Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 October 9

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 8 October	10 October >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Delete. JGHowes ^talk 02:18, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Petersen (politician)[edit]

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

One event does not make someone notable per Wikipedia:1E Isingness (talk) 23:32, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the question is whether being a county assessor makes Petersen a public figure. If not, per WP:BLPCRIME, he hasn't been convicted and should have no article. But even if he's considered a WP:PUBLICFIGURE because he was elected to an office (minor office, county level), he wasn't notable enough before the crime to support an article, so I think the right thing to do is defer to BLPCRIME and delete. Schazjmd (talk) 23:47, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:49, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:49, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Just for the record, the county from which the subject was elected is really large -- Maricopa County, Arizona is the fourth-most populous county in the U.S. It's more populous than about 70 countries. Editors can take this information into consideration if they choose to do so, or not. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:40, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. County assessor is not a role that would have gotten him a Wikipedia article on WP:NPOL grounds, so we have to stick with WP:BLPCRIME — and per BLPCRIME, if a person wasn't already notable enough for an article for other reasons, then he has to be convicted of, not merely charged with, a crime before he might have a valid claim to being notable as a politician. Even if he is convicted in the end, an event article about the adoption fraud ring might be more appropriate than a standalone BLP of him as a person — but the time to evaluate that one way or the other will be after there's been a conviction, not today. Bearcat (talk) 14:42, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat. Petersen doesn't pass NPOL....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:45, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep -- his position as assessor is not per se notable, but his crimes are ... unique. Bearian (talk)

And yet, under the "innocent until proven guilty" principle, sensitive enough that we have no business saying anything at all about them on Wikipedia unless and until he's convicted (and even then possibly only in an event article rather than a standalone BLP.) Bearcat (talk) 19:18, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable under WP:NPOL and the crimes lend themselves to a negative WP:BLP per WP:PERP. Delete it. SportingFlyer T·C 03:16, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a violation of not news guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:31, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article was horribly written. I did my best to make it more appropriate for Wikipedia if it is ultimately kept. I will also note that several Maricopa County officials have pages, including Paul Penzone, Helen Purcell, and Bill Montgomery. ErieSwiftByrd (talk) 05:50, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is an important page. Mr. Petersen’s conduct exemplifies the needed reforms in adoption laws across the U.S. This is likely to be the most egregious adoption scam in U.S. history involving hundreds of babies sold under the guise of an adoption. This page should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.179.58.234 (talk) 19:59, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While ErieSwiftByrd makes a cogent if WP:OSE point, I would contest that Petersen's position in Maricopa County is not within the scope of WP:NPOL notability. Montgomery has notability thru the AZ Supreme Court, Penzone is Arpaio's replacement (and even that is a shaky argument of notability), and Purcell has the legal notability. Petersen would not meet WP:NPOL for his municipal government work, and would be a case of WP:1E for the adoption controversy. For the IP who voted, it is not Wikipedia's responsibility to be a WP:SOAPBOX or WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. If you'd like to add more information about adoption reform in the United States, you can add that to the existing article on Adoption in the United States. Bkissin (talk) 16:41, 16 October 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. JGHowes ^talk 02:21, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blank Blank[edit]

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

Non notable lacks reliable sources, fails WP:NALBUM. Ceethekreator (talk) 23:19, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 23:19, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 23:19, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find reliable sources; the only sources cited are music videos and one review. Luke ^Talk 23:47, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Did not chart, a single review. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:56, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Keep Not that notable, although songs from the project played on the radio frequently, such as "21", "Next Song", & "Walker Texas Ranger". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guccislidesboss (talk • contribs) 01:34, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to DaBaby discography#Mixtapes. While it is not notable enough for its own page, I think a redirect would be fine to point any readers towards what little information there is on the mixtape (e.g., release date). Additionally, this article in its current state relies almost completely on primary sources. Also the page's creator (above) appears to support deletion. CAMERAwMUSTACHE (talk) 16:20, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for now If more sources can be found, it may stay, but for now, it's gone. Also, don't remove entire page, just redirect. Guccislidesboss (talk) 01:13, 11 October 2019 (UTC) Guccislidesboss[reply]
Delete, Nor notable, fails WP:NALBUM. Alex-h (talk) 08:37, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find reliable sources either — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halkett99 (talk • contribs) 04:32, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Inchgarth Community Centre[edit]

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

Might be notable, due to the Queen's award, but highly promotional article written by a COI editor. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:29, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N; the subject seems to be of interest only in its home city. As you mentioned, it's a blatantly promotional article. Although it received an award, that, alone, does not qualify it to be notable. There doesn't seem to be any significant coverage from reliable sources. Luke ^Talk 04:45, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:24, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:24, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Very odd that the article is so keen to claim that the Queen's Award for Voluntary Service is an MBE! Which it isn't, of course. It's the Queen's Award for Voluntary Service! -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:20, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E -- though not a bio of a living person, this article's subject is notable solely for one event but has not nor will it ever receive broad, enduring, sustained coverage. 208.185.237.210 (talk) 14:12, 16 October 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) 21:30, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Outalot[edit]

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

Article about defunct app company. The sources provided don’t clearly indicate notability as far as I can see. Mccapra (talk) 21:20, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:20, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:20, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:20, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:20, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Blog and website no longer active; sources closely connected to subject, or are obviously advertisements. One doesn't even mention it at all. Luke ^Talk 00:16, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia is not a directory of Web 2 services. This means we can have article about such services only if they have impacted the world around themselves in a significant way and that article covers said impact. flowing dreams (talk page) 16:50, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Flowing dreams, Thanks for adding my signature. You beat the bot! Doug Mehus (talk) 07:01, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comments. -DM — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmehus (talk • contribs) 06:12, 2019 October 11 (UTC)

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) 21:32, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David Silvester[edit]

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

Minor politician only notable for one news story five years ago. I PRODded this way back when but never followed up on it. Sceptre (talk) 21:03, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Sceptre (talk) 21:03, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Classic WP:BLP1E article. Edwardx (talk) 21:24, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable local politician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:05, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:POLOUTCOMES and Edwardx. Bearian (talk) 13:27, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being municipal councillors in small towns, but this does not present compelling evidence that he has preexisting notability for other reasons. Even the blip of national media coverage he received for absurdly blaming flooding on gay marriage just makes him a WP:BLP1E, not a topic of enduring public interest that would pass the will people still care about this in ten years test. Bearcat (talk) 19:24, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Town councillor for Henley-on-Thames. Fails WP:NPOL. Weak in the sense that all the national (and international) coverage of the subject falls into WP:BLP1E, without any real discussion about the subject (coverage is only the subject's 2014 letter to the Henley Standard [see the Daily Mail story as the best case for substantive national coverage]). However, the story did make BBC News' top stories of 2014, making this a closer case than I anticipated, as WP:POLOUTCOMES does contemplate keeping local officials if they "received national or international press coverage, beyond the scope of what would ordinarily be expected for their role." --Enos733 (talk) 03:36, 13 October 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Daily Mail was deprecated as a source two years ago. ミラ P 04:35, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:36, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MIJO[edit]

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

Created by an editor with a conflict of interest. Tagged for notability since 2010. Also tagged for advertising-like content. There are refs provided but some are company PR and overall I’m not seeing anything that makes notability clear. Mccapra (talk) 20:56, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:56, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:56, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:56, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:56, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:56, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:TNT. Even if this page had few decent sources, it's a huge mess, both in layout and puffery. Bearian (talk) 13:24, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:57, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My Local Bobby[edit]

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

This article is about a private company which honestly lacks major notability with the exception of a few low-quality references Theprussian (talk) 18:14, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:20, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:20, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are seven references from respectable independent sources. Plenty more from tabloids too. If you think anything in the article is inaccurate please discuss on the talk page.Rathfelder (talk) 18:33, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, this is a funny nomination (not necessarily ha-ha funny:)), "This article is about a private company" - not a reason for deletion, "which honestly lacks major notability" - subjects only need to be notable, they do not need to have "major notability" to be deemed articleworthy, as for "low-quality references", that is a subjective term, and i would like to know what the nominator means by this (ie. not indepth? too local? over only a short period of time? etc.). Coolabahapple (talk) 04:36, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

as has coverage in multiple reliable sources such as The Guardian, Evening Standard, The Times- all regarded as high quality British newspapers with long histories, no valid reason for deletion imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:19, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:44, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:RS WP:ATD Wm335td (talk) 20:48, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are at least two references (e.g. The Guardian and The Times) that meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic meets GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:39, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Has coverrage in multiple sources Alex-h (talk) 09:06, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject is notable and it passes media/source coverage criteria. The article just needs more content and expansion. --Wario-Man (talk) 08:37, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While the article needs to be fleshed out, it clearly meets the notability guidelines. Subpar performance by nominator. 208.185.237.210 (talk) 14:13, 16 October 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. – Joe (talk) 13:49, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kalki Avatar and Muhammad (book)[edit]

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

queried speedy delete Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:07, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:11, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalki Avtar aur Muhammad sahib (book). Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 15:10, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the new creation of the article, I have added 18 more references than the previously deleted version. In my eyes, according to RS and notablity of wikipedia policy, they are reliable and notable. Lazy-restless 13:08, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:38, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per additional RSs since the previous nomination ended in delete. There is not a deletion rationale advanced by the nominator. Wm335td (talk) 20:51, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:06, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment can the nominator please say what they think is wrong with this article? Some of the references look a bit ropey but without examining each one in detail there seem to be enough to indicate general notability. Mccapra (talk) 10:59, 10 October 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 Suman Pokhrel. Worthwhile content, if any, can be merged from history. Sandstein 17:37, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Every Morning (poem)[edit]

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

Non-notable work by Suman Pokhrel. A few users seem to have created articles about everything he's done, linked together by Template:Suman Pokhrel. The author is notable but most, if not all, of his works don't deserve a stand-alone article. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 10:02, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 10:02, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 10:02, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 10:02, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 12:07, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:33, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Suman Pokhrel not enough for an article. Lightburst (talk) 01:26, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lightburst, could you go over the sources quickly and give an indication of which of them you think are worth saving, and roughly which of the claims in the article are worth taking over to the author's page and in which section? Shouldn't be too difficult as the sources are in English, most of which are unacceptable altogether. I am asking because there was consensus to merge on another AfD that I left alone, also related to this author, but when I got to the merging part later on, I could find nothing worth merging, and ended up redundantly merging a list to a section which had the same content as prose already, just so it wouldn't appear that I was doing my own thing, ignoring consensus. Thanks! Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 02:42, 13 October 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. Although far from unanimous, it appears that notability has been at least marginally postulated. JGHowes ^talk 02:54, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan O'Donohue[edit]

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

Let's have a proper discussion this time, since my previous noms were cut short by procedural reasons.

