08:53, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL, being "one of the first" in anything does not guarantee notability. Maybe redirect to 2020 United States House of Representatives elections in Ohio after a subsection for the 14th district has been created. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:07, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without prejudice against recreation in November 2020 if she wins the election. Candidates are not entitled to have Wikipedia articles just for being candidates, but have to win the seat and thereby hold the office to pass NPOL — but merely being one of the first members of an underrepresented group to do a not inherently notable thing is not a notability freebie that would give her the "preexisting notability for other reasons" key: if she can't be shown to have received a WP:GNG-passing volume of reliable source coverage in that context at the time it was happening, then being able to source the fact to mentions of it as career background in coverage of her campaign announcement does not get her over the bar. And no, the fact that a couple of pieces of local coverage of her campaign announcement exist is not in and of itself a free pass over GNG either, because a couple of pieces of local coverage of campaign announcements always exist for every candidate in every election everywhere. So to earn an article before winning the election, she would have to be sourced a hell of a lot better than this regardless of whether you're aiming for "campaign coverage = GNG" or "she was already notable enough for an article before she was even a candidate". Bearcat (talk) 13:46, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, Being a candidate does not make her notable but a search in google shows she is fairly notable. Alex-h (talk) 10:13, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:23, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Nahal^(T) 09:25, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Candidates become notable when they hold an elected position that meets WP:NPOL or if the media coverage receives national or international coverage well outside the norm (e.g. Christine O'Donnell). If the subject was not independently notable before their candidacy, announcing a run for office does not usually make the subject notable. --Enos733 (talk) 15:45, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unelected candidates for state legislatures are non-notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:16, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: candidates get some WP:ROUTINE coverage, but that doesn't justify an article. Bondegezou (talk) 11:53, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am not seeing the coverage necessary to meet WP:GNG, and her military career and, according to an editor above, being one of the first female pilots to be trained for aviation combat, do not meet WP:MILPERSON of themselves - they also would need coverage to be notable. If she is elected, or if someone writes a lot more about her career to date, she will be notable, but for now, it's WP:TOOSOON. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:00, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG, also it's WP:TOOSOON.-Nahal^(T) 12:28, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 07:07, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fully undetectable[edit]

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

Merely two definitions, only one of which is even sourced. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:05, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:07, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete it's more appropriate as a dictionary entry over at Wikitionary or Urban Dictionary. Wikipedia main is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary Graywalls (talk) 20:12, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - as this seems to be a notable cryptography term. MenfesKidus40 (talk) 01:55, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

^{[citation needed]} Clarityfiend (talk) 09:39, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See for instance, [21] and [22]. I am not sure yet if this is notable, but the terms fully undetectable and FUDing do exist in the field. It seems more like a marketing term for the usual packer, crypter, and morphic techniques malware writers use to "armor" their software. Perhaps a mention at Antivirus_software#Signature-based_detection or Computer_virus#Stealth_techniques is a possibility. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 10:43, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 11:30, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Nahal^(T) 09:25, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- This doesn't rise much above WP:DICDEF and as the nom points out, conflates two separate uses of the term. And I'm not sure is an actual article could be written about either of them. Reyk _YO! 09:24, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- agreed with comments above. The article is more like a dictionary than encyclopedia - Jay (talk) 05:54, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 12:34, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Istanbul College[edit]

