Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 September 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 10 September 12 September >

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. RL0919 (talk) 23:43, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

McKay Murphy[edit]

McKay Murphy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NGRIDIRON, non-notable FCS college football player who did not make an NFL roster last season. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:41, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:41, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:41, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Chicago Bears players. Using the list as the target since redirects within the same namespace are more typical. RL0919 (talk) 23:45, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago Bears all-time roster[edit]

Chicago Bears all-time roster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Identical content to that of List of Chicago Bears players. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:36, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:36, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:36, 11 September 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 The Penny Dreadfuls. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:23, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Penny Dreadfuls Present...[edit]

AfDs for this article:
The Penny Dreadfuls Present... (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All of this information is now part of The Penny Dreadfuls. Additionally, it confuses The Brothers Faversham and The Penny Dreadfuls Present..., and I'm not sure they warrant two separate articles.Professionalecho (talk) 22:44, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 22:57, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 22:57, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 22:58, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 23:01, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to The Penny Dreadfuls where there is already and episode listing for "The Penny Dreadfuls Present..." - the radio program itself has no significant coverage in multiple, reliable secondary sources - in the article, two of the references are to listings and the one to Chortle is a press release of upcoming comedy shows - no evidence of inedpendent notability - Epinoia (talk) 02:31, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect: per rationale of User:Epinoia. Otr500 (talk) 08:22, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:24, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

August Wesley (wrestler)[edit]

August Wesley (wrestler) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article should be deleted because the subject is not noteworthy enough to have an entry in an encyclopedia. The information is misleading and littered with puffery.

The two world team appearances mentioned in the introduction are veterans world teams which a reader only realizes if they get all the way down to the "International Award Winning Wrestler" section. He placed 8th and 10th at the World champtionships with an age restriction of 35-40 or 41-45 one of those. This is not notable enough for an entry in wikipedia. It is hardly notable enough for an article anywhere 4-7 years after the fact. Good luck finding the names of the 7 or 9 guys who were ranked ahead of him at this event. Most likely none have wikipedia pages and those that do have it for other accomplishments.

Getting considered for induction into the Sacramento Sports Hall of Fame but not inducted is not notable. Anyone can nominate someone and the state reason "the most decorated Greco Roman wrestler and coach ever to come from Sacramento" is highly dubious. Morris Johnson is from Sacramento and was among the top greco roman competitors in the country from 1981-1988 and placing not just competing in the Olympic trials. He doesn't have a wikipedia page.

If one goes down the list of Wesley's awards and look at others who won those distinctions (provided you can even find them) few if any will have wikipedia entries and those that do will be because they won much more significant competitions and awards.

The list of major international competitions are not major in any way. If they were they would be in the database on the UWW website [1] but there are no entries for August Wesley of these major international competitions. Anonymous editing as 75.103.228.94 (talk) 22:09, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]


TTotal BS. "He has over 25 years coaching experience and has been selected 14 times to lead U.S. teams at international competition in 24 countries on five continents earning the Outstanding Coach's Award twice in Australia and Austria[3]" - He only has listed under coaching career international coaching positions on 3 continents (Europe, Asia, and Australia) and 13 countries at most. The organizations this was for World Sports Alliance and International Sports Specialists are not major organization (they don't have Wikipedia pages) nor are their events the most significant ones in the sport of wrestling. Those are run by UWW[2] formerly Fila.

The early years section contains information largely on other people like his cousin and son. It also spans until he was 32 years old and includes information on his son's accomplishments from a few years ago. Attending a world team camp is not notable if you aren't on the world team. He was "hand selected" because he didn't earn it by winning a spot on the world team. Being a member of the sunkist kids when they won 6 wrestling national championships is not significant. A member of the practice squad on the 2018 Clemson national championship team doesn't get a wikipedia page. Those photos have captions listing Olympians, NCAA all-Americans, world team members, world medalists and August Wesley winner of a AAU national qualifier tournament in 1996. There are a lot of other people in those photos not named in the captions August Wesley should be one of them. Full results from past US Senior Open Greco national championships are hard to find. They have place winners and partial results starting in 2001 on the USAW website. Full brackets from the more recent years are available online. It is likely going to very difficult to verify if he competed in that in 1995, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001, but it's an open anyone can enter just pay the fee. He wasn't among the place winners in 2001[3] which is the only year readily available.

Greco-Roman wrestling
1995 U.S. Winter Nationals, Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA - competing in a tournament and not placing is not notable unless maybe it was something bit like the Olympics.
1996 U.S. Olympics Trials, San Jose, California, USA - competing in but not winning or placing at the Olympics trials is not notable enough for a Wikipedia entry.

1999 Pat Shaw International, 5th place, Guatemala City - nothing in the reference shows he placed 5th. No one would lie about being 5th at this tournament because it isn't worth lying about it. It isn't big enough for the results to be anywhere online or in the UWW Database [4]

2000 U.S. National Greco-Roman Championships, DNP (76 kg) - US National Greco-Roman championships is an open tournament anyone paying the entry fee can enter. Not placing (DNP) at this tournament is in no way notable. Very difficult to verify this claim, but little reason to make it either. The 2019 event is an open tournament [5] and it was not subtantively different in 2000.

2000 U.S. Olympic Trials, Iowa, USA - same comments as the 1996 olympic trials.

2012 Veterans World Championships, 8th place (85 kg), Budapest, Hungary - He competed at the B age division of veterans world championships. B age division which is 35-43 year old competitors[6]. This event isn't taken that seriously. At the us veterans national greco-roman championships Wesley took 2nd out of three [7] to qualify for this. Veterans nationals is an open like the senior open - anyone can enter.

2015 UWW World Championships, 9th place, Athens, Greece - Wesley wrestle a single match at this even losing by tech fall [8]. Unlike in 2012 it doesn't look like he even had to place at the US Veterans nationals to qualify. The results show two wrestlers in the competition at his weight/age[9]. I imagine neither of those guys wanted to pay and travel to Athens so he was able to take their place.


Freestyle wrestling

1999 Pat Shaw International, 7th place, Guatemala City, Guatemala - same comments as the greco results for this.

2012 Veterans World Championships, 10th place, Budapest, Hungary - same comments as the greco result from this tournament with the addition that he did not complete at the US veterans nationals in this style[10]. I imagine that none of the 4 guys who did wanted to travel to Budapest (you pay your own way) and since he was going to greco he did both.

2015 UWW Veterans World Championships, 10th place, Athens, Greece - he wrestled a single match which he lost by pinfall[11]. Similar to greco it doesn't look like he needed to qualify as he didn't wrestle at veterans nationals[12] and was probably just filling a spot that otherwise would have been empty.

2015 Copa Sparta, San Juan, Puerto Rico - Not significant tournament to merit an page even if he won, but it seems like he is just saying he competed in it which is believable, but insignificant.

Coaching

The coaching achievement section reads like a resume. None are significant enough to warrant an entry. He was a high school head coach (San Juan High School) for three years then he was the assistant coach at Sierra College, a junior college[13](CCCAA), then a high school (Jesuit High School) for 5 years, followed by being the head coach at a club(NCWA[14]) program at Sacramento State University, and finally the head coach of the club (NCWA) wrestling program at Iowa state university. Nothing there is worth of inclusion. His teams were good, but not even a great NCWA (this is not a varsity sport at the college) coach has a wikipedia page. No assistant CCCAA coach has one. No somewhat above average head coach of a California high schools gets one. The NCWA coach of the year awards are one some level a nice achievement but many of these NCWA college club programs are student run with no coach and it wasn't like a national coach of the year distinction, but rather some region. Finally its unclear how much coaching he was doing for the college clubs as he was simultaneously the at Inderkum High School in Sacramento whilst supposedly coaching a club program in Ames, IA.

Awards and Honors section

2002 Selected as a runner in the 2002 Olympic Torch Relay in Salt Lake City, Utah - Not notable. Thousands of runners participate in the Olympic torch relay. It's a cool thing to have done, but does not merit an entry in wikipedia.

2018 Sacramento Sports Hall of Fame - 2019 Nominee[5] - not sure why there are multiple (2018 and 2019) years here. In any event he was not inducted[15]. Nomination are submited by the SSHOF committee and fans[16]. He probably nominated himself and the claim that he is "the most decorated Greco Roman wrestler and coach ever to come from Sacramento" is surely untrue or puffery at best.

2017 Great Plains Conference Team Championship certificate looks fake. It says 123certificates on it. Any organization using certificates printed out at 123certificates[17] can't be taken very seriously. It's an achievement but not one that is notable enough. Anonymous editing as 75.103.228.94 (talk) 23:45, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://unitedworldwrestling.org/database
  2. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_World_Wrestling
  3. ^ https://content.usawmembership.com/results/16246
  4. ^ https://unitedworldwrestling.org/database
  5. ^ https://usawevents.sportngin.com/page/show/5243190-eligibility-membership
  6. ^ https://content.themat.com/forms/Weights.pdf
  7. ^ https://content.usawmembership.com/results/101841
  8. ^ https://content.usawmembership.com/results/102531
  9. ^ https://content.usawmembership.com/results/102437
  10. ^ https://content.usawmembership.com/results/101842
  11. ^ https://content.usawmembership.com/results/102532
  12. ^ https://content.usawmembership.com/results/102438
  13. ^ http://athletics.sierracollege.edu/sports/wrest/index
  14. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Collegiate_Wrestling_Association
  15. ^ https://www.sacsportshof.com/inductees
  16. ^ https://www.sacsportshof.com/selectionprocess
  17. ^ https://www.123certificates.com/
  • Comment Completing nomination on behalf of IP editor. Above text is copypasted from article talk page. I have no opinion of my own at this time. --Finngall talk 22:23, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:26, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:26, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:26, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As a wrestler, Wesley does not appear to have wrestled at the highest levels of competition. As a coach, lots of mentions in local press but not the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources that would establish notability. If there is an actual good claim for notability in the article, then it would be easily missed amongst all the puffery in the article. -- Whpq (talk) 01:48, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Doesn't meet WP:NSPORT as he never competed at the highest level. Article seems full of puffery and the coverage seems to be routine sports reporting and/or local coverage.Sandals1 (talk) 14:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Association of Old Crows. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:58, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Electronic Defense[edit]

Journal of Electronic Defense (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The cited reference from Google Books is a brief directory entry; the only other is from its publisher, which is not independent. Upon searches ([1], [2], [3]), any other findings are either sales links or similar brief mentions rather than anything going toward actual significant coverage that would indicate notability. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:23, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and redirect to Association of Old Crows. I couldn't find coverage of it either, but I found tons of papers on JSTOR and Google Scholar that cite it. Which, I guess, speaks to reputation but doesn't help with notability. Schazjmd (talk) 21:44, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. signed, NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 22:41, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per above; I am unable to find evidence of notability, and a standalone article is inappropriate. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:46, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with a merger, per above. Sandstein 09:57, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes: merge. This isn't a perfect fit for WP:SJ but I feel that it's close enough for the reasoning given there to apply.—S Marshall T/C 15:17, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, Not notable to stand alone, merge to Association of Old Crows. Alex-h (talk) 09:42, 15 September 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) 22:48, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Richardson[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Brandon Richardson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Highly promotional article for a very minor actor with no noteworthy roles. His lead vaguely claims he "played roles" in The Heat, Magic Mike XXL, Horrible Bosses 2, and Jurassic World, but ALL of these were extra at best roles, and he was not credited in any movie there. A few of his supposed credits are very dubious, too: his credit that he is the voice of Low Five Ghost isn't substantiated anywhere, and the credit goes to Roger Craig Smith. None of the (mostly low quality) sources used in the article are about him, or are primary sources that don't establish notability.

Also, it should be noted that this article has, in the past, had problems with the subject himself writing his own article and it getting deleted repeatedly, hence this being the 2nd AFD, and repeated speedy deletes and salts, also see Princé B. Richardson. This appears to be the same story here: the account used to write the article, and the account used to upload the image featured in the article, were both single use accounts never used again. --Quiz shows 20:59, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:03, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:03, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG – The Grid (talk) 21:27, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing in the article shows he passes WP:NACTOR (or any other notability criteria). I can’t find anything better (though his name isn’t particularly unique, which doesn’t help). Just a working actor, WP:TOOSOON for an article. Neiltonks (talk) 22:10, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: G. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:10, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Galacta[edit]

Galacta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable fictional character TTN (talk) 20:53, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:53, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:53, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Extremely minor Marvel character who, as far as I can tell, only appeared in a single, out-of-continuity story. There are no reliable sources demonstrating any kind of real world notability for the character, or even any notability within the fictional universe for that matter. Unlike the various other Marvel cosmic entities that have come to AFD as of late, her non-canon status means this should not be redirected to the List of cosmic entities in Marvel Comics, and she should probably be removed from that list. Rorshacma (talk) 01:02, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's detailed coverage in sources such as this, which describes Tom Brevoort's comment as a joke and so we should not make too much of it. The worst case would be merger into a larger page such as Galactus per our policy WP:PRESERVE, but it's fine as it is as we are not required to feed the insatiable hunger of those who would devour our content. Andrew D. (talk) 11:39, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PRESERVE states "As long as any facts or ideas would belong in an encyclopedia, they should be retained in Wikipedia." It isn't a catch all that all information everywhere must be retained (WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE). Specifically, it relates to information within relevant articles, not articles as a whole. Galacta fails WP:GNG, in that there is no ongoing coverage in reliable secondary sources. I don't even see a reliable place to redirect, although I'm sure it will be redirected shortly after it's deleted. Delete. --Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 12:59, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Re "ongoing"... and I quote "once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage. " That said, I have no opinion about this topic's coverage or notability (ongoing or otherwise). Normal Op (talk) 21:51, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: G where Galacta is already listed - Epinoia (talk) 02:18, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. The CBR coverage is interesting, but I don't think it is sufficient to make this pass WP:NFICTION. Fictional characters need more than 1-2 writeups on their version of trade journals, I think to be notable. Did anyone discuss the character's creation history or reception? Is there anything to write beyond what CBR did, which is one short para on where she was introduced, then fictional character bio and description? If not, I think this is not significant enough to be in general encyclopedia, we have Marvel/comic wikias for that. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:42, 18 September 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 The Kids from the Brady Bunch. RL0919 (talk) 22:56, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's a Sunshine Day[edit]