I am still not convinced that this subject is notable at all. He is known as Demyx from the Kingdom Hearts series, but that's about it. Nothing else regarding his career stands out. In the previous AFD, some participants noted that the subject meets WP:NACTOR, but let remind you that WP:NACTOR is the *additional* criteria for WP:BASIC, which I am not convinced that this subject meets, besides not meeting WP:NACTOR for just that one notable role.

Quoting WP:BASIC: People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. Where is the coverage for this subject? I can't even find any relevant interviews for him.

This subject also does not meet WP:WHYN. Quoting the guideline: We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list. From the same guideline: Because these requirements are based on major content policies, they apply to all articles, not solely articles justified under the general notability criteria. What can we even write about the subject in question? If you ask me, not even a full paragraph due to lack of coverage. Sk8erPrince (talk) 14:37, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sk8erPrince (talk) 14:37, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:37, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 14:22, 10 October 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Delete I think we should not apply actor notability indiscriminately to voice actors. He really only has one notable role, and that is not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:49, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NACTOR. The subject has had a significant role in three animated works and had a main on-screen role in the sitcom The Byrds of Paradise for one season as a child actor. I agree with the consensus from the the second AFD nomination which went through the normal process. Only the first nomination was a procedural close. I added the content for his onscreen maincast work which was missing and added a ref reviewing his performance in Wallstreet Journal. 4meter4 (talk) 17:07, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
4meter4, as mentioned above, WP:NACTOR is the *additional* criteria for WP:BASIC. Also - Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. WP:NACTOR cannot be the sole reason to keep an article, especially when the subject fails several other criteria. I'm still not convinced that the subject meets WP:NACTOR, either way.

I saw the source you cited but there's no link/screencap for it. Hence, it is unverifiable. Where can I read it? Also - what are the subject's notable roles in animated works?

BTW - the subject also fails WP:SIGCOV; quoting the guideline: Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. The subject was only briefly mentioned in the Press Enterprise article, so he fails that criteria. Sk8erPrince (talk) 21:21, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sk8erPrince, policy toward offline references is that they do support verifiabilty. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Offline sources policy. You can read it wherever there is a library with access to that newspaper (being the Wallstreet Journal that should be any public library in the USA) in their collection/archives. Not every source has a url, and wikipedia is just fine with that. Please see User:FloridaArmy's comments at the 2nd nomination linked above for animation work.4meter4 (talk) 21:33, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Even if that source were valid, that's just one reliable source, which means the subject fails WP:SIGCOV. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 21:26, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:45, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I’m in the appearance does not equal notability camp. Anyone with a SAG card can appear in a movie or do voice roles. Where are the reliable sources that validate achievements? Sorry to this man. Trillfendi (talk) 16:16, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 4meter4 comments. —AdamF in MO (talk) 17:21, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:31, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NACTOR. The subject has had a significant role in three animated works and had a main on-screen role in the sitcom The Byrds of Paradise. It can be disruptive to repeatedly to nominate an article. Wm335td (talk) 20:55, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NACTOR cannot be the sole reason to keep an article, per above. It doesn't matter how many notable roles an actor has (or in this case, the lack thereof), if the subject fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BASIC and WP:WHYN. Furthermore, I renommed the AFD because my previous two noms were cut short for procedural reasons; hence, I am not convinced that we've truly had a proper discussion for the subject. I can assure you that the intent is to have a proper AFD discussion, and nothing more. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 21:26, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Lack of sources is an issue but an extensive filmography that includes several oscar nominated and one oscar winning film pushes him through in my opinion. Passes WP:NACTOR and WP:COMMONSENSE. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 23:05, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the only production that the subject has voiced in that won an Oscar is Toy Story 1; specifically, the Special Achievement Oscar. The recipient of that Oscar is John Lasseter (the director), and *not* the subject, since the subject only voiced as an extra in the film. What are the other productions that were "Oscar nominated"? Clarification is needed here.

Secondly, there is a huge difference between films being nominated for an Oscar and winning them, versus the subject *actually* winning the award in question. As far as I am concerned, the subject not only does *not* have an extentive filmography like you claim, but has also won a total number of zero awards, especially *not* an Oscar (let alone multiple of them). While having no awards does not necessarily mean an actor lacks notability, I am sure you could see that your Oscar argument is beginning to fall apart here.

One of the issues that I have is that there is practically nothing more you could write about the subject, failing WP:WHYN. It is important to be able to write a full article, as opposed to just a few sentences like in this current instance.

And once again, WP:NACTOR cannot be the sole reason to keep an article. It is an additional criterion listed under WP:BASIC. In other words, if WP:BASIC is not met, then WP:NACTOR is pretty much moot. You know I am not making this up; you can check the page and see for yourself. Or, for your own convenience, here you go.

Also, really? WP:IAR? In what way does that policy even apply here? I am very confused. Can you elaborate what you actually mean instead of just linking the "common sense" section (which happens to be an explanatory supplement of IAR)? That'll help me understand your perspective more. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 03:23, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NACTOR. The nominator is mistaken about the actor meeting more than WP:NACTOR. I have outlined the subject specific WP:POLICY below. In addition I am starting some cleanup today.

Per WP:N: A topic is presumed to merit an article if:

It meets either the general notability guideline below, OR the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right; and
. It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy. Lightburst (talk) 14:08, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try, but WP:N also clearly states that this is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. I am mistaken about nothing. And I hate to break it to you, but WP:BASIC is the subject specific guideline in Wikipedia:Notability (people). WP:NACTOR, which the majority of the Keep camp seems to like to use as the sole criterion to preserve this article is, again, listed *under* WP:BASIC, in the Additional Criteria. Which means, if WP:BASIC is not met, WP:NACTOR is more or less rendered moot. I keep asking for significant coverage, but I don't think any one of you has linked any interviews/articles that features more than just a trivial mention for this subject.

Also, per WP:NRV: The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability. I am still seeing no evidence of WP:SIGCOV as far as this subject is concerned. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 14:25, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)You have made quite a few points and used WP essays/policies to back up your points. You should let the ivoters decide based on their understanding of policy. We also have a duty to WP:PRESERVE and explore WP:ATD. I understand your points and I disagree. It is not necessary to attack every ivoters opinion. Actors are known for their work, not their ability to generate press i.e. get arrested, go to rehab etc. This is why we have subject specific guidelines. Lightburst (talk) 14:34, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not attacking anyone. I am simply debating and refuting the misconception that WP:NACTOR alone is enough justification to keep the article. If an actor has three lead roles in three productions, yet there is no coverage and nothing more to write about, then they fail WP:WHYN. Nobody is saying that we should document how many times an actor has gone on rehab and been arrested. Think about it - a notable actor should have been interviewed a good number of times by now so that we at least have *something* to write, such as their birthplace, education and background. I'm seeing none of that here, so I remain unconvinced that the subject is notable. Plain and simple.

PS: For your information, every single point I've linked in this debate is Wikipedia policy. Not a single one is an essay.

PS2: I am also not convinced that alternative methods to deletion can be considered in this case, when there is nothing more to write about for this subject. How does one even go about expanding and improving an article when there is barely any coverage to speak of? --Sk8erPrince (talk) 15:10, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. No compliance with WP:Before. See prior discussions for reasons why this was ill=advised.

Serial Deletion discussions are a huge waste of valuable editor time. 1st 2nd 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:57, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I *did* try to look for sources before I nommed the article for deletion. I came up with nothing noteworthy. So yes, I already did my part for WP:BEFORE. You say that the subject meets WP:GNG, but where's your evidence for that? WP:GNG = WP:SIGCOV, by the way. Where is the significant coverage? I've already debated against WP:NACTOR plenty of times above, so I will not repeat my argument for that one again.

Also, for the last time, the previous two discussions were cut short due to procedural reasons. How is this third AFD, which is, for all intents and purposes, fully fleshed out and more like a proper discussion, a waste of time? If you don't want to participate in this discussion, then just say so. I'm still not convinced that we could further expand the article due to a severe lack of reliable sources and significant coverage; for these reasons, the subject fails WP:WHYN. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 17:18, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no convincing the true believer. We will have to agree to disagree. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:59, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NACTOR is clearly met. WP:NOTABILITY clearly states it only has to meet either the GNG or one of the subject specific guidelines, not both. Dream Focus 01:38, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. WP:BASIC is the subject specific guideline for Wikipedia:Notability (people), not WP:NACTOR, since that is listed *under* the Additional Criteria. Failing WP:BASIC means that we don't have to consider the additional criteria. No WP:SIGCOV means that there is an unlikely chance of securing the article. Where's the significant coverage for the subject? Trivial mentions aren't "significant coverage". I don't get why people are so intent on keeping an article that they know that they can't effectively expand, as if WP:WHYN is completely irrelevant and does not even matter. Sk8erPrince (talk) 02:21, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It can meet either criteria. The subject specific guidelines wouldn't exist if you had to meet the general notability guidelines. Not sure why people sometimes get confused by that. Dream Focus 02:34, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is zero confusion here. How many guidelines have I linked that clearly print that significant coverage is required for articles, especially for biographies? And how many times have I stated that additional criteria such as WP:NACTOR are meant to be supplements to WP:BASIC? You may want to read Wikipedia:Notability (people) one more time (preferably thoroughly this time).

Having 3 lead roles does not matter if there is a lack of significant coverage to write anything substantial. If we all do is document an actor's roles with barely any content, such as biographical information, then how is it any different than a resume? At that point, it's just a resume pretending to be an article; Wikipedia is not a host for an actor's resume. Sk8erPrince (talk) 03:16, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:NACTOR, WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV - if he had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions, then I would expect to see significant coverage in reliable sources about those roles, there isn't. Looking at all the references used in the article, trying to beef up his bio with trivial mentions/listed as a cast member in the NYT, LA Times, EW, etc. doesn't cut it, nor does using references that merely list his acting credits, that's not significant coverage. The WP articles listed in his filmography look impressive too, but there is no significant coverage about his roles in those articles either. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:37, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find any coverage about him specifically other than that one piece in the Press Enterprise. All I can find is him being mentioned in association with Byrds and Kingdom Hearts in every other source and even then there is nothing directly about him out there (edit: In reliable sources, there is a ton in IMDB like places). Even in trade publications. spryde | talk 12:18, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:10YT through all citations being periodicals from the mid 1990s. If he was notable enough to be encyclopedic I'd expect to see coverage that wasn't from 1994. Simonm223 (talk) 14:55, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That link has a disclaimer at the top that reads: "This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community." An actual guideline is WP:NTEMP, notability is not temporary. Dream Focus 17:41, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think there's any relevance to maintaining a page on a voice actor from 1994. WP:NOTDIR Simonm223 (talk) 18:12, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - He started his career then, but has been activate up to this year even. Dream Focus 18:17, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The 20 21 references document a lot of his work. That they are now there speaks for itself. Res ipsa loquitor. That they were overlooked before this nomination is telling. Q.E.D., WP:Before was overlooked, even if it was due to inadvertence. ::::The articles sourcing is not what it was when the WP:PROD was proposdd. Arguably, WP:HEY 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:17, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looking good! Lightburst (talk) 22:55, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a lot of listings and trivial mentions. A working actor, but does not meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:28, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I concur with 4meter4. This individual fits the actor notability criteria due to his appearances in multiple major movies and television series. He's had some major roles too, in Recess, Batman Beyond, etc… And the sourcing in the article has been beefed up a lot, so it hits that note as well.Patiodweller (talk) 14:46, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep per AlessandroTiandelli333. Naomi.piquette (talk) 21:54, 12 October 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 Digital image processing. Worthwhile content, if any, can be merged from history. Sandstein 17:38, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image optimization[edit]

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

This article is a Frankenstein article that employs the synthesis of published material to advance a position not supported by those material. It provides nothing more meaningful than the phrase "image optimization" itself.