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

I'd like input on anyone who speaks Turkish but my attempts to find sources that establish much notability have come up pretty empty (which I'm willing to concede may be a lack of google-fu as most of the articles I've found have been TED talks relating to Turkey, or schools in Turkey that aren't this one), and the article has been unsourced for a very long time. From what I see, this subject fails WP:SIGCOV hewhoam areismyself 05:04, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. hewhoam areismyself 05:04, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. hewhoam areismyself 05:04, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:10, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Searching for "TED Istanbul Koleji" brings up many, many GNews hits. Reading in machine translation (which, admittedly, is somewhat spotty) it appears to be a prominent college with a well-know sports-team. See, e.g., 1 2 3 4 5 6. At least the last reference is in English and appears to confer definitely notability, as do the others. WP:GNG met. FOARP (talk) 16:56, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don’t agree with FOARP that the sources they’ve highlighted support notability. They are either hyper local news (DostBeykoz), passing mentions or in the final case, a directory. Apart from this all I can turn up with more directories, more local news and other passing mentions. I don’t see anything that suggests this passes either WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Mccapra (talk) 06:03, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 15:12, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP:AUD doesn't apply to schools as it is part of WP:CORP which explicitly excludes non-profit educational institutions (which TED Istanbul appears to be). Therefore, it doesn't matter if the sources are local news. Directories are not excluded from being used as sources (an encyclopedia is, ultimately, a "directory" of sorts) so long as they are independent of the subject (e.g., they aren't pay-for-play) and so long as they actually give significant coverage (which this one does). FOARP (talk) 15:29, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Nahal^(T) 09:23, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is what we in the United States call a high school. It's not automatically notable, and there is currently no evidence it's notable. Please ping me if you find good sources. Bearian (talk) 16:29, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 01:56, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Global Synergy[edit]

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

No claim to any notability. Fails WP:NORG. Deleted in Ukrainian Wikipedia. Mitte27 (talk) 18:47, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Mitte27 (talk) 18:47, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Mitte27 (talk) 18:47, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Nahal^(T) 09:21, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. There are no independent sources, even the official site is inactive. --Yakudza (talk) 02:53, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. BD2412 T 22:59, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Louise Alexander Gallery[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to pass notability guidelines for organizations. Lack of significant coverage in publications that have vast audience. It shows up in "things to do" lists among other things, but it's not what I'd call significant coverage about the organization. Graywalls (talk) 06:42, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:54, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:54, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 06:57, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 00:53, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. Aesthetica magazine writes "The Louise Alexander Gallery in Sardinia presents Arik Levy’s first solo show at the gallery."[23]. Galleries generally are not written about in reviews of exhibitions held under the auspices of galleries, but reviews should tend to establish notability for galleries. If the gallery has a track record of exhibitions from 2007 to the present, this should allow us to know the gallery is notable. Bus stop (talk) 18:55, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a trivial coverage about the gallery. It doesn't show indepth, truly independent secondary coverage as used for organizations notability. The source you referenced, from June 2014 says "Arik Levy, Uncontrolled Nature, until 29 August, Louise Alexander Gallery, Via del Porto Vecchio 1, 07021, Porto Cervo, Sardinia, Italy, www.louise-alexander.com.", so this seems to be a mere event announcement that was meant to be temporary. So this is routine announcements like auto repair shop repaired cars... or event venue held events. The latter is almost guaranteed to have internet visible list of events that doesn't necessarily mean notability of the venue. Graywalls (talk) 19:30, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You could call it an "event announcement" but it is also coverage of an art exhibition held under the auspices of the Louise Alexander Gallery. Yes, the event was "temporary". The Aesthetica magazine article is dated 26 June 2014 and exhibition only ran until 29 August. But this is entirely in keeping with what art galleries typically do—they run shows sequentially. One art exhibition ends, another art exhibition begins. You say "this is routine announcements like auto repair shop repaired cars". This might be the case but more than likely is not the case. Automobiles are expected to be practical entities, and they usually are. Art is usually not expected to serve any practical purpose. Art falls into the category of art for reasons that can be difficult to discern. Notability for art galleries should be determined by the length of time there is a track record for art exhibitions. Has the Louise Alexander Gallery been exhibiting art since 2007? If so, that is a more than ample track record for the purposes of establishing notability. Reliable sources don't typically address art galleries themselves but this does not mean that art galleries cannot be notable. Bus stop (talk) 21:22, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject, per their own website [24], represents

Ideally, what I would see in a notable gallery is that their a substantial portion of their roster is notable, and that it can be established that the gallery contributed in some way to the artists' development. I'm not sure I see that here. Another problem is what to write: due to the lack of sources, there isn't much we can say about it. The New York Times tells us that the gallery in Porto Cervo is presenting works by Andy Warhol, Jean-Michel Basquiat and Roy Lichtenstein. Note that the gallery does not represent these artists' estates. They operate in the secondary market, they buy and resell. They don't have a relationship with these artists. They had, unlike Stable Gallery, Annina Nosei and Leo Castelli, nothing to do with the careers of these artists. Vexations (talk) 21:50, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it matters much whether their roster is notable or not. In fact I think notability is established more by a non-notable roster. But I agree that operating solely in the secondary market, buying and selling, is not in itself a strong indicator of notability. And I agree that not having a relationship with the artists whose work is shown is not a strong indicator of notability. And I agree that galleries that discover new artists or help launch the careers of artists are galleries that may establish notability for the gallery by doing this. Bus stop (talk) 22:13, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bus stop, do you think you can find reviews of the exhibitions in independent sources? Vexations (talk) 23:22, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, therefore reluctantly delete. Bus stop (talk) 02:13, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Graywalls (talk) 10:21, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arik Levy[edit]