It's a Sunshine Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article relates to a song the actors who played the kids in the 1970s television series The Brady Bunch sang in one episode. There is no reason for this article should exist; besides the fact that the article is overly detailed with the plot synopsis for the episode it was featured in. Pahiy (talk) 20:46, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:01, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect seems to be the best alternative to deletion, however I'm not sure of the proper target. The song certainly does not have any coverage that shows it to be independently notable, but as a song from a popular series, it seems like it would be a plausible search term. I was initially going to suggest a redirect to It's a Sunshine Day: The Best of the Brady Bunch, a 90's album that the song was included in, however that album itself suffers from severe sourcing issues and may not pass WP:NALBUM, and just redirecting it to The Brady Bunch seems a bit too broad. Rorshacma (talk) 01:12, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to The Kids from the Brady Bunch. It's a Sunshine Day: The Best of the Brady Bunch. The above voter mentioned that the album article also has problems, but I think that one can be improved with additional reviews and pieces on TV history, etc. As for this particular song, it's a favorite among fans but all this article really accomplishes is a description of who wrote it, and that can be listed at the album article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:39, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Wouldn't it be better to redirect to the original album with this song, The Kids from the Brady Bunch, rather than the later album? Aoba47 (talk) 20:36, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Excellent suggestion. I agree that would be the more appropriate album to redirect this article to. Rorshacma (talk) 22:18, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good catch, that would indeed be a more sensible redirect. I have edited my vote above. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:29, 13 September 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 Turn into DAB. I'm going to move this to Golescu (which is currently a redirect that points here) and turn that into a WP:DAB page as suggested. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:27, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Golescu family[edit]

Golescu family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Found this article from hitting random article. I'm thinking, unless reliable sources are provided for this article, I think this should be deleted. Pahiy (talk) 20:30, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:35, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I disagree with the rationale, this seems like a perfectly reasonable page for WikiProject Disambiguation of Golescu. Govvy (talk) 22:23, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per Nom as an unsourced article tagged since 2009. Note; I would not be opposed to this being reclassified as a disambiguation page. Otr500 (talk) 08:40, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Repurpose as disamb page - as a topic it fails WP:GNG. However, it can be made into a perfectly respectable disamb page. 2A02:C7F:4481:8300:90DC:E235:5074:54B0 (talk) 12:22, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:43, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Masha Kirilenko[edit]

Masha Kirilenko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The daughter and wife of legendary athletes. And who is she?--Заслуженный шашист (talk) 20:14, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:34, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:34, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:59, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. As agreement there is sufficient sourcing available in the ru-wiki form. The nominator's vote is also discounted due to evidence of being a sock at the time of nomination (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 21:57, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lesya Yaroslavskaya[edit]

Lesya Yaroslavskaya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Russian singer, member of the Fabrika Zvyozd project. Significance not shown.--Заслуженный шашист (talk) 20:17, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:34, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:34, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A significant non-trivial coverage in Russian language sources, see this page on ruwiki. My very best wishes (talk) 17:38, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the Russian wikipedia article gives evidence of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:01, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:59, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America1000 09:17, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mandat[edit]

Mandat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:18, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - of the references in the article, none are about the film itself; kinopoisk.ru is just a listing - does not meet WP:NFILM, no reviews by at least two nationally known critics, no awards, no significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources - Epinoia (talk) 02:10, 18 September 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) 23:48, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Angelina Chernova[edit]

Angelina Chernova (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:17, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:17, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:55, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Awards and decorations of the Civil Air Patrol  — Amakuru (talk) 12:25, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Badges of the Civil Air Patrol[edit]

Badges of the Civil Air Patrol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article consists predominantly of images that are copyright violations. Purport to have been taken by airmen or employees of USAF but most likely were taken by volunteers or employees of the not-for-profit private Civil Air Patrol. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:19, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep — As of June 24, 2016, Civil Air Patrol falls under ADCON and OPCON of 1st Air Force, Air Combat Command, United States Air Force.[1] Images were created by Civil Air Patrol and source is cited on article.Leonardocognoscenti(talk) 20:02, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.1af.acc.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/812037/1st-air-force-participates-in-civil-air-patrol-transfer-of-authority-ceremony
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:19, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:19, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:31, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Merge: I will agree that some limited merge is an option per RoySmith . A single primary source pdf file does not advance notability. This is currently presented as an un-assessed list-class article. Although I am a big supporter of the Civil Air Patrol there is just not much here as presented. Maybe the creator would consider expanding Awards and decorations of the Civil Air Patrol#Badges or having the article placed in user-space to hopefully find more sources and reorganize. Otr500 (talk) 13:16, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Civil Air Patrol Awards and decorations of the Civil Air Patrol. I don't see any independent notability (referenced to a single primary source) but no reason this list couldn't be included in the parent article. Perhaps a limited merge in view of WP:UNDUE. I wouldn't be opposed to keeping this if somebody could find some WP:SECONDARY sources which show that the group or set is notable, as per WP:LISTN. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:51, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: RoySmith thanks for adding the optional merge. Due to the sometimes sort of unfair considerations of closings a delete, keep, and merge would likely have resulted in a no consensus. This is not an actual fault of a closer but the way policies and guidelines are current interpreted. The reality that anything other than a "keep", especially considering ATD, still means an article is not presumed to warrant stand alone status specifically if there are notability issues. To me this would clearly indicate a merge and delete would qualify for an ATD of merge, but that is not usually how it is perceived. Maybe we can get more closing AFDs to consider this? There are some that consider merging not appropriate for AFD. To me that does not follow the deletion policy: Common outcomes are that the article is kept, merged, redirected, incubated, renamed/moved to another title, userfied to a user subpage, or deleted per the deletion policy. Maybe merge as an understood alternative would be something to consider at the policy page? -- Otr500 (talk) 15:02, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Awards and decorations of the Civil Air Patrol. The page fails WP:GNG and, therefore, a standalone page is not justified. However, a merge would enhance the target article and looks a good, constructive solution. 2A02:C7F:4481:8300:90DC:E235:5074:54B0 (talk) 18:02, 19 September 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. Haukur (talk) 19:44, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zahid Hossain Khan[edit]

Zahid Hossain Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non notable entrepreneur. Fails WP:GNG & WP:ANYBIO. Article has one source but there is nothing about this person in there. I did google search but found nothing, even with bengali name. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 19:18, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. William2001(talk) 04:22, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. William2001(talk) 04:22, 12 September 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 "keep" arguments seem to focus on what this individual has done, rather than the one point that matters: Are there enough reliable sources to sustain an article, or not? From the discussion here, the answer to that question seems to be "no". By straight headcount this might be a "no consensus", but as we always say, AfD is not a vote, and references really aren't optional. No prejudice to recreation if someone actually can find substantial source coverage. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:51, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Schwartz (actor)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Gary Schwartz (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was AfD'd a few years ago, and while this article may be significantly different then the one that went through the AfD process, doesn't change the fact that this is simply a working actor/voice actor who meets neither WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 TT me 23:51, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 23:51, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. J947's public account 00:24, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. J947's public account 00:24, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - Only one significant role, and acting notability requires multiple roles. Remaining roles appear to be run-of-the-mill. General notability guideline is essentially incomprehensible in marginal cases such as this, and does not provide a case for notability. Not much has changed since the last AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:21, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In addition to Zoobilee Zoo, he also voiced a major character in the video game Team Fortress 2 (Demoman). So yeah, this should meet WP:NACTOR. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 14:02, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The concern for insufficient substance to meet acting notability is noted: Thank you. While the article satisfies the first element of the notability guidelines by pointing to a longstanding IMDb body of work including lead character in an Oscar-winning film, it perhaps does not adequately describe or quantify the second element; celebrity status and following among a specific fan base. The voice is well known in the gamer community and the characters are followed by an established international network of fans. So while he enjoys a degree of public anonymity because he is visually not as easily recognized alongside his celebrity peers in narrative film and television, he holds an elevated status when it comes to animated work. It is true that the article needs to better address the third element of notability; that of describing significant or unique contribution to a discipline of the entertainment industry. The focus on his work as a subject matter expert in the art of mime, improvisation and game techniques falls into this arena because it is rare and sought after, yet not fully developed in the article. As an Alternative to Deletion, I suggest that further expansion of the article content and additional citations could fully satisfy all three elements and eliminate notability concerns.Msteckl (talk) 22:35, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The Oscar award-winning film he was in won its award for makup, which is totally irrelevant to his notability--and he was not a major character according to the IMdB listing. ; the Emmy award show won its award for costume design, equally irrelevant. The book is self-published--its award has no reputation for significance, and the claimed reviews on Amazon and Kirkus, which is totally unreliable for self published books, as they get reviewed only if your pay them. His work as a mime was in his very early career. That leaves the game character, and there's no indication that he has any actual notability for that. DGG ( talk ) 15:32, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Academy Awards have established guidelines as to how the work of Makeup, Hairstyling and Wardrobe relates to the appearance and enhanced performance of first-billed actors. For the Planet of the Apes Oscar, this actor was Buck Kartalian who played the gorilla Julius. For Star Wars, it was Peter Mayhew who was the Wookie, Chewbacca. For Quest for Fire, it was Gary Schwartz who was the Rouka, the leader of the prehistoric Ulam tribe. There is clear precedent that establishes the relevance of the award with the actor’s notability. Both Mayhew and Kartalian were found to be notable in Wikipedia based in part for their association with these films and the awards. This actor is listed fifth in credit order in IMDb for the Oscar film and fourth in the Emmy TV show. But even if this was not the case, the notability precedent and guidelines should still apply.184.68.23.102 (talk) 14:53, 31 August 2019 (UTC)This is this editor's only contribution to WP. Onel5969 TT me 20:58, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. I also must add that in the 1980 film, Quest for Fire, he played Rouka in his first film, and was fifth-billed. FWIW, this was the film that also launched Ron Perlman. Bearian (talk) 16:01, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete This is a borderline case. The article needs some love, but I don't think the current sources establish that he is either generally notable or that he was a significant role in multiple productions or that he has a cult following. The Zoobilee Zoo and Quest for Fire roles weren't discussed in the previous AFD, so I'm not sure if they were missed, or if someone has made a frankenstein out of several actors of the same name. If this is kept, someone should go get the three sources from the previous AFD and incorporate them into the article. Rockphed (talk) 13:28, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The book did seem to get a little bit of attention. [4] [5] It's true that you can pay Kirkus to review self-published books but I imagine you can't pay them to put it on a best-of list. Haukur (talk) 17:26, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would help to have more feedback about the significance of his roles, or better still if there are other sources to indicate notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 18:50, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is a numerical tilt towards keeping this, but the arguments to do so are based on assertions, rather than evidence, of notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 18:59, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems to have done things to rise above the absent pack. Hyperbolick (talk) 18:06, 20 September 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:23, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kenilworth, Erie County, New York[edit]

Kenilworth, Erie County, New York (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Some concern on Talk:Kenilworth,_Erie_County,_New_York that this may not exist despite the USGS thinking that it does. ϢereSpielChequers 16:40, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ϢereSpielChequers 16:40, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Deletion 'Kenilworth' is not a designated census place and searches of other GIS for this name come up negative. The article does not meet standards for verifiability or notability. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I support deletion of this article as it is not supported by any solid references. Dhpage (talk) 17:29, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Kenilworth is mentioned numerous times in historical sources e.g. "When police were appraised Monday of the disappearance of Ransom Woodward, thirteen years old, 60 Midland Avenue, Kenilworth, town of Tonawanda..." (Buffalo Courier 21 April 1926). It may no longer be regarded as a separate entity but if it was once notable we should have an article on it.----Pontificalibus 17:40, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A verified place. History of the Town of Tonawanda, Erie County, New York, 1805-1930" states "On the east side of old Delaware Road and extending past Colvin Boulevard to the Niagara Falls Boulevard two hamlets are growing up within the boundaries of the town of Tonawanda — Ellwood and Kenilworth. These thriving and beautiful hamlets are the outgrowth of early settlements in that section of the town...". There should be plenty of sources, possibly not online, but if not we should merge rather than delete.----Pontificalibus 17:52, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:36, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:22, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Encryption software  — Amakuru (talk) 10:35, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cycles per byte[edit]

Cycles per byte (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a dictionary definition of a metric used to evaluate the performance of cryptographic software. Though the metric is frequently used in the field, it seems unlikely that the article can ever grow to more than a dictionary definition: sources explaining the history, significance, or usage of "cycles per byte" seem lacking. BenKuykendall (talk) 15:24, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. BenKuykendall (talk) 15:24, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. BenKuykendall (talk) 15:24, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per WP:DICDEF, this is the "perennial source of confusion is that a stub encyclopedia article looks very much like a dictionary entry, and stubs are often poorly written; another is that some paper dictionaries, such as "pocket" dictionaries, lead users to the mistaken belief that dictionary entries are short, and that short article and dictionary entry are therefore equivalent." The stub can quite readily be expanded from sources such as Cryptography for Developers. Andrew D. (talk) 19:01, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It only necessarily looks like a dictionary entry to someone who knows nothing about the topic. The nominator clearly addressed this. Imagine one of your favourite "rescued" articles, perhaps the "clurn" [fictional example, ok?], a measure of cloth used in Norfolk in the 14th century. Someone creates Clurns per fortnight, so you argue this can be easily expended[??] from "Hiring clothworkers in 14th-century Norfolk", by Lucian B. Withers, 1873. I think your submission is simply invalid, being based on a logical fallacy. Imaginatorium (talk) 19:30, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • A fictional straw man is unhelpful. The nominator's difficulty seems to be that they can't envisage how the current stub might be expanded. If we consider an actual example of a similar measure – instructions per second – we see that it has a table of processor speeds, expressed in that unit and given as a timeline. The relevant feature of the source which I cited is that it gives a series of examples which are likewise expressed in the unit in question. For example, it says that "SHA-512 requires 12 cycles per byte...". Such examples might usefully be added to expand the article. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 23:22, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: as per nom, this is a unit that can be used in cryptography. There is lots and lots to say about cryptography, and possibly even Cryptographic processing rate, but nothing to say about an obvious measurement other than dicdef. Imaginatorium (talk) 19:30, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - (to Encryption software) there are dozens of books, news pieces and journal articles that have a couple of lines on the topic. This isn't enough to warrant an article as we never reach Sig Cov. However, WP:ATD applies, and would seem relevant to that article. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:54, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to any of a number of cryptography articles. This is a frequently used term, but practically all related material is much more relevant to specific applications than to the measure itself. (This, by the way, is nicely demonstrated by the book proffered above, which I doubt Andrew looked at closely outside of searching for occurrence of the words...) Being a recent invention, it doesn't have an interesting history either, as do many units. In it's current state, it doesn't merit an article. Merge and split later, if lots of content emerges contrary to expectations. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:55, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:22, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Encryption software (probably with a new section) was what occurred to me, but I'm distinctly a non-technical expert. If algorithmic efficiency seems more appropriate I'm happy to go with that. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:42, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Encryption software. There is some crypto-specific interest here, which would be lost in an article about general algorithmic complexity. There are cryptographic attacks which depend on observing how long it takes to encrypt/decrypt something. For example, if you can observe that decrypting two strings take the same amount of clock cycles, even if you can't see the inputs, you may be able to deduce that they're identical. Of course, anything we say in Encryption software needs to be vetted against WP:RS, not the random ramblings of a wikieditor who knows just enough about crypto to be dangerous. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:09, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:12, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tools of trade[edit]