Since the article is small, let's take a look at it piece by piece. The first sentence says:

Image optimization is the process of altering an image to improve its quality and visual appearance.

So far, this is the same as image editing. The next few sentences, however, cease to support this definition and only make sense when you put them in medical imaging context, where imaging is not the creation of what you see with your eyes, but merely a mean of creating 2D representations of the data in which you're interested. The sources confirm this error. The last sentence in the first paragraph is this:

Software that may incorporate one or more of these algorithms are called "digital image optimizers" (DIO).

The source does not confirm this. It merely says DIO is an acronym for "digital image optimizer". Whether it is an app, library, piece of hardware, or human technician is not known.

This article is created by a single author and has not received a peer review. It has no inbound links. I should note, however, that it is important to assume good faith in its author. flowing dreams (talk page) 08:08, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. flowing dreams (talk page) 08:08, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. flowing dreams (talk page) 08:08, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. flowing dreams (talk page) 08:08, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It is not nice to AfD an article just eight hours after its creation. Maybe its editor is a newbie and is still working on it. 31.7.119.23 (talk) 10:57, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
comment The phrase seems to mean different things in different contexts. GScholar picks up the cited papers and others that most commonly refer to medical imaging, though some other applications appear as well. Web hits by contrast are dominated by optimization of image files for web transmission/display. Mangoe (talk) 19:49, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I feel this default context you mentioned exacerbates the article's counter-informativeness. flowing dreams (talk page) 07:48, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
merge and redirect anything useful to digital image processing. SpinningSpark 22:57, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Digital image optimization" is a subset of Digital image processing. Given the breath of the existing literature on the topic, it seemed to me that an article would be appropriate, especially since the Digital image processing article did not directly address the topic. We used to create stub articles on Wikipedia on the premise that they could then be worked on communally. I hope that that hasn't changed. I strongly disagree with the Afd proposer that this article is synthesis. I have no theory to propose or ideology -- just facts from the literature. I urge those who are doing the analysis of whether to keep this article or not, to at least look at the materials in Hemanth, Jude; Balas, Valentina Emilia, eds. (2018). "Preface". Nature Inspired Optimization Techniques for Image Processing Applications. Cham, Switzerland: Springer Verlag. ISBN 978-3-319-96002-9., which is just one of many works in the field. The recognition that DOI is regularly employed as a synonym in the medical field was intended to help other editors to find additional sources and then to provide additional text. Mangoe says above that the term "seems to mean different things in different contexts." This is both true at the specific level and not true on the general level. While different techniques are used for different purposes, the overall goal remains that same (namely to preserve information) whether to highlight specific information (medical often) or to allow compression for digital transmission. Since the lead is broad strokes, it is up to the resultant specific sections to discuss the differences. --Bejnar (talk) 22:03, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. I agree with everything you said, but they have no bearing on the current discussion. My concern is that the article, in this state, is counter-informative, because of piecing together contents from different contexts. The sentence about losslessness is categorically harmful. I strongly believe you must have not published the article in this state. flowing dreams (talk page) 07:48, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:30, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to unclear scope. (There was an AfD last week on "Image optimizer" which was a disambiguation page that was deleted – I was going to suggest disambiguation between Digital image processing and Image compression, but there is limited info on those pages.) The field of image processing is large, and this article is talking about all of the following at once: image enhancement, image processing algorithms that are optimized to run faster, and image compression optimization. "Digital Image Optimizer" is a term only used for some brands of medical ultrasonic devices. It seems undue to mention that images are optimized in systems that do digital image correlation / image segmentation, since that applies to all image processing systems, and image segmentation is not image optimization in itself. The claim in "The three major areas..." is not correct. The quote 1) does not add anything to the article and 2) is about optimization of algorithms and not optimization of images. – Thjarkur (talk) 02:32, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
merge and redirect related to digital image processing.[[User:halkett99|<b —Preceding undated comment added 04:37, 16 October 2019 (UTC) Striking per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Mz7 (talk) 04:08, 17 October 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. The keep arguments are too weak for me to close this as Keep, but there's clearly not consensus to delete. RL0919 (talk) 06:21, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Techiman Senior High School[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. No significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Coverage consists mainly of various persons peripherally connected to the school. Coverage does not discuss the topic in detail. Steve Quinn (talk) 02:56, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:02, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:02, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:02, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's clear no-one is disputing the existence of this school. Keeping its location in mind, we should keep this. The end of Google is not the same place as the end of the world, and we'd keep this article on a high school if it were in Britain or the states. Perhaps we should notify the appropriate country Wikiproject. John from Idegon (talk) 18:35, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per John from Idegon and time-honoured precedent as evidenced by thousands of AfD closures. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:57, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Both keep votes are invalid since WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES itself is not valid since 2017, so there is not inherent notability for high school. No opinion on the school yet but this should not be closed as keep. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:04, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep precedent aside, the school's existence and notability are corroborated by the reliable sources and sustained, comprehensive coverage in reliable secondary sources. 208.185.237.210 (talk) 14:14, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:29, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:55, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Himika Akaneya[edit]

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

Lack of independent notability for this pop group member; this should be redirected to the group (Iris (Japanese band)). Redirect keeps being reverted by author, so bringing it here for determination. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:06, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:38, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:38, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject meets NACTOR outside of the Iris context: major characters in Dance with Devils, Izetta: The Last Witch, Land of the Lustrous, ReLife, How to Keep a Mummy, Magical GIrl Site and Magical Sempai (the first two anime listed define her as the primary protagonist). Also Oricon search gives me a single for Akaneya's Magical Girl Site solo song, so it should also pass WP:NSINGER 2. So yeah, I found enough solo notability. ミラ P 20:25, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 20:26, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So... a bunch of passing mentions? That does not cut the mustard, I am afraid. There needs to be better coverage than "voiced character X" to contribute towards a WP:NACTOR threshold. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:56, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes and no, if you take the singer's Japanese name and add the Japanese names of the major characters involved you get hits. English sources are preferred, but major Japanese ones cant be discounted. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:12, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as I found some additional information. She won an award for voice acting at the Seiyu Awards [1], has appeared on Nippon TV [2], and did an interview for Natalie. [3] With all of the major roles for characters, it just adds to more potential information out there. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:05, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good stuff; the award is a nice find, and that's not a bad interview either (less promo than these tend to be). Cheers. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:21, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree, the subject specific guideline for voice actors is met, multiple notable roles in notable series. Dream Focus 13:18, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She won an award for voice acting, so the subject meets NACTOR, multiple notable roles in notable series. --SalmanZ (talk) 23:25, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Knowledgekid87's comments. --Wario-Man (talk) 08:45, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject meets WP:NACTOR Lightburst (talk) 17:29, 16 October 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)} 20:55, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

El Limpiabotas[edit]

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

Article has no sources, and movie does not seem to be notable. KingofGangsters (talk) 17:10, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:26, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:17, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there is a lack of coverage in reliable sources and even unreliable sources as I couldn't find a listing at IMDb. When searching be aware that there are other films and books with the same title. If anyone does find some reliable sources coverage please ping me, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 23:43, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:00, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sbubby[edit]

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

Some kind of fad that had long died; I locate coverage in only two reliable sources ( Mashable and Time) thus failing WP:GNG and WP:NWEB quite comprehensively. ∯WBG^converse 16:08, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – per nomination. I agree that there doesn't seem to be enough in terms of WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources. — CentronX (talk) 16:34, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - I thought this was a good article, but nope! Please delete this. Bryce M (talk) 17:26, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:33, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete could very well qualify for WP:G3 because it's a hoax. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:08, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Qualifies for WP:A7; there's no indication of significance or notability, and it doesn't seem like the subject is legitimately noteworthy at all. The only sources cited are Reddit posts. Luke ^Talk 03:45, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wholly a Reddit phenomenon, with no significant external coverage. SD0001 (talk) 07:46, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Per nom. not enough RS. Alex-h (talk) 09:19, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator's rationale. --Wario-Man (talk) 08:51, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:39, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Murièle Bolay[edit]

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

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a writer, not reliably sourced as clearing our notability standards for writers. The most substantive notability claim here, that she is "the first official empathetic strategist", is completely unreferenced -- and it gives no context whatsoever for what "empathetic strategist" means or who confers "official" status on them, and no verifiable evidence that she was the first one. And when it comes to the referencing, 14 of the 15 footnotes are simply the publication details of her own books, and the 15th is IMDb -- but you don't make a writer notable by referencing her books to themselves as technical evidence that they exist, you make a writer notable by referencing her books to media coverage about the books (e.g. critical reviews in magazines or academic journals) as evidence that they got independent attention. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to show much better sourcing than this.
It also warrants note that a very similar but not fully identical version was previously created by the same user and speedy deleted about a month ago at the title Murièle Solange Bolay (MSB); although that doesn't make it eligible for redeletion as a G4, I'm noting it because this version does not actually improve either the substance or the sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 16:07, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:07, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:07, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:55, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an overly promotional article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:37, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:54, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ipswich Model Band[edit]