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

This entire article looks like a WP:RESUME and highly promotional. spent a few minutes Google checking and I didn't come across significant coverage. Having designed a bottle, Lady Gaga has one of his sculpture type of stuff. Graywalls (talk) 06:35, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 06:35, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:43, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 11:39, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 11:39, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. This is a guy who has sculptures all over the world and has exhibited in important museums. Even if you don't like his art and prefer grey walls, editing out the promotional terminology is what dedicated Wikipedians should be doing, rather than tagging for deletion.--Geewhiz (talk) 06:57, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NARTIST with his works held in multiple notable museums, a few minutes google searching is inadequate, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:28, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep How many museum collections do you have to be in to warrant a Wikipedia page? Answer: several (i.e. two or more real musuems), per WP:ARTIST point 4(d). ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:18, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Pompidou Centre has 25 of his design works in their collection (chairs, lamps etc.). They do not have permalinks for searching the collection, but if you put in his name on this page you can see them.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:09, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Art Institute of Chicago collection.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:20, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per others. Johnbod (talk) 11:45, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:NARTIST but improve by either sourcing or wholesale removal of a lot of the unsourced "Art exhibitions and installations" and "Competitions and awards". -Lopifalko (talk) 14:45, 28 November 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 06:33, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zine Magubane[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NACADEMIC and reads like a resume or advert for the subject. Gbawden (talk) 06:02, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:44, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:44, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:44, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think there are enough in-depth and reliably published reviews of her books to pass WP:AUTHOR. Her book Bringing the Empire Home has many published reviews. For instance just on JSTOR it has: [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35]. Postmodernism, Postcoloniality, and African Studies has at least one review [36] but it doesn't count for as much as it is an edited volume rather than something written by the subject. Hear Our Voices: Race, Gender, and the Status of Black South African Women in the Academy (co-authored) doesn't seem to have quite as many but there are at least two [37] [38]. These should be incorporated into the article, of course... —David Eppstein (talk) 07:56, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: has published at least two books with university presses, so likely meets WP:NAUTHOR. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:42, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The evidence that David Eppstein gathered is enough for a pass of WP:AUTHOR. XOR'easter (talk) 22:16, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per David Eppstein's source review. I dream of Maple (talk) 06:46, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:31, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'll add my late voice. I was planning for a keep. scope_creep^Talk 09:47, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 12:36, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Springdale Farms[edit]

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

I deprodded this article mostly based on a nagging doubt. There are three sources to reliable newspapers in the article, which is why I removed the PROD, but two are dead links from articles in the 90s, so I couldn't check those out. The third is from the New York Times, but it's a human interest story, and is not sufficient to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. The current news I'm finding after going through several pages on both Google and Google News is local stories of mostly trivial coverage "Best places to go in New Jersey etc." I don't think the article passes the notability guidelines for businesses, but I thought it better to take it here than to leave it in proposed deletion. Hog Farm (talk) 05:43, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:54, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:56, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was doubtful when I first saw the article, but a search found additional reference material, such as this article from The New York Times, which is unequivocally an in-depth article about the farm from a reliable and verifiable source. Additional sources have been published over the decades to support a claim of notability as the last working farm in a densely built edge city / suburb. Alansohn (talk) 13:49, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to meet GNG Djflem (talk) 16:16, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 12:35, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Woni Spotts[edit]