Tools of trade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacks any citations, orphaned and likely fails WP:Notability. I have also some concerns that this article is simply a copy-paste job. With the text taken from another website. Theprussian (talk) 14:04, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:08, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't think it's copied from another website (rather, wikiscrapers have copied this article), but as it stands this article is nothing more than a WP:DICDEF. Perhaps it deserves a line or two in bankruptcy law but there's no reason at all for this to be a stand-alone article. May His Shadow Fall Upon You Talk 14:24, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. [now Neutral, see below.] The "tools of trade" bankruptcy exemption is real, but it's only one of many exemptions in the US bankruptcy act, and I would expect the same in the bankruptcy laws of other countries.
In the US it's in 11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(1)(B)(ii): "implements, professional books, or tools, of the trade of the debtor or the trade of a dependent of the debtor". The fact that it's buried as part of a sub-sub-sub-sub-section is perhaps indicative of how deep in the details this is.
A quick search shows the subject mentioned in a significant number of law journals, but I found only one article (Craig Kendall, Bankruptcy: Debtor's Tools of the Trade are Defined by the Use Test, 30 Washburn L.J. 127 (1990)) that specifically discussed it -- and that was only because the article is a summary of the not-particularly-notable case In re Heape, 886 F.2d 280 (10th Cir. 1989), where the term figured. The subject was not written about because "tools of trade" was itself worth discussing; but only because the definition of the term as an issue in the case being explained.
As May His Shadow Fall Upon You suggests, it may be worth including in Bankruptcy#Debts_and_exemptions, but that's about it. TJRC (talk) 20:19, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - in addition to usage in Bankruptcy law (whihc is not just in the USA), the term is also used in taxation law for the purpose of assessing equipment used for carrying out their work to produce assessable income. It's more than a dictionary definition. Bookscale (talk) 10:02, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Really? To me, it just really feels like just banking terminology.Theprussian (talk) 15:48, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it's used for one purpose in bankruptcy, and another way in tax, then they're two different concepts -- one a bankruptcy exemption and one a... assessment criterion? In which case they would be in two different articles, not shoehorned into one. The only reason to cover multiple uses in one article would be to provide multiple definitions... and you're basically arguing it's a WP:DICDEF. TJRC (talk) 03:11, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - tools of the trade are a concept used across many jobs and professions; for examples, construction workers buy their own wrenches and some teachers buy their own school supplies. Tool of the Trade is a SF book that is probably not notable. Not sure what we should do here. Bearian (talk) 18:43, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:HEYMANN (and further expansion is possible) and the fact the topic satisfies GNG. The article is not a dictionary definition now. The exemption is not confined to bankruptcy as it applies, for example, to any High Court writ of execution and certain other powers of seizure in England. That said I think the article should possibly be moved and expanded to cover the related exemptions, especially the exemption for items needed for domestic purposes. James500 (talk) 08:00, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not convinced it should be kept, but the changes made have made me less adamant, and I've revised my not-vote to "neutral" above.
I don't have access to the newly-cited sources, but from the titles, none of them sound like they are particularly about the subject matter of the article; they're about bankruptcy, and, as expected, "tools of the trade" will get some small treatment in any significant discussion of bankruptcy exceptions.
But now, although it probably still shouldn't be kept, it's mostly harmless, and its retention doesn't particularly bother me. (My internal metric for an article like this is more like PROD-level; if someone objects to its removal, as here, I won't push for it.) TJRC (talk) 23:38, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:22, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep obviously notable. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:50, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. RL0919 (talk) 22:59, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Beverley Thompson[edit]

Beverley Thompson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable (former) regional TV presenter. No RS. - Funky Snack (Talk) 13:04, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 13:36, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 13:36, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 13:36, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 13:36, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 13:41, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:21, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. There was no support for the arguments of notability put forward by IacobusViridis and the policy explanations of delete voters establishes a consensus. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:51, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Irkutsk Ice Truckers[edit]

Irkutsk Ice Truckers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can find no evidence of notability. I see that their book is "independently published". Doug Weller talk 18:17, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Doug Weller talk 18:17, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable - all the sources except one are related to the website and not independent, while the one is a blog - not reliable. Searches find nothing significant to show notability. It’s the electronic equivalent of a student magazine, of little importance outside of the college. Neiltonks (talk) 22:24, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that Irkutsk Ice Truckers News is quite small and locally focused, it has a national readership with many unaffiliated with the school in New York, Connecticut, and Indiana anecdotally reading it, for example. The website in question Irkutsk Ice Truckers already has more content than the similarly satirical long-running and much more known Eye of the Tiber.

Although Irkutsk Ice Truckers News (IIT), again may be locally focused, its humor is similarly applicable far outside of the region of where many of its editors happen to reside. The site is in fact shared among many other similar schools including Thomas Aquinas College (California/Massachusetts), Christendom College, and Northeast Catholic College. Irkutsk Ice Truckers carries news relating to these schools, in fact and has writers on staff from even outside of these circles.

Irkutsk Ice Truckers and its staff have been made mention of within the official Wyoming Catholic College curriculum with Everett Polinski, its founder, in particular, being the study of a dialogue written by professor and former dean of the college, Dr. Jeremy Holmes that is part of the Freshman Theology sequence.

Again, Irkutsk Ice Truckers is small and would not merit a page in a printed encyclopedia obviously. But its strong and growing in readership, news coverage, and quality as its staff continues to grow. On a free and expansive platform like Wikipedia, however, where there are no constraints like those with printed encyclopedias, there is space, I believe for the sharing of brief factual explanation. IIT's open lampooning of the absurdities often present within Catholic liberal arts colleges and their broader universe of related thought will only continue to get more popular as it is the only full-blown site in this niche.

Thanks for the shot at least, IacobusViridis (talk) 22:51, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I'm afraid I don't see any substantial reliable secondary sources on a website that's less than a year old. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:17, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Draftify. The keep arguments are particularly week. Doing a google search and copy-pasting a bunch of URLs from there is not a useful argument. What's useful is to pick a few that really show the subject meets (in this case) WP:BIO and examining them in detail. But, moving this to draft does seem like a reasonable WP:ATD. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:42, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Cavenaugh[edit]

Kevin Cavenaugh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable outside of his company, promotional content, lacks WP:RS and fails WP:GNG. Wikipedia is not a linkedin for organisation's CEO and executives. Meeanaya (talk) 04:46, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. J947 (c), at 04:50, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. J947 (c), at 04:50, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To allow for proper assessment of the sources above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 11:17, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:14, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or create a page for the company, theres something notable here. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 05:01, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify - I agree that it is likely that there is a notable page that is itching to get out. The problem with the article is that much of the sourcing is very local and doesn't yet meet WP:BIO. The Portland Mercury is always likely to write about one of its own, for example. I don't think that we are in a position to referee whether an article on Cavenaugh or Guerrilla Development is the better way forward. Best, I think, to draftify to enable further development. 2A02:C7F:4481:8300:90DC:E235:5074:54B0 (talk) 18:35, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The current "article" tells us nothing of note about this guy of why he might be notable, and sourcing is borderline. If a decent encyclopedic draft is created with solid sourcing, then perhaps it could be recreated, but for now I'm not seeing enough for WP:GNG or WP:NBIO.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:22, 20 September 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. While some editors advocated a merge, that would not be possible unless sources conclusively indicate that these are in fact the same individual. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:54, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Balbhadra Singh[edit]

Balbhadra Singh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This person is most likely the same as Balbhadra Singh (politician), the 12th Raja of Raghogarh (a part of Gwalior Residency). The CricketArchive source has his name as "Raja Balbhadra Singh" and his team as Gwalior. The Raghogarh State article mentions that Raja Balbhadra Singh II was born in 1916 and was a "good sportsman". Dee03 10:27, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Dee03 10:27, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Dee03 10:27, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Dee03 10:27, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dee03 10:27, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sure. Cheers for looking at those - like I say there are others I guess you'll bundle together. (I assume you've not done it already, I haven't checked...) Bobo. 10:46, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean bundle duplicate articles, I haven't found any other. I do have a feeling Roop Singh (cricketer) could be Roop Singh, but there is not much to connect the two other than the fact that they both are from Gwalior. Dee03 10:50, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, no - I meant as a single AfD discussion. Bobo. 10:51, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to the article about the politician. Although it is likely that they are the same person, we can't rule out that they are two different people with similar names. Therefore retaining the edit history could be potentially misleading. Reyk YO! 12:42, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is highly unlikely that there was another Raja (king) with the same name in the same place at the same time. But yeah, we don't know that for sure. Dee03 15:46, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take your word for it :). Reyk YO! 20:17, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Redirect (see below). This is slightly complex. If they can be shown to be the same person - and I do think we're close to being able to do that - then the articles should be merged with Balbhadra Singh as the article name - as main subject. Dee03 is clearly in a better position to determine that: I think it's likely from what's been laid out here.
If that can't be shown then I'd, ideally, like the article to redirect to Gwalior cricket team - I don't think there's a need to have a separate article for a team which played precisely one first-class match. But that article currently redirects to Madhya Pradesh cricket team - which appears to have absorbed it at some point. So, as he's already on the list, redirect to List of Madhya Pradesh cricketers seems the better option. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:49, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It would be easier to make an article called List of Gwalior cricketers for the individuals we're unclear of. I would bash some stats in there but I'm disheartened by all this as you know. Bobo. 08:56, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Based upon what other than your own opinion, exactly? At least cite some kind of guideline or justification... this may be entirely the wrong article to make this argument about anyway, if it can be established that the two individuals noted are the same. Bobo. 22:43, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unfortunately, despite all the circumstantial evidence we don't have reliable source confirmation that the cricket player and the politician were definitively the same person, so I can't recommend a merge, but the problem with the cricket player's article is that there are no reliable or notability-supporting sources present in it to establish his notability with. People are not exempted from having to have any solid sources just because the article claims something that sounds like it should be notable; hoax articles have been created on Wikipedia which made notability claims the subject didn't really have in reality (musicians claiming chart hits they didn't really have, writers claiming award nominations they didn't really have, etc.), so the notability test is not what the article says, but how well it references the things it says to reliable sources which properly verify the things it says as true. So no matter what notability claim is being made, we still can't keep articles without sources, and we can't just assume that the cricket player and the politician were the same person until we can find a source which confirms it either. Bearcat (talk) 15:58, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He played two first class matches. [6] Per WP:NCRICKET usually we keep anyone who has played first class cricket. I have looked to see if he is the same as the politician and I don't think he is, but I'm not certain. There are 17 people with this name on LinkedIn alone. Szzuk (talk) 09:50, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The CricketArchive source for the cricketer mentions his full name as "Raja Balbhadra Singh" with the title Raja being conferred upon a king. It was very common during that period for kings to take part in sports especially cricket. Post-Independence, several kings became politicians like Balbhadra Singh (politician). In the unlikely case of these two being different people, the cricketer would fail GNG as Bearcat has pointed out. Dee03 11:58, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Yes I can see the logic and I think they are the same person. In that case I think we should merge the politician article to the cricket article. I see no need to have (politician) in the article title, it is unnecessary. Szzuk (talk) 12:29, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Have you? The only new source I'm seeing in the article is a directory entry, not a notability-making source — and what I actually asked for was not a source that verified his existence as a cricketer, but a source which definitively verified the circumstantial but unconfirmed evidence that the cricketer and the politician are the same person. Bearcat (talk) 17:31, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That ref does satisfy ncricket. It is a directory listing that proves he played first class cricket. Anyway, it isn't worth arguing about. Szzuk (talk) 18:17, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:13, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral I'm 99% sure these two are the same, but I can't prove it. SportingFlyer T·C 08:19, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Books about early Indian cricket may contain some information on how Gwalior team entered the Ranji Trophy and if he is the same Raja. History books on Raghogarh/Gwalior State might be able to shed some light too. Since nobody has been able to present any concrete evidence yet, I believe "delete" on GNG grounds makes more sense at this point. If such proof is found later we can add a sentence or two in the politician's article about his cricket career. Dee03 17:54, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm fine with this. If this is deleted, I would kindly ask either you or the closer to put information about his potential cricket career on the politician's talk page. SportingFlyer T·C 07:50, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure. I've kept a backup of the cricketer's article on my computer. Dee03 12:35, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. These two are almost certainly the same person, just be be bold and merge the two. StickyWicket (talk) 11:32, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not make assertions like this on the basis of what's "almost certainly" likely to maybe be possibly true given the circumstantial evidence; we don't make such assertions at all until they're incontrovertibly verified by reliable sources as cold hard fact. Bearcat (talk) 22:10, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:14, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge but explain in the post-merge page that it is not entirely clear that these are the same person. Hyperbolick (talk) 18:08, 20 September 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. Discussion of renaming or listifying the article can continue on its talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:06, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Protestant Eastern Christianity[edit]

Protestant Eastern Christianity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

There is not one scientific secondary source confirming the existence of this branch of Christianity (needn't church sites, marginal articles by theologians and opinions of participants).