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

Contested PROD by an IP with no reason given. Non-notable band. Content is taken from http://www.ipswichmodelband.org.au/, with OTRS permission, but sourcing does not establish WP:GNG or other notability guidelines – Muboshgu (talk) 15:56, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:57, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:40, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Article needs copy cleanup (which I will attempt) but with the addition of refs since AfD nomination the page seems justified to me. Although most refs are short I think they are arguably significant, and certainly independent and reliable. Cabrils (talk) 00:24, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The band performed in competitions, they were broadcast on national radio, they performed for the Australian Governor-General (and member of the then-royal family), they were described in several independent and reliable sources. Passes WP:NBAND.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 05:08, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:HEY as the article has been improved with the addition of multiple reliable sources such as Queensland Times and academic sources. It is to be expected that they should be notable as they have been performing on radio etc since 1906 Atlantic306 (talk) 22:14, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per addition of sources, seems sufficient now. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)}

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:55, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Steel[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NARTIST. ∯WBG^converse 15:10, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 15:10, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 15:10, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:29, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Looks fine to me. No need to delete. Bryce M (talk) 15:25, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ILIKEIT .... ∯WBG^converse 15:35, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete GNG fail for lack of published sources (there are a couple, but not enough), and NARTIST fail on all counts.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:55, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Only one potential instance of WP:SIGCOV in the CNN article mentioned in the article. However, this is an interview (even if the lede into it contains some details about Steel that aren't verbatim quotes) and hence of dubious independence (or possibly simply a primary source). Nothing else showed up in my WP:BEFORE, so I don't see enough coverage in reliable sources here to sustain notability per WP:BASIC or WP:CREATIVE. FOARP (talk) 15:56, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete could not find any sources. All I could find was this but it's just a news release, and the CNN article is an interview. GNG is clearly not met. SD0001 (talk) 09:48, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for obvious reasons. 21:53, 10 October 2019 (UTC) Sig fixed - scope_creep^Talk 13:48, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass any of the notability criteria for artists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:54, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG and NARTIST Taewangkorea (talk) 21:22, 11 October 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. A lot of text, but at the end it looks like this is just a hoax. Sandstein 17:41, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alejandro Almeida[edit]

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

This article appears to be of a non notable minor public figure who may or may not exist. It has zero sources, and I was unable to locate any even after conducting a thorough WP:BEFORE search. The only references I could find to it anywhere where Wikipedia mirrors and a reference to a fictional character with the same name and general description (Havana born Castro acquaintance living in Florida) from a video game. In addition, I am concerned about the lack of citations in a WP:BLP. Michepman (talk) 14:29, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NOMINATOR COMMENT: Here’s the fictional character I could find with that name. Some of the biographical details from the article match this person: https://godfather.fandom.com/wiki/Alejandro_Almeida The rest of the article appears to have been clumsily plagiarized from Bill Gunter, and the editor who did it forgot to change the names after cut and pasting (see the last paragraph, which refers to Gunter by name). I’m assuming good faith that this was an honest mistake/typo, but it still makes me suspect that this person is not truly notable. Michepman (talk) 14:35, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:21, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:21, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing comes close to a claim of notability, and we lack any indication of anything hat even proves this person is real.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:41, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Not so sure at this point; the sourcing in the article is really weak but there are a few sources available online that the nominator missed/ignored:

^[1] ^[2] ^[3] ^[4]

^ https://www.alejandroalmeida.com/
^ https://mvp.microsoft.com/en-us/PublicProfile/5003120?fullName=Alejandro%20Almeida
^ https://channel9.msdn.com/Events/Speakers/alejandro-almeida
^ https://www.imdb.com/name/nm9882533/

EDIT: I've made significant revisions and improvements to the article, and I now believe that this article should be speedy kept. It's clear now that there are significant evidence of notability and reliable sources available and a large portion of these are now transcluded. Nominator should withdraw this nom ASAP. 107.77.203.73 (talk) 13:58, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I’m not too impressed by the quality of those sources. No disrespect meant, but I had a tough time finding any meaningful corroboration of the article’s claims in the linked sources. Michepman (talk) 22:30, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Personal websites and company profiles fall well short of being considered reliable sources, especially when none of them appear to be about this Alejandro Almeida that was born in 1926. Best, GPL93 (talk) 04:33, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article does appear to be fully sourced as of the above revisions. It's not as thoroughly sourced as I would prefer to see but it's enough to fulfill the notability/verifiability standards. As a reminder to the deletionists -- it's important to base votes on the article subject's notability, NOT on the quality of the article as written (which admittedly was very poor). A current or former member of the United States Congress clearly meets the requirements of WP:NPOL -- to wit: Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or sub-national (e.g., province- or state-wide) office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels. Please, please, PLEASE carefully review and understand these policies before weighing in on these types of discussions in the future. 107.77.204.106 (talk) 12:58, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To start, you can comment as much as you'd like but you only get one vote. Almeida NEVER served in the United States Congress. He does not have an entry in the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress (which has an entry on every member of Congress since 1774) nor can I find election records that indicate he ran for an office of any kind. Additionally, you have not even proved that this guy actually exists. Of the three sources in the article, two are about a very much alive Spanish Microsoft employee and the other is a personal website for a very much alive Spanish photographer and the only additional source you have provided in this AfD is an IMDB page for someone who started his acting career in 2018 Eight years after the Alejandro Almeida in question died. To be frank, do not accuse other editors of not knowing or ignoring Wikipedia's policies when you either do not care enough to check your sources and know what are and are not reliable or are actively trying to pass off sourcing about other people by the same name to try to deceive other editors. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:15, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the point. I fully agree that the article is not in good shape and was in worse shape even before my recent edits. There are numerous factual errors that still need to be ironed out (incl. the claim of Rep. Almeida's death in 2010).That is not in dispute. What IS in dispute is your inadvertent misapprehension of the notability of Congressman Almeida. As referenced above, there are plenty of sources that may be used to corroborate his notability. I will remind you again that, per NPOL, all statewide and federal lawmakers in the US are presumed notable. You may disagree with the quality of Almeida's article, and I don't dispute that it requires significant more work to be of useful quality, but unless you have consensus to revise WP:NPOL then your argument that Almeida is not notable falls flat. 107.77.204.106 (talk) 14:21, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any proof he served in Congress? Because I can't find any record of him serving in Congress, I can't even find basic election records. It's not about quality of article, you can't just say "this guy was a congressman" without a shred of proof and just expect an article to stay up. GPL93 (talk) 14:27, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - definitely agree that the sourcing is not very strong, but this person is a US Congressman and those are presumed notable. Clearly meets the WP:GNG. 14:09, 16 October 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.185.237.210 (talk)

Welcome to Wikipedia, interesting first edit. Have you any proof Almeida actually served in the United States Congress. GPL93 (talk) 14:16, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've been on Wikipedia before. As far as Almeida goes, no, I took it on faith that he was a member of Congress since this was stated in the article. If he is not a member of Congress as you claim above then I lean towards Delete as the rest of his career (as described in the article) does not seem especially noteworthy. 14:23, 16 October 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.185.237.210 (talk)

Update - GPL93 (talk · contribs), 107.77.204.106 (talk · contribs) I just looked this guy up and it looks like he might be a fictional character from a video game. See here: https://godfather.fandom.com/wiki/Alejandro_Almeida There are aspects of this characters' bio that seem to be the same as the story of the fictional character. I also could not find him on the Florida govt website. 208.185.237.210 (talk) 14:30, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely fails notability standards then, obviously WP:NPOL doesn't count for fictional people. GPL93 (talk) 14:33, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The mere fact that there is a fictional character based on (or named after) this person does not mean that we can ignore WP:NPOL or the General Notability Guideline. Again, PLEASE familiarize yourself with the applicable policies and review the sources carefully (including a THOROUGH WP:BEFORE search prior to voting on or nominating articles for deletion. The nominator has a history of inaccurate and failed WP:AFD noms including Bennye Gatteys as well as Wilfred Roy Cousins and each failed as a result of similarly dubious arguments which contradicted policy. 107.77.204.106 (talk) 14:37, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's a huge difference between those previous AfD's in that there was actual sourcing to back up notability claims. I'm sorry, but at the end of the day Competency is required to edit Wikipedia. You can't see the issue with the fact that there isn't any evidence that Almeida was actually ever a member of Congress or held any elected office for that matter. GPL93 (talk) 14:43, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GPL93 I’m embarrassed by the way I handled those 2 older AFDs but I think I have improved with time. I don’t see it as a competency issue still. I noted in my nomination paragraph that this article appears to be a combination of the video game character and another real life political named Bill Gunter, including using Gunter’s name instead of Almeida’s In some places. I see that this has been removed but you can see where someone tried to patch it here:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/921390395

I am assuming good faith that this article is not a hoax, but I can find no evidence anywhere that this person exists. Michepman (talk) 15:02, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Michepman: No need to be embarrassed by those, I've been there as well and its usually much more clear after the AfD than when you first nominated it. The reason why I invoked CIR is because the editor has tried to pass off an amalgamation of sources (none of which are reliable) about at least three different people (none of whom are actually the Alejandro Almeida in question) and despite my attempts to reasonably prove the editors claims he instead is insisting that the other recent delete voter and myself are the ones who don't understand Wikipedia policy. The editor is not making any attempt to acknowledge there's no actual sourcing, just saying its "not the best", and insisting that I am somehow ignoring NPOL on a a person who definitely never served in office and may not even actually exist. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:11, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article started out as a poorly executed hoax and does not seem to have gotten better with time. Rockphed (talk) 16:57, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As a reminder that the civility policy applies even to WP:AFD discussions. This article has been around since 2012 and has been extensively worked on by a number of long-term editors including Ser Amantio di Nicolao, Qzd, Alexander Tendler among many others. Writing off all of this work as a hoax is needlessly incivil and inflammatory. 107.77.204.109 (talk) 17:28, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Never been a member of the US House, for one thing, which makes me suspect a hoax. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 17:32, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:54, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Monstrous humanoid[edit]

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

A creature type in Dungeons & Dragons which fails WP:NFICTION and is mostly a game guide. The term "monstrous humanoid" is also vague and might refer to numerous non-D&D topics. Not a very active user (talk) 14:21, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 14:21, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 14:21, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:49, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete particularly vague term, and a non-notable gamecruft article overall._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:09, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There are no secondary sources indicating any notability for this creature type, and the name is too vague to be useful as a redirect anywhere. Rorshacma (talk) 00:35, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable topic. TTN (talk) 11:16, 16 October 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 14:56, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vitas Varnas[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:BIO notability; zero significant, non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. No major roles as specified by WP:NACTOR. Sources consist of credits listings for minor roles, and minor factoids from VGFacts, a video games website which the subject is affiliated with. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:46, 9 October 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 October 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:02, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:09, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:09, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not have significant coverage in reliable sources. Like the nominator says, the sources in the article are essentially just credits listings and trivia websites. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:10, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As the nomination explains, the subject of this article fails to meet notability criteria in either WP:BIO or WP:NACTOR. Peacock (talk) 15:20, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity article that fails even WP:GNG. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 16:50, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yes, I too suspect this is a vanity article. Not notable, anyway. Bishonen | talk 16:52, 9 October 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - fails NACTOR and just looks like a promotional piece. Ravensfire (talk) 20:12, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and bring the snow. Clear vanity from the trivia from a website the subject contributes to. Varnas posts trivia to his facebook page, Dazz posts it to VGFacts (an unusable source for BLPs), Danozzz posts it here. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:26, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too early to consider notable. Barca (talk) 13:47, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:54, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Sathya Sai Baba Center of Manhattan[edit]