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

Claimed musician, traveller, businesswoman and animator. No evidence at all for anything but traveller--and the traveller claimed record appears to be a publicity stunt by a friend of her father. No matter how many references, this is personal advertising (my guess is that there is behind this some attempt at a career as musician , businesswoman or anmator) DGG ( talk ) 05:41, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:53, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:53, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:53, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A lot of the sources do not appear to be reliable and independent. Additionally, this appears to be a case of single-event notability (her visiting every country in the world). Lastly, the article is quite promotional which adds to my delete rationale. Taewangkorea (talk) 02:48, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have looked at this about four times now. I can't see how to equate being notable, with being black and visiting every country in the world. There is some minor coverage, Der Spiegel for instance, so she could be back eventually, but not at the moment. scope_creep^Talk 09:53, 28 November 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 06:31, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Florida Law Related Education Association[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NORG. Refs are all to the org's own website except one directory-type listing. Searching finds several more directory-type listings but not much else. Insufficient in-depth sig cov. MB 04:31, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MB 04:31, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. MB 04:31, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:24, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V. It's no longer in existence, and the link to its website is dead, too. I attended the American Bar Association LRE conference twice in the past decade, and don't recall it winning any awards. Ping me if I missed something. Bearian (talk) 16:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) -Nahal^(T) 12:26, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Winchester Cheese Company[edit]

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

Not notable. The company seems to have ceased to exist many years ago, and the references do not seem to meet WP:NCORP —capmo (talk) 04:24, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:42, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:42, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:43, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:43, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NTEMP meets GNG with RSs Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Gate. Lightburst (talk) 04:49, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not all RSs can be used to establishing notability. Take a read of WP:NCORP. Both of those references are classic churmalism - the LATimes reference has clearly been based on an interview with the founder and the SFGate reference reads like an ad. But there are a number of books that contain suitable references and I have added them to the article. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:22, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to The Culture#Minds. I am not sure I understand the keep argument advanced by Timmccloud, and it looks like the GNG based delete argument has gone unaddressed ... except for one argument ZXCVBNM advanced. It seems like the consensus is either redirect, delete or merge, ZXCVBNM's argument is good enough for a merge. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:05, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mind (The Culture)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fictional concept that fails WP:NFICTION/GNG. Pure WP:PLOT; all references present contain quotations that don't go beyond plot summaries. Term mentioned in few outside works but just as one-sentence repetition of fictional universe plot. PS. Was previously nominated by User:Sandstein, the AfD was closed after sources were added, but the problem is, as noted in my prior sentence, that those sources don't go beyond PLOT-level description; analysis in them, if any, is very superficial and doesn't go beyond The Culture fictional universe features AIs._{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:42, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:42, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:42, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (EDIT: or Merge per ZXCVBNM) - WP:NFICTION is a failed guideline and should not be relied on. I do not understand why people keep referring to this (now) essay - I think it will have to be relabelled as a failed guideline with links to the 8 (!) RFCs in which it was rejected just to highlight this to nominators attempting to rely on it. Unlike other essays, this is not one that we can pretend was ever accepted at any level by the community.

This said, it really is hard to see how any of the coverage cited in the article or elsewhere amounts to WP:SIGCOV of the concept of "minds" in the works of Iain M. Banks separate to the already-existing article covering the "set of cognitive faculties including consciousness, imagination, perception, thinking, judgement, language and memory". These are basically the same concept with some (science) fictionalising on top. As such this is a duplication/fork. FOARP (talk) 11:09, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Culture#Minds, where there is a big unsourced chunk about them, and integrate the sources from this article._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:09, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect - Fails GNG. TTN (talk) 17:13, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I beg to differ with FOARP, the article he refers to discusses nothing about synthetic (non-biological) minds, which this topic is all about. All of a sudden Ian M Banks seems to be the target of a coordinated AFD rash that is inappropriate, this is the 4th page in as many days getting this treatment. Timmccloud (talk) 18:52, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- And your keep rationale is...? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:08, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Really? I will state it again "the article he refers to discusses nothing about synthetic (non-biological) minds". This article is about synthetic (non-biological) minds and nothing like it exists on Wikipedia, and it should. Timmccloud (talk) 15:49, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - So, WP:ITSIMPORTANT it is, then. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:07, 30 November 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. (non-admin closure) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:08, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Line Made by Walking[edit]