The article is either original research where other info about Protestantism such as Anglicanism with elements of the eastern rite or about Independent/Irregular Oriental Orthodoxy is being decreed to be about "Reformed Eastern Christianity" (reformed oriental orthodoxy). Some argu also see on the page of discussion for the article. This branch and term cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources (authoritative studies of classification of denominations), including "neologism"-neonotion "Reformed Eastern Christianity". DayakSibiriak (talk) 23:59, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep but rename. The phenomenon is real and has been written about, although not necessarily extensively. See, e.g., Fernández Rodríguez, José Manuel. "Iglesias orientales protestantes y reformadas: 'una ojeada histórica y ecuménica'". Theologica Xaveriana 182 (2016): 345-369. http://dx.doi.org/10.11l44/javeriana.tx66-182.ioproh Rename, rescope, split: all are better than delete. Srnec (talk) 02:46, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So its a Keep then? If you wanted the page to existed? Chad The Goatman (talk) 02:51, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Srnec:, Kindly do tag your above comments, with a 'Keep' or a 'Delete'.Macinderum (talk) 14:08, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This source neither general, nor reliable. Just an article by some confessional theologian. DayakSibiriak (talk) 05:22, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's published by a university press and is reliable. Srnec (talk) 00:19, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is not the reality of the existence or hoax of the Eastern Reformation. The problem is that the article doesnt rely on secondary academic sources (such as Encyclopeadia of Religions, 16 vols, ed. by M. Eliade, NY, 1987, or Melton, J. Gordon (2005). Encyclopedia of Protestantism. NY.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) or others) and there is no info about this branch. The wiki authors independently introduce a new notion of denomination based in part on primary sources or with no anything.
Note. The real reformation in the East, as I understand it, is the Iconoclastic movement in antiquity or the umbrella Russian Spiritual Christianity preserved to this day, etc. original eastern movements. But the article under discussion is about Protestants in the East (Anglicans, Lutherans, Evangelics) or about independent groups of Oriental Orthodoxy. DayakSibiriak (talk) 05:33, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • [Questionably] Comment and also Keep for now–, until more sources are for their page are defined. As these Churches are not entirely compared to the other Mainstream or not Eastern Christian denominations because of their similar nature by theology and practices to the Occident Protestant Churches, except few lesser known Western Christian denominations does do the opposite while they don't have communion with the mainstream Christian denominations like Catholicism or Anglicanism as examples.
Also I feel this sudden demand of deleting this page that too early right now as its on temporary lock mode, right just after I demanded to lock this page and the Mar Thoma Syrian Church's page days ago, over a ludicrous edit war with likely the same guy/gal with few identities (either User or anonymous), with the main classification; as their website does has reformation page as 'Heritage', and the page itself mentioned Anglican missionaries has accidentally transformed their Church. And I wanted to know if you had any connections to it or not? Chad The Goatman (talk) 02:49, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - - this phenomenon is real, and the article has references. Vorbee (talk) 06:22, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I invite the attention of all participants to the discussion which led to the consensual unopposed change of this article's title, archived in Talk:Reformed Eastern Christianity. I believe that it is the prelude to this deletion nomination. It clearly explains how misleading and factually incorrect it is, to call these denominations which sprang up from the mid-nineteenth century as "Orthodox", while they possess none of the key distinguishing common characteristics of Eastern/Oriental/Independent Orthodoxy. The authentic primary sources by these churches themselves lays bare their common characteristics; first of all their reformed nature and secondly, to the extent their reformed faiths and theologies can accommodate, the maintenance of some eastern traditions. It is clear from the primary sources itself that most of these denominations came into being due to existing Protestant Churches adopting reformed variants of Orthodox liturgy and worship. The rest from reformations of Orthodox beliefs and practices, inspired by the teachings of Western Protestant missionaries. In either case, the end result was essentially the same. Even secondary sources that mentions these denominations defines them as reformed and eastern, but not Orthodox. For example, check how the Mar Thoma Church in full communion with Anglicans, is defined by the official website of the Anglican Communion (https://www.anglicancommunion.org/ecumenism/churches-in-communion.aspx). The consensual new title 'Reformed Eastern Christianity' has been replicated to the respective Wikipedia pages of these churches, as their new classification. They have largely remained unopposed and stable to this day. Only in the Mar Thoma Church page, indisputably well sourced changes were disrupted by several anons and new user id's (all possibly the same person). This page is now locked up pending dispute resolution. It is here that I seriously share Chad The Goatman's suspicion that this deletion nomination may have something to do with it. Reformed Eastern Christianity is an existing reality, though not widely noticed or written extensively about. And perhaps justifiably so, as they remain for most part, outside of other major global Christian Communions.Macinderum (talk) 13:54, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but tidy up. This article would be much better with a short introduction (much as now) followed by a list of relevant denominations. This will enable it to identify and discuss the phenomenon. Some are evangelical movements within ancient churches; one apparently of occidental origin; some may be the result of the impact of Protestant missionaries on ancient Eastern churches. The detail about each church should be split out into a separate article, unless there already is one. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:52, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Peterkingiron: Thanks for the suggestion. Starting work in that direction. However not splitting out the details on the Marthoma Church, even though a separate page exits. It may cause distracting edit wars. Will do it after this discussion gets over. Macinderum (talk) 06:12, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The term is "Reformed", not "reformed". This is about Protestant movements. The title should be clearer. Srnec (talk) 00:19, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, needless to say that you may discreetly add more denominations/movements to the article, if you think they're in-scope and belongs there. However that is absolutely no valid reason for a deletion nomination; such things should be the settled in the article's talk page. Macinderum (talk) 03:14, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The creator of the article has been gone since 2007. Srnec (talk) 00:19, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I was thinking the article might just need to be moved to something with reference to Protestantism rather than Reformed Protestantism, but I think I agree with others that no reliable sources have been brought forward to show the existence of a branch or "range" of denominations that fit the definition in the lead. Indeed, the citations in the lead are all about specific denominations, showing that they are in some ways Protestant and Eastern or Orthodox, but not that "Protestant Eastern Christianity" exists. So anything in the article stating the existence of "Protestant Eastern Christianity" is WP:SYNTH. --JFH (talk) 00:18, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Verifiable source 'Protestant and Reformed Eastern Churches: "A Historical and Ecumenical Glance"', dealing with the subject, has been added to the article. It is published by a university press and based on sound bibliography. Due to origins outside of the Occident and existence outside of major global Christian communions, REC may not have been extensively written about. This Wiki article like many others is a continuous 'work in progress' and more sources will have to be added as and when they become available. Nevertheless, there are enough sources enabling the article to explain the phenomenon and makes the content verifiable. So its worth keeping. Macinderum (talk) 09:52, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still confused about the scope of the article. If it's Protestant churches in "the East", then obviously there are lots of Protestant churches in Asia and the rest of the Eastern world. There are probably more Protestants in Asia than in the West, depending on how you count them, and we have them covered in Protestantism in China, Protestantism in India, Protestantism in Russia, etc. But why would we have another article on Protestantism in the superset of "the East"? If there are sources out there saying there is something to say about Protestant churches in the East, maybe there is a case for the present article, but so far we just have one (Spanish-language) article talking about it.
If we are talking about some kind of subbranch of Christianity that's a hybrid of Eastern Christianity and Protestantism, that would be very interesting and worthy of an article, but again, I have not seen a reliable source on that. --JFH (talk) 03:10, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, colleagues. It is forbidden by the wikirules to publish original articles and syntheses, incl. based on marginal theories. And this article introduces a new concept, a new trend in Christianity at the same level with Eastern Orthodoxy or Catholicism. This is forbidden not only in English Wiki, but I believe in African as well. In the reference literature there is no such trend. This is only a variation of either Anglicanism or Lutheranism, etc. DayakSibiriak (talk) 23:46, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. DayakSibiriak (talk) 00:07, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. DayakSibiriak (talk) 00:53, 2 September 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 September 9. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 02:19, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - all of these churches exist, but are there any religious scholars who group them under the term "Protestant Eastern Christianity"? - the references deal with individual churches, but only one provides an overview, and that article does not attempt to define a group, merely describe the churches - it seems that what is significant here, and makes the groups distinct, is that these congregations are protestant based on the Eastern Orthodox rite rather than the Roman rite of western European congregations, which is certainly a notable difference - as "Protestant Eastern Christianity" is not a recognized designation, perhaps it would be best to listify the the article as "List of Protestant Eastern Churches" along the lines of List of Christian denominations (some of the churches in the Protestant Eastern Christianity article are included in the List of Christian denominations) - Epinoia (talk) 21:30, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It’s a good idea that a list of churches can be created. Only then, by analogy with the Eastern Catholic Churches, is it better to call it "Eastern Protestant Churches" (or "Eastern-rite Protestant Churches). But again, where is the criterion, which churches to include there? because there is no such direction in scientific authoritative literature, since all Protestant churches, including Jehovah's Witnesses, in eastern countries will be possible. DayakSibiriak (talk) 00:01, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the criteria would be protestant churches based on the Eastern Orthodox rite rather than the Roman rite of western European congregations - Epinoia (talk) 00:12, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there already, for exemple, the concept of Protestant churches based on the Catholic rite? DayakSibiriak (talk) 01:23, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is true. I mean that scientists do not use the concept of the Protestants of the Catholic rite in relation to the Anglicans and Lutherans who have preserved elements of the Catholic Mass. So wouldn’t it be nonsense to start talking about the Protestants of the Eastern rite, only because several Anglican and Lutheran churches for mission inserted elements of Eastern liturgies into their service? DayakSibiriak (talk) 04:13, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have already stated the reasons for my proposition to maintain this article as it is and I still favor it. That said, in contemplation of the various dimensions of the word 'compromise', I find user Epinoia's views rather appealing. Since the creation of this page in 2006 till the consensual page move on 19 July 2019, the content appeared to be an unsubstantiated, subtle and false portrayal of these denominations, as part of the well defined and easily differentiable family of Eastern/Oriental Orthodox churches. That necessitated some work on the article. In any case, it emerges glaringly from this present discussion, that the denominations mentioned in the article are indeed part of Protestantism. That is one thing on which all editors seem to agree upon. "Protestants in the East, maintaining reformed variants of eastern liturgies/worship", is precisely what they are. Besides, even if this article gets converted to a list, the content and sources would be preserved to a significant extent, I guess. Hence, I assume good faith and support user Epinoia's suggestion, as a secondary middle ground option. Macinderum (talk) 09:12, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 18:04, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I believe a possible consensus on converting, example, to List of Eastern-rite Protestant Churches, will be useful for Wikipedia readers, as Epinoia and later Macinderum have offered. When creating lists, we are less attached to the generalized source in comparison with ordinary articles, if I'm wrong, correct me. But in order to avoid the publication of an original research and a new concept, the following conditions must be observed. 1. In the Preamble, stipulate that this matter is not a separate Christian branch, but only a collection of churches from various Protestant denominations, practicing elements of Eastern rites (this will be so until the time when a concept of such a branch appears in the reference literature). 2. Therefore, it will not be possible to refer to this list in other wiki articles and templates in order to enter a new current at the same level with Eastern Orthodoxy or the Church of the East, and you can put information about this list with, for example, "See also" templates. 3. Of course there will be a reduction of the text, there will be only a brief Preamble with criterion and so on, the List itself with a brief description of each church, and division Referencies. The list can be made normal or in the form of a table such as in article List of new religious movements. And if the churches will be a little then let ace in alphabetically without division according to Anglicanism and other denominations and countries. That is my view of a possible compromise. It is interesting to hear the support of this option, or something is wrong, or opinions that can not be saved as a list too and need to delete. DayakSibiriak (talk) 00:38, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • With the above comments from the user who made this nomination, I believe we can now see our way forward with respect to the actual binary choice (keep or delete), this specific forum is about. It tends towards a keep and I still believe that it would be possible to keep this page as it is, as per WP:content policies, based on current references. The arguments in favor of it has already been raised. However, just in case that becomes absolutely undoable, I'm ok with its conversion to a list. In absolute good faith, I point out that the fine details of such an ideated list should be sorted out in the article's talk page and not here. Taking into account, our unanimous agreement about those denominations as being (Reformed) Eastern rite Protestants and not Eastern/Oriental Orthodox, I do not foresee many seriously conflicting considerations, forthcoming. Macinderum (talk) 09:36, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For clearer consensus. Here is list only by ABC order (info about churches from wiki article Protestant Eastern Cristianity and Eastern-rite Anglicanism and small addition). 

      List of Eastern-rite Protestant Churches
Preamble ...
List
Referencies ...

Colleagues. In case on convertin the article to the list, to keep or delete too? DayakSibiriak (talk) 12:28, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This grouping is not right. Protestent churches are those churches which got seperated from Roman catholic churches or rather in Western christianity. Clubbing together churches which follow christology and trinity faith based on first three (Oriental Orthodox ) and first seven ( Eastern Orthodox) with churches which donot follow any is not correct. Many of the churches which is mentioned in article is of pentecostal nature and revivalist spirit which donot follow the Episcopalian tradition. Hence the title itself is confusing or artificial. By the way some churches cannot be grouped with any like Church of East of persians, Malankara Marthoma Syrian church of St Thomas Christians etc (Chandy of Pakalomattom (talk) 18:34, 14 September 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Clearly, the compromise option by Epinoia of converting to a list did not find support. Whoever was for the deletion continues to insist on deletion, who was in favor of keeping the article still wishing to keep it in its present form. In this situation, I also think that it is more correct to delete, because there is a risk that the list may also introduce a new original concept. DayakSibiriak (talk) 04:07, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to List of Legion of Super-Heroes members. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:39, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tellus (comics)[edit]

Tellus (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable fictional character TTN (talk) 17:58, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:58, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:58, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:39, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pir Azmat Nawaz[edit]

Pir Azmat Nawaz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG, and its existence also runs afoul of WP:BLP1E. Of the four sources in the current revision, 1 and 3 are not reliable, and 2 and 4 do not have any substantial information; moreover, the two news sources only exist because this individual was accused of a murder, which is a perfect example of BLP1E. Delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:17, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:34, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:34, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 17:28, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Although I am thrilled as this is the first time I am seeing an actual exorcists article on Wikipedia, They seem to be embracing technology fast. The subject though fails WP:CRIME and should be deleted. There are multiple articles from reliable Pakistani newspapers covering the alleged murder by the subject, [7] [8] but the case seem to fall in WP:NOTNEWS category.--DBigXrayᗙ 07:56, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - clear fail of WP:BIO. Conceivably, if something comes of the police investigation then there could be a page in the future but we are not there at present. 2A02:C7F:4481:8300:90DC:E235:5074:54B0 (talk) 19:40, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Bearian (talk) 21:30, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus is, even if not including the IP !votes, that the subject is notable. (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 22:10, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edwin H. Land Medal[edit]