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

Zero coverage across RS. Fails WP:GNG. ∯WBG^converse 13:48, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 13:48, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 13:48, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 13:48, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No RS coverage is available that is particularly about this branch of Sri Sathya Sai Baba Centres. SD0001 (talk) 09:59, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:52, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The delete camp has offered better arguments as to why the topic is not notable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:31, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Walk for Values[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

G11-able spam sourced entirely to in-house sources. A news-search for ("Walk for values" + Toronto) gives a single hit! ∯WBG^converse 13:45, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 13:45, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 13:45, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 13:45, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as WBG says, looks superficially well-sourced but turns out to all be primary, non-independent sources, and mostly the organisation's own website. I cannot find any sources that would meet our standards for a WP:RS. Hug^syrup 14:34, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
in house sources??, Toronto star is quoted, as well as edmonton newspaper, you seem to use blanket statements and brush everything else under the table . obviously an agenda here as two sai baba sites are targeted. read the article and make an informed proposal. you cry and want to delete everything you dont like.
"our" standards?? lol you havent posted anything for several months yet make it look like you are an upstanding part of the wikipedia community...J929 (talk) 14:39, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WBG 's friend comes to rescue to add strength in numbers, information is sourced from toronto, edmonton, NYC and new zealand... J929 (talk) 14:44, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you seeing cites from Toronto Star and/or Edmonton Journal? Please provide links. ∯WBG^converse 15:38, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't seem like it's historically significant. Doug Mehus (talk) 18:00, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The movement originated in Toronto but has expanded internationally. Looking beyond the first page of Google search results, I see coverage in lots of local Canadian newspapers (which may at first be mistaken for non-reliable sources) as well as newspapers from non-Canadian cites where walks were held - see [4], [5], [6], [7] (India), [8] (New Zealand), [9] (US), [10] (South Africa, very brief), [11] (another one from South Africa, although promotional).
The subject is also briefly covered in this book. I think there is enough to meet GNG. SD0001 (talk) 09:31, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SD0001: Maybe, but coverage in one book doesn't make it notable. If this article were created post-WP-NPR, it wouldn't have been marked as 'reviewed' and would've been tagged for deletion. It may have notability, potentially, but as written, it isn't even close. I vote that it should be deleted, without prejudice to re-creation. If someone wants to recreate it, let it go through WP-NPR.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmehus (talk • contribs)

There's a promotional mini-news-piece in the newspaper of a town-suburb, a spam-piece from a paper covering the second-largest town of a province, sources failing NEWSORG and hence RS, coverage over a student-daily blah blah ..... The book is a memoir, out of a non-reputed press and a non-reputed author ....∯WBG^converse 13:25, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Winged Blades of Godric, Agree. I think we should be delete-ing this article. If it's noteworthy enough someone feels the need to re-create it, with neutrality and WP:RS, then have it go through the New Page Review process.Doug Mehus (talk) 13:34, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom ,Doug Mehus and WP:TNT.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:56, 16 October 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) 06:16, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Sai[edit]

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

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

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

The first two fails WP:GNG and/or WP:NWEB. Nothing much resembling to WP:SIGCOV across RS apart from this passage. The latter is a textbook violation of WP:NOTRADIOGUIDE. ∯WBG^converse 13:25, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 13:25, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 13:25, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 13:25, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.— Harshil ^{want to talk?} 15:07, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Fails WP:NMEDIA and WP:NWEB.--Tdl1060 (talk) 04:16, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete List of programs broadcast by Radio Sai as well, for the same reasons plus WP:NOTRADIOGUIDE.--Tdl1060 (talk) 01:34, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nom - Hi, @Tdl1060 and Harshil169:- I recently came across another related article titled List of programs broadcast by Radio Sai, which I have incorporated into this same AfD and thus, have added a line to my nomination statement. Please revise your !votes accordingly, if at all. Regards, ∯WBG^converse 13:45, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - all three fail basic notability.Glendoremus (talk) 18:29, 16 October 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)} 20:53, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sanathana Sarathi (magazine)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMAGAZINE; seeking redirect to Sathya Sai Organization. Nothing in reliable sources apart from the Sai-Baba-NRM/cult ..... ∯WBG^converse 13:22, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:04, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obviously spam. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 15:05, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom fails WP:NMAGAZINE.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:20, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:46, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Murphet[edit]

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

Why not? ∯WBG^converse 11:52, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 11:52, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 11:52, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 11:52, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pure promotion, no reliable sources. Bishonen | talk 11:55, 9 October 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Delete No independent coverage to be found about him or his book. The article, as it stands, purely serves to promote the Baba. SD0001 (talk) 10:33, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:52, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Šarūnas Raudys[edit]

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

Written like a curriculum vitae. Tagged for notability since 2011. PRODed by Mccapra and dePRODed by Phil Bridger. I'm not an expert on WP:PROF but he doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG. SITH (talk) 11:10, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:49, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:49, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:PROF#C1. His Google Scholar profile lists one publication with over 1000 cites and five more with over 100. That's enough to convince me. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:07, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:PROF & possibly WP:AUTHOR. His English-language book is relatively widely held: Worldcat Identities. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:25, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:53, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First Ones[edit]

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 10:58, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 10:58, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 10:58, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I actually really like Babylon 5, but this is a monumental pile of cruft. Not a single source, and all of it is written in an in-universe plot summary style. There's no content that could be merged anywhere, and as a redirect the title would be vague enough to be both confusing and useless. Reyk _YO! 18:35, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Reyk._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:10, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:52, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fahad Saket[edit]

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

He might of played in the Stars League which is fine due to the WP:NFOOTY, but WP:GNG is an issue as their isn't any decent sources for this player. HawkAussie (talk) 05:48, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 05:48, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 05:48, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Qatar-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 05:48, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:11, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Soccerway confirms multiple appearances; given the length of his career at the top level in Qatar I refuse to believe there aren't sufficient Arabic-language sources (both online and offline) for GNG. Giant Snowman 08:56, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Will change if GiantSnowman can provide these sources, otherwise, it is simply speculation that these sources exist. I cannot find any sources other than statistics pages myself. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 12:27, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Willbb234: alas, I don't read or speak Arabic. But a quick Google search for "فهد ساكت" (which the article says is the Arabic transliteration of this name) has 550,000 results... Giant Snowman 12:33, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But my question, is how many of those results relate to the footballer. HawkAussie (talk) 00:55, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again - I don't read or speak Arabic. But you should be able to tell me as you did WP:BEFORE, right? Giant Snowman 09:14, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

^Indeed. Major language barrier, so extra care is (or, at least, should be) required for these articles - arguably should be done before nominating... how can a nominator (in general, not HawkAussie directly) judge something they can't see? Qatari, or anyone from countries that use Arabic, people are very difficult to find online if you don't have an understanding of the language - I've tried before away from Wikipedia, e.g. when watching the AFC Champions League, to look up players of interest - very difficult, given different people (and therefore media) use the person's rather lengthy name differently: in this case Fahad Saket or Fahad Al-Shammeri - Al Jazeera even use both! R96Skinner (talk) 20:14, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are more than enough statistical references to warrant a Wiki article. The subject played in several matches in a professional football league, won the foremost continental club championship in 2011, and is a former member of the Olympic national team, so I don't see why this has been brought up for deletion. You're saying that because we can't dig up some random, meaningless interview or biography of the player that he doesn't deserve an article? Elspamo4 (talk) 16:09, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 2 Keep votes compared to 2 delete votes, but the strength of the keep vote arguments are weak. Editors are reminded that NFOOTY is a presumption of GNG and where this is challenged, simply citing NFOOTY is not a valid argument for retention. Relisting to give editors voting keep time to support their vote with reference to GNG
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 10:44, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - People above state that all that is needed is a news report concerning a match he played in - here's one from Al-Sharq newspaper which is an WP:RS. Here's a match report in which he played from Al-Arab (an RS), notably this article describes him scoring a goal for Al Kharaitiyat SC, which is a top-level team in Qatar (i.e., it's in the Stars League). Here's also his profile on Al-Jazeera, which again is an RS. The only thing I'd note is his full name appears to be Fahad Saket Al Shammari, but as there are other footballers by the name "Fahad Al Shammari" he does not go by this name. Meets WP:NFOOTY. All articles analysed using Google translate. FOARP (talk) 13:03, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – statistical databases and match reports are primary sources. We need secondary sources to base an article on; that's not just per WP:N, but also per our policies WP:NOR and WP:BLP. Without secondary sources, we cannot keep this article. – Levivich 21:22, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How is a statistical database a primary source? It summarises the content of match reports, and is thus obviously a secondary source. FOARP (talk) 19:17, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How are statistics anything other than primary sources? Statistics don't summarize anything; they report. A collection of statistics doesn't become a secondary source unless it engages in analysis or interpretation, etc. "Levivich scored 1 goal on October 10, 2019", is primary (reporting what happened, no analysis or interpretation); "Levivich scored 10 goals in the 2019 season" is primary (same); "Levivich had a good season in 2019, having scored 10 goals" is secondary – an analysis or interpretation of primary sources (the goals-scored statistics). Google "are statistics primary or secondary", every result seems to say statistics are primary and not secondary sources. Statistics databases like Soccerway are almanacs or directories of statistics... a primary source. SW doesn't tell you who had a good season or a bad season, who is the best or the worst, who improved or deteriorated; it just reports the numbers. An article that is only sourced to Soccerway is not "based on secondary sources" as required by NOR. – Levivich 19:41, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, here's more coverage of the subject 1 2 3 4 5 FOARP (talk) 20:23, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Each of these is a brief mention in a match report or similar; I don't see any of them as in-depth enough to be WP:SIGCOV. – Levivich 05:00, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NFOOTY. As I see it, the real PROBLEM with this article is that there are no valid in-line sources. In such cases the references template should be preferred. gidonb (talk) 18:09, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per FOARP and passes WP:NFOOTY. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:08, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - NFOOTY is met, and there's a lot of mentions in the Arabic media. User:Levivich's claim that statistics like Soccerway are primary sources, is obviously mindbogglingly false! Nfitz (talk) 02:19, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep case for deletion is based on an inadvertent misreading of the media sources in Arabic language. These are secondary media / journalism sources, not primary sources or raw statistical data. Clear and easy keep. 208.185.237.210 (talk) 14:11, 16 October 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. See also undeleting admin's consent. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:44, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Raluca Petruș[edit]