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

~~Non notable sculpture and doesn't cite any sources Abishe (talk) 02:58, 27 November 2019 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 02:58, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Without prejudice to the nominator, I love finding AFDs like this. I have added 17 sources, four of which are museum collections, and one of which is an entire book on the article subject: "A Line Made by Walking". This should be withdrawn as it will be a waste of time to discuss it here. The coverage is huge, it's a seminal work in the history of land art, and the nom does not appear to have done WP:BEFORE.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:46, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @ThatMontrealIP: Thanks for adding sources and improving the article. I am not having intentions to delete articles voluntarily but have adhere to the policies and guidelines. I can now withdraw this nomination and I would be careful next time. Thanks. Abishe (talk) 04:42, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WITHDRAWN by nominator. See above.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:44, 27 November 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 Innamorati. History is available if anyone believes there is content worth merging. RL0919 (talk) 12:38, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lovers (stock characters)[edit]

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

Despite the sources, this doesn't seem like a notable enough concept for a standalone article. I wouldn't be against a redirect or merge into stock character, but I tried that and it got reverted. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 01:31, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:55, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect with Innamorati, which this seems to be a WP:DUPLICATE of._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:14, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Zxcvbnm. That article does not engage in statements that make this sound like it applies more broadly than it does.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:13, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Zxcvbnm. Good find, I couldn't find anything that uses this term anyway, and the books linked are not GooglePage linked so trying to quickly investigate this is a pain... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:04, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Zxcvbnm. There is nothing meaningful to merge: a garbled piece of WP:SYNTH. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:27, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Not that I disagree, but...you're the one who reverted the merge, so had you left it, this AfD could have been avoided. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 04:38, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I reverted because it was a meaningless target. And the subject does make sense. Now the target is good and it actually covers some facts from this one in systematic manner. Staszek Lem (talk) 05:30, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Zxcvbnm. I am uncertain if there is much that can be merged, but I would not be opposed to that option if it is the consensus. Aoba47 (talk) 00:17, 30 November 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 03:36, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zina Spezakis[edit]

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

Subject is a long-shot candidate for office (US House of Representatives) challenging a popular eight-term incumbent. Besides declaring candidacy for office, the subject is not otherwise notable.

She may warrant an article at a later date, i.e., if she wins the primary, but until then is not notable per WP:GNG. Does not appear to meet WP:CAE but the guidelines for political candidates are very unclear and apparently contentious. Paisarepa (talk) 00:07, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This seems like a WP:Crystal issue. I can envision a future in which this woman becomes very notable, similar to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, but that hasn't happened yet and we don't usually create articles because of the possibility that a person might become notable in the future. Michepman (talk) 02:09, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:46, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:46, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in future political party primaries — the notability bar for politicians is holding a notable political office, not just running for one. But this makes no claim that she has preexisting notability for other reasons that would have gotten her an article independently of the candidacy, and is not referenced even close to well enough to claim that her candidacy is somehow more special than everybody else's candidacies. So no prejudice against recreation in November 2020 if she wins the seat, but nothing here qualifies her to already have an article today. Bearcat (talk) 14:25, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Candidates become notable when they hold an elected position that meets WP:NPOL or if the media coverage receives national or international coverage well outside the norm (e.g. Christine O'Donnell). --Enos733 (talk) 15:40, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yip, but not yet. scope_creep^Talk 09:50, 28 November 2019 (UTC
Week Delete/Redirect Has raised over a million dollars for her campaign, so she's far from a long-shot candidate. However, she has yet to hold political office or receive significant news coverage. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 15:38, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - To be clear, Dobbyelf62, the issue isn't whether or not she is likely to win her election. The issue is that this article was created before she won her election, and as a general rule we don't make articles on people who are only running for (but have never held) an elected office per WP:NPOLITICS. If there was an extraordinarily high level of news coverage about her, that would be different, but there doesn't seem to be such a thing. Michepman (talk) 23:54, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Right, as you said, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. As such, I will be changing my vote from "Weak Keep" to "Weak Delete/Redirect"

Delete Will not be notable unless she wins the election next November.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:58, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if she wins the primary, it still does not give her notability. If she wins in November 2020, then by all means she deserves article, but not now. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 15:16, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Probably not notable at the moment, but is a valid search term and could be notable in the future. Better to preserve the history as a redirect. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 18:08, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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