Edwin H. Land Medal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Apparently not notable independently of the sponsoring organisations. The Optical Society gives out dozens of such awards, which are – very properly – listed in that page, and which are from time to time covered in the press. It's doubtful whether any one of them is notable in itself. This one gets 12 verifiable hits on Gbooks, and 8 on Gnews. Edwin H. Land is of course very notable indeed, but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:03, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:03, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge Not seeing tertiary sources establishing notability or why this one stands out among their many awards, but it could be included in the main article. Reywas92Talk 18:31, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Being covered in the popular press is not the criteria for notability in scholarly and technical subjects. We have entire categories of awards given by the major scientific and engineering societies. See Category:Awards by scientific societies and in particular Category:Awards of the Optical Society. There is no reason to discriminate against this award or do a mass delete of all the awards in that parent category and subcategories. These subarticles of the society articles include the awardees and would take up too much space in the parent articles. As a result of Wikipedia:Summary style are usually separate. StarryGrandma (talk) 20:27, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. StarryGrandma (talk) 20:28, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The news stories from GoogleNews count for something and are more than most academic awards get. I have also added a couple of book refs that describe the award itself [9][10]. Overall, I think there is enough here to satisfy WP:GNG. Nsk92 (talk) 21:17, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In addition to the sources that have been added to the article. the Washington Post felt it a significant enough award to mention in an obituary in the same sentence as the National Medal of Science and the IEEE Medal of Honor. Schazjmd (talk) 21:25, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as there are plenty of press mention, overall showing notability. Also it would be excessive having a list of recipients in the Optical Society article, so it makes sense to split this off. Many of the recipients have articles too, so it is not a sea of red. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:03, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I find it odd that this article is marked for deletion. It does not meet the deletion criteria stated! "FIRST", it is becoming very well-sourced from independent outlets. OSA is one of the leading scientific organizations in the world. the Land Medal is one of its notable awards. It is sourced by excellent outlets. PHYSICS TODAY is completely dissociated with the OSA or the Medal. So is SMITHSONIAN. The article was a day old when it was marked, without any attempt at discussion. That in itself is odd. I am sure that many many more sources will be added. Typically medals are the highest honors a scientific society offers. Please note that Land Medal honorees have previously been honored by the Nobel Prize; the National Medical of Science, Primetime Emmy Award; and many others. Point being that this is an extremely luminous group. "SECOND" it is certainly notable. It is marked by many sources and is presented at one of the largest scientific meetings in the world. What "notability" index is being used? GBOOKS? Not relevant. Why are half of OSA medals allowed Wikipedia pages, but this one, a Medal, is not? Wikipedia is loaded with pages for hundreds of others like awards, many less "notable." "THIRD" the article is simple, factual, and neutral. It describes Edwin Land, who was the original Steve Jobs. It lists the winners. It gives sources. Thanks! 136.49.47.230 (talk) 21:23, 11 September 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.62.213.119 (talk)
You might want to read Wikipedia:Deletion policy and Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Many of your questions are answered there. Also, please note that producing a WP:WALLOFTEXT usually has the opposite effect of what the poster intended. Nsk92 (talk) 16:58, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think the sourcing is adequate to establish notability; it's not so big that a merge would be a terrible idea, but it's well-documented enough to stand on its own. XOR'easter (talk) 20:12, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am a little upset that the person who marked this article for deletion seems a bit biased and arbitrary. The Optical Society is the leading organization in its field. It’s awards a regarded as stellar. The recipients are hugely important people. It’s NOT dozens of awards. It’s one of a very few MEDALS. Why the pejorative? I think you have nominated yourself out of being the right person to assess this entry.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.62.83.190 (talk • contribs) FOLLOW-ON: ok I get that I should not comment on other editors. Sorry, I am new to Wikipedia. However, as someone that works in optics I find the comment “It's doubtful whether any one of them is notable in itself” to be pejorative. Our awards and our field is important. Many optics researchers have won Nobel prizes, like Dennis Gabor. And two of the Land Medalists. I think wiki “super-editors” or whatever they are called should exercise better discretion, and should also be accountable. Just MHO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100c:b028:135e:78b6:f7d8:ed19:b479 (talk • contribs)
Should you comment on any other articles for deletion, it's better to just present the arguments for your opinion without attacking other editors. Schazjmd (talk) 21:29, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I understand you feel strongly about this. The question isn't whether the award is important or not, and has nothing to do with whether the recipients are notable. This is a discussion on whether the award itself is notable in the very specific Wikipedia sense (not the common meaning of the term "notable"). The guideline on notability explains it in some detail, but the short version is: has the topic received significant coverage by reliable, independent sources? That's why you see editors in the discussion talking about what they found for sources, and that's the type of information that you need to support your argument. (Also, please end your comments with four tildes ~~~~ so your signature is included, thanks!) Schazjmd (talk) 22:54, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note to the IP: Please sign your posts using four tildes: ~~~~. Also, please don't cast duplicate WP:!VOTEs, like you 'keep' comments above, and don't try to hard-code an an IP address (especially an incorrect one), like you did in this post[11]. Better yet, consider creating an account. Nsk92 (talk) 09:53, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I cast only one vote. Why did you write that? And it took me 30 minutes to figure out how. What does hard code an IP address mean? I’m lost. I don’t want an account. I read Wikipedia like 10 times a day but don’t want to learn it’s programming language. Anyway, the only science awards that get in the mainstream news are called Nobel, Fields, Turing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100C:B028:135E:78B6:F7D8:ED19:B479 (talk) 16:03, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See my response at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Edwin H. Land Medal. Nsk92 (talk) 23:31, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
although could also have been a friend/colleague? Coolabahapple (talk) 00:06, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:08, 14 September 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) 18:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of devices with Gorilla Glass[edit]

List of devices with Gorilla Glass (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is just a list of "products using another product" and really is just marketing material. There's not much encyclopedic value to such a cross reference, and therefore serves as only promotion. Lots of red links, very few references. Never current. Fails at least WP:NOTPROMOTION, WP:NOTCATALOG, WP:RAWDATA. Mikeblas (talk) 17:03, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:04, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Not encyclopedic whatsoever. Ajf773 (talk) 18:20, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Blatant advertising, per nom. Reywas92Talk 18:32, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unique when it came out...but in 2019 unless you have your own internal glass blend or perish the thought, use regular glass or plastic on your screen, you're using Gorilla Glass. It's basically an Android-standard feature at this point in a de facto form. Nate • (chatter) 04:27, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:50, 13 September 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. No prejudice against the creation of biographies on members of this family that may individually be notable. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:49, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hasan family[edit]

Hasan family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Complete vanity page, zero notability of the family and only two individual have wiki pages. Nothing found to support notability claims and the article itself has only one citation. Individual members may be notable but not the family. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 16:47, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 16:47, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 16:47, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 16:47, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can any of this be noted on Hassan disambiguation page? Govvy (talk) 22:31, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment: the article was created by SPA Nhasan89. A clear COI. —usernamekiran(talk) 02:14, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a couple of people in this family may be notable, (but from a quick look their references look pretty sketchy), but even if they are notable, WP:BIOFAMILY says that notablility cannot be inherited by the whole family - there are definitely WP:COI issues with the SPA article creator and the language of the article is shamelessly promotional ("esteemed Bangladeshi family", "contributed exceptionally" WP:NOTPROMOTION), the language could be cleaned up, but the article would still not be notable - does not meet WP:BASIC or WP:ANYBIO as there is no significant coverage of the family in multiple reliable secondary sources - the Biographical Encyclopedia of Pakistan is available online through Google books; a search revealed that there are people named Hasan and Hassan in there, but I could not identify any of them as members of the Hasan family of the article - Epinoia (talk) 01:42, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since the Hasan family in this article is from Bangladesh the Biographical dictionary of Pakistan has no relevance.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:29, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the Biographical dictionary of Pakistan is cited as a source in the article - Epinoia (talk) 17:35, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The fact we lack an article on Ubaydul Hasan who was a Grand Vizier in an indepdent state, shows how Amero-centric and presentist Wikipedia is. He is clearly without question notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:28, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as failing WP:GNG. For a page to survive we need suitable coverage of the family itself, rather than just individual members, and we don't have that. 2A02:C7F:4481:8300:90DC:E235:5074:54B0 (talk) 19:45, 19 September 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) 16:18, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Daniella Rush[edit]

Daniella Rush (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Just another porn-related BLP without any independent reliable sourcing or any legitimate assertion of notability. Negligible reliably sourced biographical content. Only claims of notability are porn industry honorifics, which no longer count toward notability. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:39, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:44, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:44, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:44, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No indication of notability outside of, and even within p-industry.--Darwinek (talk) 22:22, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 12 September 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:49, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Erica Fontes[edit]

Erica Fontes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Just another porn-related BLP without any independent reliable sourcing or any legitimate assertion of notability. No independently sourced biographical content - virtually no biographical content at all. Only claim to notability is a short list of porn industry honors, which no longer count towards notability. PROD removed by SPA without article improvement. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:23, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment She pops up on Google News all over the place in Portuguese publications. Not understanding Portuguese, it's hard to evaluate whether those sources are reliable to satisfy the GNG, even using Google Translate. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:39, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not enough reliable sourcing to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:28, 15 September 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) 16:02, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hungary–Slovakia football rivalry[edit]

Hungary–Slovakia football rivalry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Why is this rivalry noteworthy? The article is more about geopolitics than football, incidentally. TheLongTone (talk) 14:21, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:34, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:34, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:34, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As the article currently stands, it's more of a stub about the history of the two countries, and nothing about the football. Unless someone can improve this to make it actually about the sport, then this isn't needed. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 15:26, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Better? PALIO10 20:27, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I only see six matches & one incident i'm afraid.TheLongTone (talk) 08:55, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:46, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 09:48, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - When did Hungarians and Slovaks ever consider themselves rivals in international football? Back in 1957, when Hungary and Czechoslovakia were competing in World Cup Finals? They've only ever played six official matches. SIX GAMES TOTAL! Plus, it only talks about a riot in a Slovak football match and not any salty or memorable meetings between the Slovak and Hungarian national teams, like in Germany–Netherlands or Argentina–England. Perhaps if there was some semblance of history, I really wouldn't give any opinion on it, but clearly there isn't and this is just an article about ethnopolitics and crazy football fans in Eastern Europe. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 00:09, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I can't see how this page passes WP:GNG as a quick search doesn't really give us any results. HawkAussie (talk) 03:33, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We have a bunch of rivalries for England, Spain, France... Why not the second biggest rivalry for Hungary? Ludost Mlačani (talk) 07:18, 17 September 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. RL0919 (talk) 16:10, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Fisher (educationalist)[edit]

Kenneth Fisher (educationalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This person was a school headmaster and the father of a notable naturalist. But notability is not inherited, so what do we have to establish his personal notability? An obituary in The Times of 1945, and a short entry in the Who was who. Fails WP:BASIC, not to mention WP:NACADEMIC. — JFG talk 14:14, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — JFG talk 14:14, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:18, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I added some references. There is a whole chapter about him in a book. As well, being listed in the British Who's Who or the collection of articles about deceased listees, Who Was Who is a strong indicator of notability. So is an obituary in a national newspaper such as The Times. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:27, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Obits and Who's Who clinch it. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:35, 12 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. In addition to the sources mentioned above, there is also a (freely available online) published obituary in Ibis. This obit contains detailed bio info that can be used to expand the article without dealing with various paywalls and offline sources. I have added a ref to the article. Satisfies WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Nsk92 (talk) 09:38, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:40, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Triangle Film Company[edit]

Triangle Film Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sources are about films / shows this company has produced, not about the company. I can't find any solid sources focusing on the company to meet WP:NCORP / WP:GNG and notability is not inherited. Ravensfire (talk) 13:51, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ravensfire (talk) 13:51, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ravensfire (talk) 13:51, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ravensfire (talk) 13:51, 11 September 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. Lacking enough references with both independence and depth to satisfy WP:NCORP. RL0919 (talk) 16:12, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pizzeria Venti[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Pizzeria Venti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

small non notable restaurant chain. refs are either general articles on pizza or annoucements of restaurant openings DGG ( talk ) 04:32, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:05, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:05, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I expanded the references, which now seem to be a mix of relevant news stories and reviews of individual restaurants. The company no longer maintains a website, preferring to use a Facebook page instead. I think notability is established through references from multiple reliable sources and from the fact that this chain emphasizes quality (with correspondingly higher prices) compared to other pizza chains. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:42, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Seems to have a sufficient number of reliable sources. Trillfendi (talk) 16:31, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ktrimi991 (talk) 10:23, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:00, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Fails WP:SIGCOV is a upcoming small restaurant chain and does not appear to have even a website rare for a chain in the United States.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:35, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Bogus reasoning Keep !votes above I think notability is established through references from multiple reliable sources and from the fact that this chain emphasizes quality (with correspondingly higher prices) compared to other pizza chains. First, there must be multiple (ie at least two) sources that meet the criteria for establishing notability. So if one reference is in-depth (meets WP:CORPDEPTH) but is based on an interview with an owner (failed WP:ORGIND) and another reference is the opposite, is written by a journalist and contains Independent Content (meets WP:ORGIND) but only describes the pizza that is served in the restaurant (fails WP:CORPDEPTH), you don't combine both and say they count towards notability. Also, whether they emphasize quality has nothing to do with notability. An examination of the references in the article (and book) and the references mentioned in the previous AfD shows that not a single one meets the criteria for establishing notability. Most are based on announcements or interviews (fails ORGIND) or inclusions in a list or mentions-in-passing (fails CORPDEPTH). I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability - topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 19:19, 11 September 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) 16:14, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Angel[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Laura Angel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Just another porn-related BLP without any independent reliable sourcing or any legitimate assertion of notability. All biographical content is unsourced. Porn industry awards no longer count towards notability. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:55, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:02, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:02, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:02, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No indication of notability outside of, and even within p-industry.--Darwinek (talk) 22:25, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A won-awards-but-lacks-nontrivial-RS-coverage porn bio. Would not have passed the last version of WP:PORNBIO before it was superseded. Nothing to support WP:BASIC or WP:ENT notability. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is so good that we no longer give undue weight to the huge number of awards the pornography industry turns out in a PR camapaign.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:48, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of cosmic entities in Marvel Comics. RL0919 (talk) 16:25, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Numinus[edit]

Numinus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable fictional character TTN (talk) 12:20, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:20, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:20, 11 September 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 as a blatant copyright violation of copyrighted non-free (″Copyright © 1999-2019 E-Pao! All Rights Reserved″) content. Uncle G (talk) 13:10, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jayenta Loukrakpam[edit]

Jayenta Loukrakpam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Copyvio from this [[12]].
  • Provided weak references (biography and artist profiles) with no clear mention of importance why he might be notable. Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO and WP:NSINGER
  • Author do not resolve the issue, instead engaged in edit warring.
  • Article was previously deleted on 2016 as per WP:A7 and on 2011 as per WP:A3 as per deletion log
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Wakowako (talk) 12:08, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Wakowako: -

Don't make other users contributions as nothing. References are there. Newspapers are there to show that He is a singer. How to block this user-Wakowako Taging unnecessary. Tapta is another popular name of Loukrakpam Jayenta. Awangba Mangang (talk) 12:22, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:52, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:52, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of cosmic entities in Marvel Comics. RL0919 (talk) 12:32, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mistress Love[edit]

Mistress Love (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable fictional character TTN (talk) 12:05, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:05, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:05, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:37, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yevhen Chernenko[edit]