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

Not an obviously notable sportsperson. I declined a WP:G5 per discussion here, suggesting AfD, so here we are. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:22, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:06, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:06, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:G5, creator is a banned sockmaster. Kb03 (talk) 16:15, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:G5, creator is a banned sockmaster and the admin should know policy.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 17:40, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Clearly G5. --qedk (t 桜 c) 17:46, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete – unless someone wants to demonstrate that this subject is notable and can provide sources to prove it, there's no reason to keep it around. WP:G5 is set up specifically so that banned users don't waste the community's time on AfDs like this. – bradv🍁 01:31, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - fails WP:GNG, and WP:NSPORTS. Makes no attempt to establish any notability. — Ched (talk) 02:03, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 13:19, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Derius[edit]

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

Finnish bandy and football club, established 1990, seems no longer to exist. Played one year in the third division, all other seasons in even lower divisions. I was unable to find reliable indepth sources about this club, which seems not to have received attention beyond routine coverage or very local articles. Fram (talk) 09:06, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 09:06, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 09:06, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:15, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Slightly clarification to @Fram: - the Kolmonen ('third division') is actually the fourth level... GiantSnowman 13:12, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Fram (talk) 13:36, 10 October 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 05:09, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kathaleen Land[edit]

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

The only claim of notability of the person seems to be that she was interviewed for a movie, and was a prototype of one of the characters of the movie. One of the four references does not mention her; one more mentions her name among hundreds of other names (and the link there is not clickalbe). Is that sufficient for notability? Ymblanter (talk) 07:16, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 07:16, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 07:16, 9 October 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 October 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:36, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am using Twinkle, meaning something got wrong during the execution of the code. I do not transclude AfD's manually.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:40, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 11:17, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looks like a respectable bio-stub. At the very least, this is a case for a merge/redirect to Hidden Figures. XOR'easter (talk) 15:41, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Making my sentiment official. XOR'easter (talk) 17:36, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: decent bio stub on a historical figure. Wikipedia would not be improved by removing this article. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:11, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources indicate adequate notability.--Ipigott (talk) 08:28, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep She is a prominent figure in mathematics and the reliable sources like Guardian proves notability of this person. The only thing to be concerned is the article needs to be further expanded. Abishe (talk) 09:02, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is not correct, she is absolutely not a prominent figure in mathematics. I do not see any evidence of her passing WP:PROF or even actually having a PhD.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:07, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG to my satisfaction (I don't know why the book Hidden Figures is only given as "Further reading"). WP:PROF is just special pleading by sad academics. Thincat (talk) 10:39, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the coverage is notsignificant enough to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:04, 13 October 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 08:39, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of awards and nominations received by Ryan Driller[edit]

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

Porncruft. Negligible independent reliable sourcing. Most articles of this type havw already been deleted, recognizing that porn industry awards are generally marketing devices handed out by promotional businesses to promote their advertisers or clients. What little substantive text there is in the article was cut-and-pasted from the subject's BLP without proper attribution. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:55, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:06, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:15, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:15, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:15, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect – All awards, in any industry, meet OP's characterization. The items listed are notable awards with articles: AVN Award, NightMoves Award, XBIZ Awards and XRCO Award. It also appears all the information is cited. We do not require secondary sources for industry awards such as 71st Primetime Emmy Awards. Why would we suddenly now require secondary sources for this particular industry? --- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:52, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons laid out by the nom. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:28, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Coffee. If there isn't anything worth merging, then just delete. Rockphed (talk) 13:37, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 01:42, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:LISTN for lack of secondary coverage. Nothing to merge, so it's a 'delete' for me. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:57, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:33, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The fact Ryan's page can display the lists without effecting that article, there doesn't seem to be any need to merge.TenderKing (talk) 12:31, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTN. --qedk (t 桜 c) 18:00, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge per coffee. Recently depreciated pornbio does not necessitate the deletion of a highly awarded porn actor. WP:ANYBIO could apply. Lightburst (talk) 01:31, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Porn awards tend to be industry self-promotional fluff, and this list is no exception. As for Coffeeandcrumbs' argument, the Primetime Emmy Awards example gets plenty of secondary coverage, undermining the editor's argument. PORNBIO was taken down because, without reliable sources, all that's left is self-promotion and the porn itself. Also porn award's having a Wikipedia article stopped conferring notability to its winners many years ago. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirects are cheap and prevent recreation. If someone reverts the redirect, we have BRD and BLOCKs to deal with it. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 03:01, 13 October 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 08:40, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pernicon[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional monster. Fails WP:NFICTION. Not a very active user (talk) 07:16, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 07:16, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 07:16, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:15, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. TTN (talk) 12:14, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Minor, even in comparison to other D&D monsters. There are virtually no non-primary sources discussing the creature. Rorshacma (talk) 00:37, 16 October 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 08:40, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Crabman[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional monster. One mention in a "Most underrated monsters" list is not enough to establish notability. Not a very active user (talk) 07:13, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 07:13, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 07:13, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:15, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The topic does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 12:28, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Non-notable creature. The one non-primary source is extremely brief, as the coverage consists of a few jokey sentences. Rorshacma (talk) 00:40, 16 October 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 08:41, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vivian Miranda[edit]

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

The article's sources are not independent - the subject's employer, and a press release from the institution that gave her an award. I can't find any independent sources giving her significant coverage, and so can't see how she passes WP:GNG; she is an early career scholar, having completed her PhD in 2015, and I'm not seeing how she passes WP:NPROF either. Regretfully, I think this is a delete. GirthSummit _(blether) 06:10, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 06:10, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 06:10, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 06:10, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 06:10, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:TOOSOON. Postdocs are usually not yet notable (that's still true for assistant professors, the next step up the ladder), and an award to support a postdoc is also not enough for notability. It's difficult to find the astronomical Vivian Miranda publications among all the non-astronomy publications by other Vivians Miranda, and among all the other astronomy publications by Vinicius and Valmin and other Vs Miranda, but it's clear from the difficulty of finding them that they're not cited highly enough to make a surprise case for WP:PROF#C1. There is a little popular-press media for being transgender [12] but I don't think that's enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:22, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 11:23, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Return to Draft world It looks like this was promoted from sandbox-draft status the same day it was created. I don't think there's yet a case for passing WP:PROF or WP:GNG, but the content isn't so objectionable that it has to be expunged. It can live on as a userspace draft indefinitely, or in Draft space proper for months (coming back to edit an academic biography to reset the G13 clock every semester is not so arduous). Also, I think the press release from Brookhaven counts as adequately "independent": it's by the organization who chose to give her an award, not by Miranda herself, and not by her employer or by any of the schools where she studied. The same goes for the notice by the Sociedade Brasileira de Física. Alternatively, we could add a little bit to the Leona Woods article about the award named in her honor, mention Miranda as the first recipient, and (for the time being) redirect this page there. XOR'easter (talk) 16:41, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have been working on this article today and am continuing to do so. I believe it more robustly demonstrates GNG notability at this time. Elysia (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:18, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- We have standards for what it takes to be notable as an academic. They are in WP:PROF, not GNG. She clearly fails to meet any of them. So any notability will have to rely on non-academic material, not on puffing up the details of academic projects in which she is a minor participant. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:24, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - My understanding of NACADEMIC is, based on it saying "It is possible for an academic not to be notable under the provisions of this guideline but to be notable in some other way under the general notability guideline or one of the other subject-specific notability guidelines" is that an academic who does not meet NACADMIC but still meets GNG is still notable. Elysia (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:41, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Concur. An academic that fails NACADEMIC but passes GNG is notable. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:02, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - Of course. But the argument for notability will have to be that she is covered in nontrivial detail in independent reliable sources, not that she won the Woods Lectureship nor that she is the only Brazilian on a multi-billion-dollar academic project. Incidentally, is "trans" as a noun rather than an adjective considered acceptable language, or is it a bad translation of the source titles? —David Eppstein (talk) 01:09, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        I think it's a bad translation. The GLAAD style guide, for example, treats trans as a short form of transgender, and says that the latter should be used as an adjective, not a noun. XOR'easter (talk) 17:58, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete people who are still at the post-doc stage are almost never notable. Nothing here suggests otherwise for this individual. I have had enough articles on Ph.D. holding professors with several years of teaching and multiple publications deleted to know that Miranda is no where near making the cut.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:21, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough there yet for notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:20, 15 October 2019 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:55, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Concentra Financial[edit]

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

As written, this fails WP:NORG, WP:Notability, and WP:Permastub, and following the lead of User:Piotrus and User:Mrschimpf, this article may not be notable or, if it is, it is either a permastub or an emerging permastub. The edit history comments even remark on the myriad problems with WP:NPOV and wikipuffery. This is a textbook example of WP:CORPSPAM and I would also point out Wikipedia is not a directory or the yellow pages. Doug Mehus (talk) 06:02, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 06:06, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 06:06, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 06:06, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note to AfD Closer Although Concentra Bank has never been created, as that is the current name of this bank, I'm wondering if it is possible to cross-list/cross-post the red notice of the article's deletion? Doug Mehus (talk) 16:46, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree that there doesn't seem to be enough in terms of WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources for this page to pass WP:CORP, or at least I was not able to find any in my WP:BEFORE. One thing I would say is - no, WP:PERMASTUB (an essay-level guide, not policy) is not a WP:DELREASON. As the essay itself explains, there are plenty of permanent stub articles that are perfectly viable as articles and should not be deleted. The stub articles that should be deleted are to be deleted for reasons other than being simply stubs. FOARP (talk) 15:49, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
FOARP, I am fine with you amending the original rationale to place a period following "notable" and deleting from "or" to "permastub" if you like. That's probably the weakest of the arguments for deletion. I think it's sufficient to delete on WP:SIGCOV and WP:CORPDEPTH alone. Just make sure you put an edit summary that the proponent authorized your editing the rationale. Doug Mehus (talk) 18:34, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Coverage is limited to WP:PRIMARY and press-releases and as such fails WP:NORG. I'd suggest a merge to some list of Canadian banks or such, however. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:14, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Piotrus, Thanks for your further reply to the trend in Canadian credit union and bank stubs and their non-notability. As to your suggestion about merging with a list, that's problematic in that I don't find redirecting Concentra Financial to a list, template, or other namespace to be particularly helpful. As well, it sometimes creates double redirects in that when an article page becomes a redirect, that article page is still listed in the footer box of similar companies so when the user clicks on that name of related companies, they end up back on the same page, if that makes sense? Doug Mehus (talk) 03:30, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Double redirects are easy to fix, just remove the links to them from the list.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:47, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  Piotrus, Sorry, I don't think I was clear. You see, in Template:Canadian banks, that template is added to the footer of every page. Many banks and credit unions that aren't WP:Notable are still listed in that template as redlinked banks. If we have a redirect, instead of deleting the page, which redirects to List of banks and credit unions in Canada, the user clicks through from the template to the list. I just don't think that's helpful. Does that make more sense? Doug Mehus (talk) 04:00, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - It does. Red links are for topics that are deemed notable but not created yet (WP:RED). Deleted entries should be unlinked. I am unsure what is the WP:MOS take on such links in templates - unlik or remove entirely? Perhaps remove, and make a note on talk that such template should only list notable banks, with the template perhaps using the word major, like 'major Canadaian banks' etc.. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:50, 10 October 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. Speedy deleted A7/G11. Randykitty (talk) 13:29, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TY.13.R.LYONS[edit]

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

Autobiographical article, with no reliable sources. I couldn't find anything to indicate the subject would pass WP:GNG or WP:NCREATIVE. GirthSummit _(blether) 05:58, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 05:58, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 05:58, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 05:58, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG, only spotify, instagram and a primary promotional source. Hughesdarren (talk) 07:34, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is arguably a speedy delete, A7. No notability asserted. shoy (reactions) 12:12, 9 October 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 08:41, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Credit Union Central of Manitoba[edit]

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

As written, this fails WP:NORG, WP:Notability, and WP:Permastub, and following the lead of User:Piotrus and User:Mrschimpf, this article may not be notable or, if it is, it is either a permastub or an emerging permastub. This is arguably an example of WP:CORPSPAM and I would also point out Wikipedia is not a directory or the yellow pages. Unless someone, or some people, want to do some research and write an organizational history from a neutral point of view, it should be deleted. Doug Mehus (talk) 05:33, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 05:35, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 05:35, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 05:35, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The worst of the bunch of recently nominated Canadian bank stubs so far, this one has next to no references. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:38, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:56, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Concepts of Physics[edit]

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

No evidence of notability presented in the article. A WP:BEFORE search gives a few articles on the author with passing mentions that it is used for the IIT entrance exams in India (e.g. [13], [14]), but the textbook does not have WP:GNG-level notability.

Similar to this AfD on another IIT entrance exam textbook. — MarkH21 (talk) 05:37, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 05:37, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 05:37, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 05:37, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article should be deleted. Unimportant data not required by any general reader.Lichinsol (talk) 08:38, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Struck sock vote. --qedk (t 桜 c) 17:57, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unexceptional textbook. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:31, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Though not familiar with book notability guidelines on Wikipedia, I'll defer to the proponent and those who concur. Doug Mehus (talk) 14:36, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete. Doesn't meet the criteria for WP:NBOOK and WP:TEXTBOOKS.~~ I checked this on Google Scholar. It does not seem to be highly cited, with only 24 citations [15], [16]. I checked World Cat and it seems to be listed in only four university libraries [17]. Three of these are in U.S and one is in India. Not much traction for a book published in 1999. It also doesn't seem to have gone past this edition - which would seem to mean it is outdated [18]. There is a related title published in 1993 [19] of which this could be a later edition. And again, only four university libraries carry this. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 09:57, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Keep per WP:NBOOK and WP:TEXTBOOKS. One of the above links says that millions of copies have been sold [20]. The second link says this book is the "most read textbook for high school physics" and is "widely considered the Bible of Physics" (probably in India) [21]. Because this is a high school textbook, this would explain why it is not in many university libraries. ~~I'm thinking of changing my Ivote. Stay tuned.~~ ---Steve Quinn (talk) 10:16, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I noticed that as well, but these sources still aren't really significant coverage on the actual textbook and those claims don't quite support the other points of WP:BOOKCRIT. — MarkH21 (talk) 10:19, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I disagree. The coverage appears to be significant enough, in this instance, to pass notability criteria for books per WP:TEXTBOOKS. Also, it does meet WP:BOOKCRIT #1 and #5 according to the sources. Common sense is also applicable per WP:TEXTBOOKS. What I mean is, occasionally, some things don't fit neatly into the notability criteria. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 10:29, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - I strongly disagree that the sources suggest anything remotely close to BOOKCRIT #5, which is about the author being so notable that all of their works are too. Sure, WP:TEXTBOOKS tells us that common sense applies. Being a popular high school physics textbook doesn't fit the notability bill in my opinion though. — MarkH21 (talk) 03:52, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I misread BOOKCRIT #5, I thought it said something else. However, the subject is still applicable per BOOKCRIT #1. Per WP:TEXTBOOKS, where not only common sense applies but also it is surprisingly covered in the media (as mentioned above), it has been influential since 1999, and "has been, taught, or required reading, in one or more reputable educational institutions" - since it was published. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 13:55, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- - - MarkH21, I agree. I see no problem with deleting this book. I thought Wikipedia was not a bibliography? Doug Mehus (talk) 05:11, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. Weak, because I'm just going on what I can see in the article, haven't done any research on my own. Even if this book were notable, the article is such a mess, WP:TNT applies. But, I am amused by the comment above that the book is "outdated" because it was published in 1996. It covers mechanics, waves and optics ... thermodynamics, electromagnetism, modern physics and relativity. What could possibly have changed about any of those topics since my 40-year old copy of Halliday and Resnick was printed? -- RoySmith (talk) 14:19, 17 October 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) 06:36, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Central 1 Credit Union[edit]

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

As written, this fails WP:NORG, WP:Notability, and WP:Permastub, and following the lead of User:Piotrus and User:Mrschimpf, this article may not be notable or, if it is, it is either a permastub or an emerging permastub. The edit history comments even remark on the myriad problems with WP:NPOV and wikipuffery. This is a textbook example of WP:CORPSPAM and I would also point out Wikipedia is not a directory or the yellow pages. Doug Mehus (talk) 05:14, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 05:22, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 05:22, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 05:22, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NCORP as written. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:37, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Companies are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist — they need to be the subject of enough reliable source coverage in media to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH, and are not entitled to keep articles sourced entirely to their own self-published content about themselves. Bearcat (talk) 15:13, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bearcat, Yeah, and I thank Piotrus for pointing that out, so that's why I nominated this. I did a search for it and Concentra Financial but all of their roughly 10-14,000 Google articles are merely corporate directories, listings, primary sources, or inconsequential media coverage and blog posts (most commonly referring to executive departures and hires). Thanks for validating that thinking. -DM Doug Mehus (talk) 15:17, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As said above, fails WP:NCORP. There are practically no reliable secondary sources available. The only sources provided are their website(pages cited no longer available) and a primary source(page cited also unavailable). Luke ^Talk 00:05, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hei314, Thanks, Luke, and thank you for your contributions to the AfD process. I think this is a good example of where a company with billions of dollars in assets can simply not meet WP:NCORP on any basis. Doug Mehus (talk) 00:13, 10 October 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) Prova-nome (talk) 05:11, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Factorion[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and seems to be mostly WP:OR. While there is an external link to MathWorld, the article on MathWorld is very short, and other longer articles on MathWorld (like Factorial sums) do not have corresponding articles on Wikipedia. The only references in this article are to OEIS integer sequences, and just as with MathWorld, there are other integer sequences on OEIS who do not have corresponding articles on Wikipedia. Meanwhile, the vast majority of the article is unreferenced and seemes to be original research. For the notability and original research issues, this article ought to be deleted. Prova-nome (talk) 04:30, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Along with the book reference already in the article, there are two journal publications JSTOR 3620841 and JSTOR 3620842 (short pieces in a problem section, but nevertheless journal publications) that provide nontrivial detail about the subject. Note that this article was nominated for deletion several minutes after I replied to the nominator's query about the sequence on WT:WPM providing these references and requesting that the nominator perform WP:BEFORE before making a nomination; despite that, the nomination pretends that the references in the article itself are the only ones available. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:03, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I had closed out of the window of the talk page of Wikiproject Mathematics and so did not see your reply to my post until now. If only I could figure how to withdraw the proposal. Prova-nome (talk) 05:07, 9 October 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 08:41, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KokobyKhloe[edit]

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

The subject of this article WP:GNG and WP:ENTERTAINER. A Google search of the subject doesn't show her being discussed in reliable sources. Some of the sources in the article are PR stuff and others are interviews. I don't see sources independent of her. The subject was a finalist at two non-notable beauty pageants. Participating in a Big Brother show doesn't make one notable. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 03:18, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 03:18, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 03:18, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 03:18, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:36, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It is not even universally accepted on Wikipedia that the winner of BBN should be regarded as notable, not to talk about just being an housemate. I am not seeing any other guideline being met. References are just the usual news coverage that is expected from a reality contestant in the show. At the moment there is nothing suggesting that WP:10YT will be met.HandsomeBoy (talk) 11:01, 14 October 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 Wrong forum.. Merger requests are to be made on the article talk page. See WP:MERGE. Editors are nonetheless free to act on this discussion. Sandstein 18:26, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brookfield Properties Retail Group[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Brookfield Properties Retail Group