Yevhen Chernenko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While accomplished, doesn't meet WP:GNG, and can't see where he meets any of the requirements of WP:NACADEMIC. Initially, according to Google scholar, he has a citation count of "0", which is not what one would expect of "an internationally renowned expert on Scythian archaeology". Was deprodded, with an explanation on the article talk page. However, there are two issues with the explanation, first, it claims that the worldcat link shows that he is widely cited. Unless I'm reading it wrong (which is always a possibility), it doesn't show that. It does show how many of his works are in different libraries around the world. Even if I'm incorrect and the publication timeline is quotations, that's still not a very high citation count. Second I did the same search using the name variants on the talk page, and while I did not get zero citations, the high was 25, with most in the 5-10 range. Onel5969 TT me 12:00, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 12:00, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:08, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of archaeology-related deletion discussions. Krakkos (talk) 12:21, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Central Asia-related deletion discussions. Krakkos (talk) 12:21, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NACADEMIC (1). Historian Renate Rolle notes that Chernenko's "large-scale investigations" have led to important new developments in the study of Scythian warfare.[13] Chernenko's work is cited extensively in numerous quality sources, such as The Cambridge Ancient History.[14][15] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krakkos (talk • contribs)
  • Keep. Google Scholar and citation metrics aren't good tools for assessing the notability of a scholar who primarily worked a) in the humanities b) in Russian and Ukrainian and c) before the internet. But Chernenko still has a high h-index for archaeology and multiple works cited over 100 times. WorldCat is more useful – we often use library holdings as an indicator of notability in monograph-heavy fields, and Chernenko's works are widely held in libraries around the world. On top of that you have the sources given by Krakkos above and many additional sources in Russian citing his work [16][17]. Altogether I would say this is a clear pass of WP:PROF#C1. – Joe (talk) 11:28, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of cosmic entities in Marvel Comics. Editors are welcome to incorporate additional description into the list article as ordinary editorial action. RL0919 (talk) 12:06, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kronos (comics)[edit]

Kronos (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable fictional character TTN (talk) 11:54, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:54, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:54, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:36, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An Góilín[edit]

An Góilín (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject is a relatively small non-profit group (a singing-circle or club) who meet occasionally in the bar/function-room of the Irish National Teachers' Organisation building in Dublin. While the club may have niche notability in a limited sphere, I don't see how WP:CLUB or WP:GNG is met. In terms of:

  • WP:GNG, a search for sources only seems to return limited passing coverage in a few reliable sources. Like this Irish Times piece which talks about the "40th anniversary of the founding of the vibrant weekly singing circle, An Góilín Traditional Singer’s Club". However, this Irish Times piece, as with much of the other coverage I can find, is just a passing mention. (In an "event listing" which covers 4 or 5 other events/performances.) Similar coverage, where I can find it, seems to have the same issue.
  • WP:CLUB, it would seem that the group's scope is not "national or international in scale", and that it is not a "nationally well-known local organization".
  • WP:NOTINHERITED, it would seem that some members/visitors to the club (like Christy Moore) may themselves be notable. But that notability doesn't "transfer".
  • WP:BAND, while some of the club/group's events have been recorded and released (as albums?), none of these releases would seem to have had material chart success. Or otherwise met the criteria which might meet the criteria for a band or ensemble.

I have tried to find sources to support a claim. But I just don't see how this non-profit music club meets project notability guidelines... Guliolopez (talk) 11:17, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 11:20, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 11:22, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 11:22, 11 September 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. If somebody feels the need to re-create this as a redirect, that's fine, but I don't see any consensus here to do that, so I'm not making that part of the close. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:58, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Umbrella Entertainment[edit]

Umbrella Entertainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No independent evidence of notability, most significant contributions appear to have come from related parties. Scott Davis Talk 11:14, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Scott Davis Talk 11:14, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Scott Davis Talk 11:14, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of film distributors by country#Australia. It exists, but I could not find more than passing mentions in search results to establish notability. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 12:07, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Erik and WP:CHEAPDelete: I tried looking for WP:CORPDEPTH type coverage, but couldn't really find anything that came close other than an If Magazine article that I added as an external link. There's lots of primary sources and press releases, and even perhaps so WP:UGC type film fan website coverage, but most of it seems to be more about the movies the company are releasing than the actual company itself. Whatever COI editing there might have been seems to have been cleaned up pretty well, but it's the problem with WP:NCORP that might be too hard to overcome. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:02, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've changed !vote to "delete" after further consideration. While I can understand the argument in favor of redirecting this, simply adding a WP:REDLINK to a list article is not really good practice per WP:CSC unless there's a real possibility of a viable article being created per WP:REDYES. I've tried to find something which might reasonably indicate such a thing, but haven't; so, I think that at best this is a case of WP:TOOSOON, but most likely is a case of WP:NRV. All of the other entries in List of film distributors by country do seem to have their own stand-alone articles (maybe some shouldn't) and it would seem like a bad idea to start doing so just for this company. So, unless a better target article for a redirect can be found, I think that this shouldn't really be kept. A good target article for redirecting this would perhaps be an article about the company's founder Jeff Harrison, but he, like the company, doesn't appear Wikipedia notable in his own right to support a stand-alone article. So, unless there are particular notability criteria specific to this type of company, I don't see it meeting the more general NCORP. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:37, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Redirect I was unable to find any reliable source about the company, rather than the movies. I was indecisive about redirect - the list doesn't include redlinks or unlinked distributors, but there a couple of hundred links that would turn red by a delete, inviting an editor to recreate the article. Find bruce (talk) 23:34, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DGFA#On deleting pages#9 says that if the article is deleted and shouldn't be expected to be recreated, the links should be removed too. I have not looked carefully at whether the (unlinked) text is useful to keep or whether the link should be completely removed in most cases. Are film distribution company articles ever useful and well-referenced? --Scott Davis Talk 13:13, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Scott Davis, on that basis I have struck my support for redirect - if a reader followed that link they would expect to find something about the film distributor, not other unrelated film distributors. I haven't been through every link, but a broad sample shows them to be along the lines of (1) "... was released on DVD by Umbrella Entertainment in ..." eg Green Card (film), (2) incuded in a table eg List of films banned in Australia or (3) included in an infobox eg Not Quite Hollywood. Each of the ones I have looked at would appear to be useful if the unlinked text was kept. Find bruce (talk) 03:22, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Find bruce/Marchjuly. Lupin VII (talk) 05:18, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Madman Entertainment as a separate section, with heavy cuts. There was some association between the two, see this for example. They have been involved in the distribution of a lot of arthouse/foreign DVDs in Australia. Meticulo (talk) 02:52, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as above as does have some rs coverage such as if magazine Atlantic306 (talk) 21:34, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 12:09, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mazdak Rostami[edit]

Mazdak Rostami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. He is a background actor without any significant role in movies.   ARASH PT  talk  09:39, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.   ARASH PT  talk  09:39, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:12, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article is poorly written, the subject doesn't seem to have had any significant roles in film or TV shows, and the roles he did have appear to be in mostly non-notable films and TV shows. Couldn't find a single secondary source that mentions him. Seems like a pretty straight-forward delete to me. PraiseVivec (talk) 11:07, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete actor with two minor roles (e.g. A driver in The Lizard (film)) and some other roles mostly in regional TV shows. Never had a leading role or an important supporting role. Fails WP:NACTOR.Farhikht (talk) 17:20, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 12:10, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rig Veda (band)[edit]

Rig Veda (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails to meet WP:BAND, unable to find sources for this band. The only reference provided has only a passing mention of this band. Prod was deleted by mostly inactive ip so off to AfD we go. Greyjoy talk 05:55, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Greyjoy talk 05:55, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Greyjoy talk 05:55, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:36, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As much as I would like "the first black metal band from Afghanistan" to have its own Wikipedia page, this is a band that was created half a year ago, has no mentions anywhere on Google and has a page that was clearly created by someone close to the project, from an account that hasn't worked on any other articles. I do hope they hit it big and this article is going to be created again, in earnest, but until then... PraiseVivec (talk) 11:27, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: No significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 20:02, 13 September 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  — Amakuru (talk) 11:11, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bike or Die![edit]

Bike or Die! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG for the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. There are some reviews for it's sequel Bike or Die 2, but this one doesn't have anything to be found in searches. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 07:16, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 07:16, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 August 21.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:38, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've added a reception section with citations to emphasise the significance of this game to palm os history. Bike or Die 2 is for all intents and purposes the same game with new paint, core gameplay is identical, so I've restored that content too.pinchies (talk) 12:30, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - with the exception of a review in IGN and a quick mention in TouchArcade, RS do not talk about this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:39, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I've added a further reference to PalmInfoCenter, who refer to the original Bike or Die as being a "popular game". I think it would be uncontentious to state that Palm Info Center was the definitive Palm news website for enthusiasts and followers of the platform, and would be a RS in my mind. That would provide 3 RS that felt this game was significant enough to review or announce. I agree that Bike or die 2 would not be a significant enough game to warrant inclusion in wikipedia - it was the Palm OS game that was responsible for the game's success and notability, but Palm Info Center was really about as signficant as it got for "news" about the palm platform and palm user community. Purely my speculation, but I think that if bike or die 1 had not been a success, bike or die 2 would not have rated a significant mention anywhere. Finally, the palm os community was small, and not as organised as large blogs like TouchArcade today - gaming was hardly a core focus of the platform, so I ask the question - what would a RS look like for a game published on that platform? In my mind that is the marketplaces, which were some of the only places that users could easily discover new programs. This game was popular enough on all the major marketplaces of the day, and had a large enough community, that I stand my my opinion that it is a notable game for the palm os platform. The simple graphics are emblematic of a game designed for a cpu-limited device - whereas when the game was ported to the iphone the simple graphics simply did not compete against the modern competition. pinchies (talk) 08:54, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Neither palminfocenter or "the gadgeteer" are listed at WP:VG/RS, the toucharcade citation hardly denotes a significant coverage. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:43, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree with you Lee that the credibility of the former too is not well known, and agree that the toucharcade citation is not significant coverage. The gadgeteer is a one-person tech review site that has been running since 1997, perhaps it is insufficient as a WP:RS as I'm guessing it would be considered a personal blog? Mobile tech review however, is a larger company which has been around since 1998, and I think mobile tech review should count as a WP:RS. There are no listed sources for Palm OS platform on WP:VG/RS. Palminfocenter would be one that I suggest is worth adding for Palm OS. Thank you for your comments. pinchies (talk) 11:04, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I agree with User:Pinchies that in this case the original version of the game and version 2 constitute the same subject. Apart from the IGN review of v2 mentioned by Lee Vilenski above, the article includes a couple of reviews [18][19] that I think count as RS. So plausibly passes WP:GNG, even if not by much. Nsk92 (talk) 09:20, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • pinchies (talk) 09:31, 2 September 2019 (UTC) I'm not sure how to cite it, but a theme in many of the bike or die 2 reviews, is that there is a nostalgia and significant appreciation for the original game e.g.[reply]
      • "Have you ever owned a PalmOS handheld in your life? Then most likely you have played Bike or Die, a driving game simulator with a platform-game philosophy, similar to X-moto for Mac OS X, at least once." (from here)
      • "You might have heard of Bike or Die game if you had any Palm treo device. Bike or Die is the best and super-addictive game I have ever played on any mobile device. "(from here)
Sigh. One is a literal blog (already known by the name of the site, and it isn't a WP:SIGCOV either). The other seems like unreliable source, reviewed by "Anil". Enough said. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:48, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
None of these places are listed as RS at WP:VG/RS Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:43, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Bike or Die 1 and Bike or Die 2 cannot be the same subject, nor do I understand why the article is referring to them as versions as they are greatly different from each other, instead of original and sequel (in fact the very same source from the article says BOD 2 is a sequel [20]). The article right now is in a WP:NPOV violation, mostly being positive and trying to make it like it was ultra popular. Most of the sources are app listing pages, or primary ones. Touch Arcade is a WP:ROUTINE article of a game release, and doesn't cover the game indepth. Nsk92, MobileTechReview is an unreliable source, reviewed by "TerpKristin" username doesn't give much hope and there is no staff or editorial policy. The Gadgeteer is also a blog per [21]. None are WP:RS. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:46, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Thank you for your comments. It may well be that this game is not able to be listed on WP due to a lack of RS. However I can’t see many places where a Palm OS game would be found that count as a RS? There were no Palm of magazines I’m aware of at the time of the games release. The game was created in 2004, which was in the later stages of the Palm os platform, and which was all but dead by 2007 when the last ever Palm model was released. That gives this game only a short window of significance. Most of the games listed for the Palm Os platform on WP are not significant, rather they were released for other platforms as well as Palm OS. This is one of the few games I think warrant listing for Palm OS on its own merits. I made the case for referencing the popularity of the game at the time from those download counters - hardly the most reputable source, but I felt they were likely to be reasonably objective and impartial. Regarding Bike or Die 2, it was often referred to as 2.0 rather than being a distinct title, an example of this was that even after the 2.0 release, the 1.4 version could still be used to complete on the games leaderboards, since the actual gameplay was identical. pinchies (talk) 22:09, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well, I finally found one more reputable source!! The game was released in mid 2004, and it managed to get a mention in the 2005 "how to do everything with your palm handheld" book, which is authored by two reputable tech reviewers, and published by McGraw/Osbourne. The 2005 edition was the 5th edition of this book, there was also a 6th (final) edition that I don't have access to. pinchies (talk) 16:16, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Enough sources have now been found. Haukur (talk) 18:28, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 05:28, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - do we have consensus that sufficient sources of sufficient quality (WP:RS) have been provided to earn noteworthness (WP:SIGCOV/WP:GNG) to satisfy the original AfD? Also, have we satisfied the concerns of some that "Bike or Die 2" is the same exact game with simply an updated coat of paint rather than a sequel, to warrant inclusion in the same article? pinchies (talk) 12:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Struck your Keep vote because you have done it already. I still don't think Bike or Die 1 and Bike or Die 2 are the same game at all, but it's fairly obvious this AfD is never going to end in anything else other than no consensus/keep, so it's a waste of my time to comment any further on this. Also "we satisfied"? Seems like you are doing this as a promo team or something? WP:COI seems even more likely than before. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:31, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • CommentI'm sensing that my enthusiasm for this game existence not being lost to the sands of time is an undeniable bias - one that I acknowledge. As for a promo team?? The game is effectively dead. I tried to contact the game's creator to ask if they were aware of any other reviews of the game - they were unreachable. The iPhone version of the game is no longer playable as it was withdrawn by Apple due to a lack of updates over time. The game's online community is also effectively dead as a result. There is however an active community at the moment trying to archive much of the history and software available for the Palm platform, and this game was one that was significant enough to many people that I feel if lost would leave the history of this platform incomplete. That's my motivation towards keeping that game. My experience and the word of a few others is not encyclopedic, hence I'm doing the best I can do draw upon the resources available to help this article stand some more rigor. This was my 2nd ever article that I have invested time into, so I'm sure there's a lot I'm going to take away from this experience about how to follow the process better for next time. I'm certainly not trying to waste your time, so I'm sorry you feel that way. Regarding bike or die 1 vs 2, perhaps that's semantics, regardless, I can see that you and I won't reach agreement on that topic. I don't especially care about the bike or die 2 game, it didn't seem to achieve a relative level of success that would earn it a wikipedia page, but it happens that the iPhone platform was orders of magnitude larger than the Palm os platform, so more WP:RS are available for that version. I only see value in keeping it there for completeness, and I don't see significant harm in keeping it or removing that section either way. I would like to hear from you especially, have I added sufficient WP:RS to this game that you have changed your mind about the game failing WP:GNG? I hope I have made my position clear. I appreciate that people have generally WP:AGF with my comments. pinchies (talk) 17:18, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I really do WP:AGF most of the time, but the usage of "we" gave me some pause, like I said. Sorry if that was a bit harsh. Regarding the last question, I think you did for Bike or Die 2 (the usage of some blogs/questionable websites/app stores for 1 still doesn't convince me), no doubt. Anyways, I agree that BOD2 seems barely notable, so I would move the info about it in a separate "Sequel" section in the article, or maybe re-purpose the article to be about the game series (1+2)? As a game series article, I am fully convinced to keep this. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with both your suggestions - the article would work well perhaps as "Bike or Die! (computer game series)", and that it would be effective to separate out the article structure to clearly delineate the two games. I will work on the latter, assistance would be appreciated to do the former and finalise the AfD process pinchies (talk) 18:06, 17 September 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. People disagree on whether the subject meets WP:ENT and/or WP:ACTOR. What makes it really difficult to close this is that nobody actually analyzed specific sources, so I'm forced to go on a nosecount of "did not" / "did too" arguments. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:37, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Bass (television personality)[edit]