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

I am actually nominating this for the purpose of merging rather than deleting. I feel that in order to get eyes on this discussion, bringing it here will help. WP:COI editor Dvruthven, proposed that Brookfield Properties Retail Group be merged into Brookfield Property Partners at Talk:Brookfield_Properties#Merger_proposal. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:11, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's not specifically subsidiary, but rather a division or a business unit, so it may be notable in its own right, or it may be better merged into Brookfield Asset Management, with links to the individual subsidiary pages. The list of assets could be created as a "List of assets owned by Brookfield Properties" yadda yadda yadda. Doug Mehus (talk) 05:20, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @TonyTheTiger: Just to clarify, my proposal was to merge Brookfield Properties Retail Group into Brookfield Properties, not into Brookfield Property Partners. This is because the retail group is now a division of Brookfield Properties, so that is the most appropriate place for the content. Thanks! Dvruthven (talk) 14:08, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:08, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:08, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks User:TonyTheTiger for doing that. I must point out that Brookfield Properties Retail Group is a division, not a subsidiary as its Infobox indicates. Do we know that all its listed assets belong to Brookfield Property Partners subsidiary Brookfield Properties? If so, then the merger is one possibility. However, I note the articles lack neutral point of view, and it may fail WP:Notability on grounds of lack of significant press coverage on its own right and, crucially, as currently written. So, I'm wondering if the following merger proposal alternative might be in order? Doug Mehus (talk) 14:29, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Brookfield Properties, but strongly also recommend performing a second-step merger whereby Brookfield Properties (a likely stub-class article when you cut out the wikipuffery and lack of NPOV) is merged into Brookfield Property Partners, as a separate and shrunken down section (with improved prose). If that second stage merger is not done, or even if it is, I recommend stripping out the list of Brookfield Properties Retail Group's assets and creating or merging them into a List of assets owned or controlled by Brookfield Asset Management page. Doug Mehus (talk) 14:29, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Dmehus: I'm the Brookfield employee who proposed the merger to Brookfield Properties. I would welcome the removal of any puffery currently remaining in the Brookfield Properties article. (In fact, I requested the removal of a few lines that seemed overly promotional in my most recent edit request.) However, Brookfield Properties and Brookfield Property Partners are distinct companies with separate identities, each of which is notable in its own right. Their notability is borne out by significant coverage in reliable sources already cited in the respective articles, though I'm sure more sources can be found if necessary. Thanks! Dvruthven (talk) 14:11, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dvruthven, Thanks for your reply, but I'd point out separate companies does not equal notability. We have cases where small- to mid-sized Canadian banks and credit unions have been deleted because they amount to little more than directory listings and/or are stubs. I think there's a strong case for merging, in a second-stage merger, Brookfield Properties into Brookfield Property Partners as a separate section in order to improve the one from being a stub-class article to a starter or even a C-class article. Doug Mehus (talk) 14:34, 10 October 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) Prova-nome (talk) 05:16, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Polydivisible number[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and seems to be entirely WP:OR. Since the article's creation in 2003, this entire article had for sixteen years and still has now a total of zero references. The only external link in the article links to a discussion on a mathematical problem that is only very remotely connected to the topic at hand. And while there are a few OEIS integer sequences sprinkled here and there about polydivisible numbers, so there are many other OEIS integer sequences that do not have corresponding Wikipedia articles. If an entry on the OEIS is the only reason for it's existence, then it isn't really notable enough for Wikipedia. This, along with the original research issues, is reason for deletion. Prova-nome (talk) 02:49, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think it is interesting. There are four or so links to OEIS and there are mentions of it on several blogs, etc. However, I didn't find it in anything like MathWorld, so otherwise it is completely lacking in references. I also suspect that it is almost entirely WP:OR. So I would probably delete it unless some good references are found. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:30, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. A lack of sources in the article does NOT mean that the article isn't notable. In fact, it was never mentioned by the nominator whether sources exist, but only that the one external link isn't competent enough. AFD is not cleanup also means that AFD isn't an excuse for people to add sources to the article. While it feels good to say that it fails WP:OR due to no sources being present, WP:OR only applies to content in which no reliable, published sources exist. And reliable, published sources definitely exist, which also proves notability for being an important number sequence. Utopes (talk) 03:42, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The sequences are referenced, but are there any references for the math? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:58, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A little searching found coverage of this in at least four books: Malcolm Lines A Number for your Thoughts (1986) [22], David Wells The Penguin Dictionary of Curious and Interesting Numbers (1997) [23], Noel Botham The Amazing Book of Useless Information (2008) [24], and Matt Parker Things to Make and Do in the Fourth Dimension (2014) [25]. I think that's enough to demonstrate ongoing interest in this concept (even though such base-dependent sequences don't interest me personally) and show a pass of WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:29, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Those references need to be added to the article to establish notability of the subject. But is the mathematics referenced? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:42, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - They do not need to be added to establish notability. It is existence of sources, not their addition to articles, that establishes notability. See WP:ARTN. And AfD is not for cleanup. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:05, 9 October 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) 06:31, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Missing-digit sum[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and seems to be entirely WP:OR. The article was self-published by MagistraMundi in 2014, and the only significant edits other than by MagistraMundi are by the IP address 173.230.18.196 in the last few weeks. The external link at the bottom of the page is to MagistraMundi's personal blog (which can be verified by taking a look at the past history of the page). The only reference in the article (there are two, but they link to the same web page) are to an OEIS integer sequence, and there are hundreds of thousands of other OEIS integer sequences, many of which do not have Wikipedia articles, making this topic not really notable enough to be on Wikipedia. Prova-nome (talk) 02:05, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There is nothing more beautiful than mathematics and nothing more mathematical than beauty. What are the notability guidelines for mathematical concepts? Michepman (talk) 02:52, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As far as I can find, this appears to be OR about a wholly non-notable concept. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 04:01, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My searches in Google Scholar came up blank. I agree that this looks like OR. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:23, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In addition to the points made above, the OEIS calls the two cited sequences "easy" and does not refer to either as "nice" [26][27]. Nor do those pages have the body of comments and references typical for a topic that has generated some excitement. XOR'easter (talk) 15:50, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - totally WP:OR and not even notable. Bearian (talk) 13:47, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:37, 12 October 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)} 20:41, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Loaded Boards[edit]

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

Skateboard manufacturer that does not appear to be sufficiently notable to sustain an article. Provided external sources are limited to one unabashed promo interview. Anything else I can find is in-house. Currently this article does not serve any function other than advertisement. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:31, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:31, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:09, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 01:56, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sources are all primary or non-independent and I cannot find anything else. Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Hug^syrup 12:34, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a yellow pages or a platform for promotion. I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:42, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable per WP:NEXIST a WP:BEFORE is revealing. The nominator calls out the promotional or advertising feel, but WP:NOTCLEANUP Lightburst (talk) 01:42, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Throwing buzzwords without backup into the room is not helpful, nor does it make you sound smart. Show your sources. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 03:09, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you meant to say acronyms because I did not use any buzzwords. You should look up the useful acronyms I have invoked: acronyms are often used in AfDs as shortcuts, and these particular ones are relevant to my ivote on this AfD discussion. WP:NOTCLEANUP Consider that Wikipedia is a work in progress and articles should not be deleted as punishment because no one has felt like cleaning them up yet. Remember, Wikipedia has no deadline. Articles which are promotional require editing, not deletion. Lightburst (talk) 17:25, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You missed my point. Throwing out WP:NEXIST and WP:BEFORE is without any value if you don't demonstrate what sources you found; i.e., they are empty buzzwords. I checked for available sources and found none that were sufficient to demonstrate independent notability. If you claim that there are some - present them here for evaluation. In their absence, the article functions only as an advertisement, not as encyclopedic coverage. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:00, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP/WP:CORPDEPTH. Sourcing is in passing and / or WP:SPIP. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:01, 14 October 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 08:42, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Exploratory product development[edit]

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

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

Doesn't seem notable, fails WP:GNG. All the sources here and elsewhere are by the two proponents of the approach, their business, and the group that gave them a grant. In general, when I come across the phrase "exploratory product development" in web pages turned up by Google, it's being used generically, not to refer to the methodology of these people. Google Scholar is the same. "Exploratory PD" also turns up nothing to support WP:GNG. Largoplazo (talk) 22:42, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 22:42, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is, at very best, an example of WP:TOOSOON, and at worst the actually-funded-somehow academic analogue to a drinking game indigenous to a particular fraternity house. The prodigious use of vanity capitalization/a CamelCase initialism is indicative of the substance and notability deficiencies. Thank you for nominating this, Largoplazo. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 19:45, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 01:56, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as premature; no prejudice against recreation at an appropriate time. RL0919 (talk) 06:29, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

America's Got Talent (season 15)[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON, and user is continuously adding false information across multiple articles about a person named 'Louis Walsh' joining the panel, when this is completely fan-created information. Even added start + end dates of season when neither is known at all as of currently. Magitroopa (talk) 00:55, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per TOOSOON. Wholeheartedly agree. Utopes (talk) 03:57, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Premature, completely unsourced. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:20, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - For two reasons: 1. Goes against WP:TOOSOON, as there is no source information (via reliable sources) to confirm that a 15th season is in production for the time being. 2. Inclusion of false information - I have checked the internet, but there are no news stories confirming that Louis Walsh, who has judged X Factor and Ireland's Got Talent, and also been a guest judge on Britain's Got Talent for two seasons, is planning to replace Simon Cowell as a judge. A firm, final warning, in that regard, should be made to the user conducting this; failure to heed that warning should prompt editors to have an admin deal with them. GUtt01 (talk) 08:52, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:35, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Every year we go through this; barring the complete dissolution of NBC, we know a new season is happening, but October is way too early to create a new season article. However, this is possibly the return of the same vandal who has continued their Sisyphean effort to fake season ten and season nine's existence in the same time period. It may be time to start WP:SALTing these season article titles (yes, up to at least season 20) until we have solid concrete details regarding the season start. Nate • (chatter) 00:11, 10 October 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) 06:27, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ethereal filcher[edit]

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

Minor, non-notable fictional creature. There are no reliable secondary sources that discuss this creature in any depth, either present in the article, or found upon searching. Rorshacma (talk) 00:47, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 00:47, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 00:47, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:15, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Not sure where we currently stand on creatures from the Dungeons & Dragons series and where we draw the line in terms of notability, but maybe this cateogry can help, [28].TenderKing (talk) 12:35, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no significant coverage in secondary sources. Not a very active user (talk) 07:21, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable fictional topic. TTN (talk) 12:28, 11 October 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) 06:25, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ethan Baker[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL and Baker does not appear to meet WP:GNG outside his campaigns. Article currently has no reliable sources. GPL93 (talk) 00:16, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 00:16, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 00:16, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable or too soon. Rmhermen (talk) 03:18, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't seem like he is notable enough at the moment. With some solid references that could change.TenderKing (talk) 12:21, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for running as candidates in elections they have not won, so neither the fact that he's currently running for mayor nor the fact that he ran in a state legislature primary in 2018 make him notable. And, for that matter, this is referenced almost entirely to primary sources, with no evidence whatsoever of any non-trivial reliable source coverage in real media being shown — the only newspaper citation in the entire article is just an overview of the mayoral election as a whole, not an article that demonstrates why Ethan Baker would be more notable than Dave Henderson. Troy MI is not in the very narrow range of cities that get to confer notability on their city councillors, so being an incumbent city councillor does not make him more encyclopedically notable than other mayoral candidates — and even if he wins the mayoral election, he still won't be automatically entitled to have an article just because he exists, and would qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia only if an article could be written about his political career that was much more substantive and much better sourced than this. Bearcat (talk) 14:55, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even if he were elected mayor that would not make him notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:26, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable or too soon. sorry. Doesnt seem to meet WP:GNG --Dreerwin (talk) 01:25, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttps://www.alejandroalmeida.com/

[2] ttps://mvp.microsoft.com/en-us/PublicProfile/5003120?fullName=Alejandro%20Almeida

[3] ttps://channel9.msdn.com/Events/Speakers/alejandro-almeida

[4] ttps://www.imdb.com/name/nm9882533/

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]