Nicole Bass (television personality) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Stub article for non-notable reality tv participant. Jamesbuc (talk) 10:19, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jamesbuc (talk) 10:19, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:53, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:53, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 12:00, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 12:01, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Jamesbuc, are you doing any WP:BEFORE on this long list of nominations or is this just WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Why are you not even suggesting WP:ATDs? WP:ENT #1 states: Actors, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and celebrities: Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. She has had significant roles in multiple notable TV shows. Boleyn (talk) 11:11, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have been checking beforehand and have been selective with ones I have picked. This does indeed fall under what people and most wikipedia editors would consider non-notable and from what is here and what I can find, this person has very little notability with participation in only 2/3 shows. There is very little other information outside of these small appearances. In regards to your accusation that I am going after WP:IDONTLIKEIT it should be worth noting that I have contributed to reality television pages in the past and I am not opposed to articles about reality television participants but I have been picking out a few which have minimal information and notability attached to them. If you want to discuss this any further please use the talk page. Jamesbuc (talk) 22:58, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In what way does it no meet the guidelines at WP:ENT, Jamesbuc? It's also very unclear why you are suggesting deletion and not merge or redirect. Boleyn (talk) 07:17, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 10:44, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - coverage is run-of-the-mill for people who have appeared on TV and is really publicity for the shows rather than in-depth coverage of the person - does not meet WP:NACTOR, "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" - appearing in a couple of reality show episodes does not seem significant - Epinoia (talk) 17:11, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Epinoia, you appear to have misread WP:ENT #1 - the reality shows do not need to be significant (and that's a very subjective term) but they need to be 'notable'. The Only Way Is Essex and Ex on the Beach are shows that garner a lot of coverage and have many viewers - they both have articles and are both notable. 'Multiple' is covered by the fact that she had been in three notable shows - TOWIE, Ex on the Beach and The Challenge. How does it not meet WP:ENT #1? Boleyn (talk) 17:26, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
-I didn't say the shows were not significant, I meant that the appearance in the show was minor and did not meet WP:ENT's "significant roles" - other reality show performers of minor notability have come up for deletion recently, Sarah Goodhart and Maria Fowler, the Goodhart article was deleted and the Fowler article was kept, so it doesn't seem that we have any clear consensus on whether appearing in a minor reality show is notable or not - my view is that it is not notable at all, but if others feel it is notable and that the sources are solid and consensus is reached, then that's fine with me - Epinoia (talk) 21:49, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 04:59, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The coverage in various regional newspapers (not just limited to one region), and MTV, gives her enough for WP:GNG IMHO. Clearly for people who follow this sort of thing, she is a household name.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:30, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 05:23, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lakshya Chawla[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Lakshya Chawla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Chawla was described as one of the "pioneers of new-age wedding photography and film-making" by Vogue magazine. Hardly. "Shutter Down, led by Lakshya Chawla" is so described. By Vogue? Hardly. The (vogue.in) source says that it's Published by Shutter Down Photography. I infer that "published" here means "written". If this is so, credit to vogue.in for being upfront about paid material, but all they're saying is that Lakshya Chawla's group says that Lakshya Chawla's group is among the best. What about the other sources? One cited source (no author specified) says that Lakshya Chawla,one of India’s best wedding photographer. (Yes, that's the complete sentence. No verb.) A second (by "popdiaries") says he's one of India’s best wedding photographer, and in other ways is curiously similar to the first. The sources hardly rise to the level of "paid news". They look more like simple advertorials. Hoary (talk) 04:55, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Hoary (talk) 05:01, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hoary (talk) 05:05, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing I see asserts notability. Looks to me like paid advertising. -- Alexf(talk) 09:47, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:NARTIST and even WP:GNG. As the subject failed to get significant coverage in multiple "independent" reliable sources. Paid adverts/paid news dont count as independent coverage. --DBigXrayᗙ 09:51, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete There is not much to add. Advertisements are different than significant coverage. —usernamekiran(talk) 10:52, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom fails WP:GNG .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:32, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. There is consensus that the current incarnation of the article is purely WP:DICDEF. If anyone manages to create a version that is properly encyclopedic and reliably sourced, that could be reconsidered at the time.

Missionary salesman[edit]

Missionary salesman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unremarkable term or concept. See WP:NOTDICTIONARY. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 01:16, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm tempted to !vote keep per WP:HEY, and like that shortcut this keep is conditional on potential improvements. Otherwise I'd say delete and transwiki to Wiktionary if there isn't already an entry there. Perhaps move to "Missionary selling" if kept. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:48, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment : Hey, I added this and another one upset price which was redirected. Both of them were picked from requested article at wiki project on business. The upset price was nominated for speedy deletion but redirected eventually. and I was in fact thinking to create all of the requested articles in that section. You can check it here User:Skysmith/Missing topics about Business and Economics Exploreandwrite (talk) 06:30, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The concept is remarked upon in numerous books and so the nomination's initial, evidence-free assertion is false. If we see WP:NOTDICTIONARY, we find that it spends much of its time explaining the difference between a short stub and a dictionary. There's no dictionary content here – no etymology, grammar or focus on a particular word. So, this is the "perennial source of confusion" – "the mistaken belief that dictionary entries are short, and that short article and dictionary entry are therefore equivalent". Andrew D. (talk) 08:58, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Andrew Davidson: Okay fine, I shouldn't have referenced WP:NOTDICTIONARY. I should've been more specific and cited WP:NOTNEO (but that felt a bit too WP:BITE-y). If you have sources that I don't have access to, then please feel free to add them to the article. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 13:54, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    There's nothing very new in this topic. The words have been used for centuries and the phrase has been used for at least 90 years. For example, here's a detailed source from the 1950s, published by the US Department of Commerce. Andrew D. (talk) 22:21, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article covers the subject from a dictionary perspective, not an encyclopedic perspective. We need to look at the development of the concept as well as the word, neither of which happen here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:35, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to sales. A definition-only article does not need to be stand-alone when another article could easily cover it. Reywas92Talk 20:45, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 04:56, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The fact that one of the two sources is a dictionary is pretty good evidence that this is indeed a WP:DICTDEF. And, the wording is similar enough to the Chron source that I could almost convince myself WP:G12 applies. If somebody really wants to write an encyclopedia article on this topic, they're free to do so, but the current example isn't worth keeping. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:08, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:11, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pippin Parker[edit]

Pippin Parker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As you can see there are more problems than solutions for this article. The sources don’t give any evidence of general notability. He simply falls in the realm of overshadowed sibling. Trillfendi (talk) 19:02, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:28, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:28, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 12:03, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 04:48, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have started adding sources. There certainly seem to be plenty of them. There are also more works (plays and productions) which are not yet included in the article. I will come back to !vote when I have added enough info and references to assess his notability. RebeccaGreen (talk) 18:29, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm finding an adequate cumulative notability between playwriting, directing, theater-company founding, and deanship. When someone is a hyphenate (wears many professional hats), we consider the cumulative notability, not just the notability for one or two of those professions. Softlavender (talk) 03:01, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Mostly for the reviews of the plays he has written and directed, but I agree with Softlavender that his other achievements add to his notability too. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:10, 19 September 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. No indication this show satisfies WP:GNG. RL0919 (talk) 12:15, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Buckethead Show[edit]

The Buckethead Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are no sources in the article, and the only sources I could find via google were Wikipedia mirrors, a couple of really old PR releases, and one reddit page titled "Whatever happened to the Buckethead Show?"

I can't find any indication that this show is at all notable. Marianna251TALK 20:01, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Marianna251TALK 20:01, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:14, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - (to WTKS-FM#Previous_shows) Neither GNG or, more relevantly, WP:RPRGM, is satisfied. The (radio) geographic reach isn't particularly impressive, and the guideline notes the higher importance of reliable sources. As there don't seem to be any of them, it shouldn't remain. The station has a couple of lines on it, reasonable due to the significant amount of radio time it took up over the years. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:46, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:44, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem to be a clearcut example of any on that (as a side note, I take particular dispute to the nutshell summary including "Wikipedia has a very good search facility." Twaddle to that.) Nosebagbear (talk) 10:50, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nosebagbear:, is this comment in the right place? I can't see an edit summary matching that quote, and you commented above that you don't think this article meets GNG, so Chris Troutman was largely agreeing with you. I'm confused! Marianna251TALK 20:30, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Another Orlando-based radio show that was only notable in Orlando and with very limited national notability because of the Sirius XM deal. Unless your name is Rush, Glenn, Colin, or Paul Harvey, the vast majority of late morning/early afternoon radio shows in the United States are non-notable since most of the audience is listening to a music station at work, listening to non-offensive talk radio that won't earn you a visit to the boss's office, or doing anything else. Also not a shock; this is zero-sourced. No point to a redirect as this just reads as 'morning show that failed at being a morning show'. SBK Live would also be a prime deletion candidate. Nate • (chatter) 04:34, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good point about the redirect. If I'd come across the WTKS-FM article another way I would have considered deleting the entire "Previous shows" section as pointless puffery - it says a lot when the only source in the whole section is a press release about a cast member's subsequent project. I haven't touched it since I was the one to start this AfD, though. Marianna251TALK 20:18, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of X-Men enemies. RL0919 (talk) 05:25, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Riders (comics)[edit]

Dark Riders (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

deProdded. This group fails WP:GNG. Not every character, team and organisation deserves an entry because they appeared in a comic. Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 12:35, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 12:35, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 12:35, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 04:39, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/Merge - We have a dedicated page for these, per WP:PRESERVE no point in simply deleting it. FOARP (talk) 12:34, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There was fair size amount of these series published, if GNG can't be established I would see this as a redirect. Govvy (talk) 22:46, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of X-Men enemies. The group does not have the coverage needed to establish independent notability. However, the List of X-men enemies already contains an entry for them with basic information and appearances. It seems like the better option for the Redirect target. Rorshacma (talk) 20:29, 17 September 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  — Amakuru (talk) 10:12, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Goodrich Club[edit]

The Goodrich Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I cannot find any reliable, independent, significant coverage on the internet. The page also seems to have originated as a cruftish article created by the residents. Rockphed (talk) 15:18, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:21, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:21, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources - Epinoia (talk) 02:46, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Not commenting regarding potential notability or potential lack thereof, but note that the Google Books link above provides a couple of pages of results that includes some coverage of this organization. North America1000 04:05, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 04:24, 11 September 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) 15:10, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eileen Whelley[edit]

Eileen Whelley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable executive, fails WP:GNG Vinegarymass911 (talk) 04:20, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 04:20, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 04:20, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 04:20, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 04:20, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:03, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - just having a job is not notable - does not meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:BASIC, has not received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources - Epinoia (talk) 17:48, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per above. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:15, 19 September 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. No agreement and minimal participation after two relists. RL0919 (talk) 12:18, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amini Cishugi[edit]

Amini Cishugi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can find no in depth or reliable coverage about this individual. While I also know that subscriber count doesn't count toward notability, I have a hard time believing that at 10k subscribers, he is notable for his YouTube work. ASide from that, I really don't see any evidence of meeting NAUTHOR other N criteria or GNG. Praxidicae (talk) 13:24, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 13:34, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:36, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article was previously edited by an unregistered user who suggested that Amini Cishugi is well known as youtuber. In reality, according to sources find on internet, he is well known as a Congolese writer and actor. The page now examined. Thank you for this report despite it being for the deletion. CPGLCONGO (talk) 14:28, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
CPGLCONGO You'll need to provide verifiable sources. Praxidicae (talk) 15:59, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Review the article Praxidicae. There are verifiable sources referenced and many other on the web. Have a good Sunday and God bless you. CPGLCONGO (talk) 09:48, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:26, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:20, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep based on WP:GNG, although there is not clear agreement on how WP:NPOL applies to her situation. RL0919 (talk) 12:27, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Burke[edit]

Mary Burke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NPOL, most of the news are for her failed candidacy for Governor of Wisconsin, she is known as the daughter Trek Bicycle Corporation founder Richard Burke. Most of the references are interviews or primary. Meeanaya (talk) 04:34, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 04:34, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 04:34, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. J947 (c), at 04:38, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. J947 (c), at 04:38, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 11:59, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPOL does not distinguish between elected or appointed, and wording in WP:POLOUTCOMES's "in general" section equally put "elected and appointed" on the same line. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 21:49, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:12, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- she was the secretary of a state department with a $387 Million annual budget. Bearian (talk) 18:38, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The size of an organization's budget is not a notability freebie for its CEO or secretary or other executive members in the absence of a WP:GNG-passing volume of reliable source coverage about the person's work in the role. Bearcat (talk) 15:05, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:19, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In my opinion, this article is a clear case for inclusion / against deletion. She is notable in multiple capacities as a candidate for statewide office (and the first major-party women nominee for governor in Wisconsin), administrator of a large bureaucracy, and longtime member of the Madison school board with ample secondary documentation. See [22] and [23] [24]and [25] for some examples of secondary coverage. Mnation2 (talk) 17:10, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Subject just seems to squeak past WP:GNG. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 04:59, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge to Memphis sanitation strike.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:02, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Baxter Leach[edit]

Baxter Leach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Activist who only appears to have garnered media attention in relation to one event. All coverage is in relation to his participation in the Memphis sanitation strike. Maybe merge relevant info into the article about the strike itself? GPL93 (talk) 21:08, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 21:08, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 21:08, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fails notability guidelines.Ppt1973 (talk) 16:02, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Though the "I Am a Man" march was a single event, there were numerous actions around strikes that went on for a number of months. The notability of Baxter Leach and the other participants has only recently been acknowledged. They have been honored numerous times, and none of them are discussed on the main page about the strike. Sepideh (talk) 21:19, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and delete. It is not like he lead a movement.Knox490 (talk) 23:54, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Taylor & Lowe 2018, already cited in the article, is one source that covers this person's background and later life in detail. I favour multiple. Checking out the others in the hope of finding a second, I find that some sources here do not support the biographical content that they purport to support, but which is verifiable from Taylor & Lowe 2018 at least. So there's still just the one source for a proper biographical article, from what is currently in the article at any rate. Uncle G (talk) 07:53, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:07, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:18, 11 September 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. Sources are king. If nobody can locate the sources needed to meet WP:GNG, even after looking for them, then the presumption that they must exist is no longer valid. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:22, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BankFinancial FSB[edit]

BankFinancial FSB (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Serves as a listing for "nineteen full service branches," which skews the publicly-traded corporations criterion into an advertisement for the former. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, Wikipedia is WP:NOTYELLOW. Yogiile (talk) 11:26, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Yogiile (talk) 11:26, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Yogiile (talk) 11:26, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Whether or not this sounds like an advertisement, WP:LISTED explains that public-traded companies are generally easily sourced. The links above seem to point in that direction.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:45, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:06, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - It's a NYSE-listed company, as noted above, which makes me inclined to keep. However, while a search throws up plenty of references, they all seem to be essentially 'investor-pick' type comments on the stock price, and appear on slightly questionable-looking financial news sites/blogs. I can't find anything in a source that I consider fully reliable, but on the other hand I think there's so much available as to be worth the benefit of the doubt. The article certainly needs substantial improvement though. Hugsyrup 11:32, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:16, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Listed is only a note saying that usually listed companies have some sources about them. I looked and also couldn't find them. Since nobody else succeeded, this should be deleted, keeping in mind that WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES is a bad argument at AfD. If we can't find them, then it's time to treat this as a regular WP:YELLOWPAGES WP:CORSPAM. Finally, considering how little there is in this substub, lists listing companies traded at NYSE and such are perfectly good as far as informing the raeder that such a company exists, since our article, and available sources, hardly allow to say anything else. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:06, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I would also presume most listed companies are notable. However, I can't find what I would even consider run of the mill coverage from the Chicago Tribune let alone something which establishes notability. Searches for other RS also comes up short. While most are notable, some, apparently like this, are not. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:09, 19 September 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:59, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wockenfuss Candies[edit]

Wockenfuss Candies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I found no significant coverage per WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 23:13, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:25, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:25, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article lacks proper sourcing that establishes notability.TH1980 (talk) 03:01, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I added some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:53, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:53, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. It has references from reliable sources such as the Baltimore Sun, local TV station, and Maryland Daily Record. It is a historically relevant article as the company was founded in 1915 and was founded by immigrants. Fourth generation businesses in states are important to people and generally earn press which this company did. In the overview section, more footnotes would be helpful. If the article is kept, I think an caramel apple pic should be added.Knox490 (talk) 03:17, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Besides WMAR-TV [32], The Baltimore Sun [33] and Daily Record (Maryland) [34], there is also coverage on CBS News [35] (a paragraph that also verifies the location, and it could be used to expand their candies section), Cecil Whig [36], Baltimore (magazine) [37], Baltimore Business Journal [38] and in-depth coverage in a i95 Business magazine which should be reliable [39]. Passes WP:NCORP and seems like a failure of WP:BEFORE. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:27, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why mention WP:BEFORE when I clearly said that I couldn't find significant coverage? That means that I obviously searched beforehand. I do believe that most of the references found so far don't show notability as being run of the mill and local, but that doesn't matter because this article will be kept. SL93 (talk) 16:35, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Pinging TH1980 to see this as well. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:27, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Weakish, but still. The nom is correct that most of the coverage is local. However, this coverage comes from multiple sources and is specific and detailed. For a big city with thosands of businesses, that kind of coverage is impressive. There is a reasonable case here for passing WP:GNG. Nsk92 (talk) 20:35, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the sources found now means that this business meets WP:ORG. 2A02:C7F:4481:8300:90DC:E235:5074:54B0 (talk) 20:51, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: initially closed as keep, relisting per request
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rollidan (talk) 17:21, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Business is historically significant, as well as reasonable coverage in multiple sources. Earnsthearthrob (talk) 20:44, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All the sources listed are local and do not confer notability. While the Baltimore Sun is a major paper, it is still local when talking about things in Baltimore. If there were an article in the Podunk Podunkly (from Podunk Backwaterstan) about this business, then, despite being a local paper, it would indicate greater coverage. Rockphed (talk) 16:39, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am unable to locate a single reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability.A reminder that coverage must contain Independent Content (as defined in WP:ORGIND) as well as in-depth coverage. One without the other means the reference fails the criteria. An analysis of the references in the article illustrates the reasons for failing the criteria as follows:
  • The WMAR reference is a local news "Made in Maryland" segment which relies entirely on filming at the company and interviewing the owner. This is classic churnalism. Fails WP:ORGIND.
  • This Baltimore Sun reference is based entirely on an interview with the owner and there is no information in this article that is clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated with the company and has no Independent Content (as per ORGIND). This is churnalism and fails WP:ORGIND
  • The CBS Baltimore reference is a mention-in-passing - the fact that this company was the only company from the local area to attend the the 11th annual Retail Confectioners International Chocolate Boot Camp. There is no information provided about the company. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
  • Thie Hoodline reference entitled "3 of the best candy stores in Baltimore] contains a photo of some chocolates and the following information about the company: "a candy store and chocolatier and shop in Woodring, is another much-loved go-to, with 4.5 stars out of 10 Yelp reviews. Head over to 6831 Harford Road to see for yourself". Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
  • THie The Daily Record reference is yet more churnalism. It relies entirely on an interview with the owner. Fails WP:ORGIND for the same reasons as the Baltimore Sun reference above.
  • The Baltimore Sun reference is an article announcing the death of Mr. Wockenfuss and relies entirely on information provided by his son, Paul, and a granddaughter, Chris. Fails WP:ORGIND.
Of the references mentioned above, they fail for similar reasons as follows:
  • This CBS local reference is a list of places to purchase "Easter goodies" for Easter, mentions Wockenfuss but contains no in-depth information on the company and fails WP:CORPDEPTH
  • Leaving aside the fact that this publication is ultra-local with a reported circulation of 17,500, this Cecil Daily reference is based on a company announcement and contains no Independent Content. (For example, most of the phrases such as the last paragraph can be found in other articles in other publications). Article fails WP:ORGIND.
  • This Baltimore Magazine reference is again, churnalism and is based on the journalist visiting the company facility, relies exclusively on quotations from company officials/family members and contains no Independent Content. Article fails WP:ORGIND.
  • This BizJournals reference discusses the company's decision to launch their website but it is based entirely on an interview with the company's district manager, Janice Motter, and Rialto, the company that designed the website. It is churnalism and contains no Independent Content, failing WP:ORGIND.
  • This i95 Business reference is the same churnalism we've seen in many of the other articles above. The article relies exclusively on information provided by the Wockenfuss family or the company and has no Independent Content (as defined in ORGIND) and fails WP:ORGIND.
I have also searched Google Books for references but came up blank. This company is successful locally, no doubt, but fails the criteria for notability as per GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 18:52, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: At the moment I am inclined to call this a delete based on the examination of the sources being used to establish WP:N. Out of an abundance of caution I am going to relist this for another week.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 04:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment More coverage; The Daily Record, Patch.com, The Morning Call (mention). Harley.M.X (talk) 16:41, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This makes me sad because I really want to keep articles about 100 year old companies. But, despite quite a bit of searching, I can't find any coverage of the company outside of Maryland, which fails WP:NCORP, specifically WP:AUD. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:59, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it's true that this hasn't been covered outside of Maryland, but WP:AUD does actually suggest that "regional" coverage can be acceptable, and I think that is satisfied with the Baltimore Sun and Maryland TV refs. Maryland is a state of six million people, which would put it at a respectable 111th out of 185 if it were a country in its own right, more populous than the likes of Denmark, Finland and New Zealand.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:55, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:Eastmain. Hyperbolick (talk) 18:10, 20 September 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. Lack of independent sources to establish notability. RL0919 (talk) 04:35, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rimon Law P.C.[edit]

Rimon Law P.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable law firm. Page created by WP:SPA with only 25 total edits [40] who also created page for CEO and founder, Michael Moradzadeh. Loksmythe (talk) 18:25, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Loksmythe (talk) 18:25, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Loksmythe (talk) 18:25, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - reference 23 is an ABA Journal in-depth review of the law firm. Passes my standards. It's poorly written, possibly a PR write-up, but not TNT-worthy. Bearian (talk) 20:42, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response References must contain "Independent Content" (as defined by WP:ORGIND) and this reference fails abysmally. The article relies entirely on an interview with the founders and contains no content that can be clearly attributed to a source unaffiliated with the company. You pretty much acknowledge that this article is PR (which it is) and therefore fails ORGIND. Also, in order to meet the criteria for establishing notability "multiple" references are required. Bearian, I see you've stuck to your guns below when discussing with May His Shadow Fall Upon You but perhaps in light the ORGIND guidelines, you might want to revisit/rescind your !vote. HighKing++ 17:17, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Clearly a promotional article with scant independent sourcing. The "in-depth review" cited by Bearian contains only five paragraphs about Rimon Law - most of the article addresses other firms. There appears to be little coverage of this firm outside of promotional material. May His Shadow Fall Upon You Talk 13:46, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
May His Shadow Fall Upon You, maybe you didn't see the same article, linked here, which contains two pages of text and two video interviews. I tried to go through Google, but it may be behind a paywall; I am a former ABA member and still have access to their past content (hooray for cookies!). Bearian (talk) 15:30, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bearian - I'm a current ABA member but I didn't have to log in to see it. This is not the type of substantial coverage required to maintain a Wikipedia article. Two pages of text won't do. May His Shadow Fall Upon You Talk 16:14, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, we can agree to disagree. I'll go with the consensus. Bearian (talk) 20:09, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Bearian - while the article can probably be rewritten to amend its tone, the sources found appear to establish notability and meet GNG. Bookscale (talk) 11:24, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 04:12, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If the best ref (23) is [41], sorry, it's a single paragraph focusing on the company founder(s), not the company. And they are just one of several similar cases mentioned in the article. So this is coverage 'in passing', not 'in depth'. So, this being, per comments above, 'the best' source... it fails WP:NORG and higher level policies by a long shot. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:22, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clearly the Keep !voters above have not read the WP:NCORP guidelines, especially WP:ORGIND. I have searched extensively and I am confident that there are no references about this company that meet the criteria for establishing notability. The references in ABA Journal are the very definition of churnalism and fail WP:ORGIND. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 17:17, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Federal Ministry of Labour and Productivity. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:00, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Imoudu National Institute for Labour Studies[edit]

Michael Imoudu National Institute for Labour Studies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ORGCRIT a before search threw up run of the mill appointment notices and press releases. Dom from Paris (talk) 21:57, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 21:57, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 21:57, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it is part of the Nigerian government then I am inclined to think it may be notable. Rathfelder (talk) 11:46, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Rathfelder: There are a very very large number of organisations and institutes that are government organisations but not all are notable. This is an institute that delivers diplomas but not degrees. And as per WP:NSCHOOL it should meet WP:ORGCRIT and this one doesn't. There is nothing about how many staff there are nor how many students there are we know almost nothing about this organisation. --Dom from Paris (talk) 17:42, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The question is not how good or complete the article is. It's whether the organisation is notable. Rathfelder (talk) 17:48, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
sorry I should have been clearer, none of the sources give us this information, I checked them out before nominating. That notability is not shown by the sources or suggested by the article. Dom from Paris (talk) 19:18, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is quite a lot of coverage of the Board and this on its relationship with the government. Rathfelder (talk) 19:28, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the source, I looked at it and it is basically a press release, in the second paragraph it says "Minister of State for Labour and Employment Prof. Stephen Ocheni, who made this known to a group of select journalists in his office," The whole article is just a series of quotes from the minister, there is nothing written by the journalist himself over and above the introduction which states the reason for this meeting. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:14, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Simply being a government institute is not an automatic pass on notability unless you have any guideline that backs up your !vote that I may have missed? --Dom from Paris (talk) 16:14, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coverage does not have to be original. Most reporting about organisations is essentially based on press releases and interviews. If it was thought notable enough to be covered by an independent source that is significant. I share the view that government organisations are generally notable. The burden of proof is less than in respect of commercial organisations. Rathfelder (talk) 16:39, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This a significant government institution. The article is sourced and non-promotional. Plainly, an article is merited. I see no benefit in 'How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?' type of consideration as to whether notability is technically met. Indeed, the preamble to WP:N states: " ... though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply ...". If necessary this is case where commonsense needs to be applied and an occasional exception can be made. 2A02:C7F:4481:8300:90DC:E235:5074:54B0 (talk) 18:32, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree strongly with the analysis of it being a significant institution. On their courses page it states that "As many as 60 young Nigerians and 20 adults have so far graduated from the Institute’s National Diploma Programme which commenced 3 years ago." There are 4 diploma courses so this equates to an average 20 per course over 3 years. This is not what I would call a significant institute. Common sense suggests that guidelines should be applied. Just as an aside on on this page [42] it claims 20,203 students enrolled for 139 lecturers which is actually a template web site from here [43] with exactly the same figures. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:45, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or Merge (to Federal Ministry of Labour): This is non-notable and attempts to assert inherent notability is generally not a good argument. There seems to be some confusion. This is a State-owned enterprise (SOE), or business enterprise and as such fails Wikipedia:ORGCRIT per Nom. An SOE is not the same as a government agency, state entity, or significant government institution. It is not a federal arm or even division within the Federal Ministry of Labour and Productivity, which appears to be an outdated title as according to that article it was renamed the Ministry of Labour in January 2007, but simply a for profit government-owned agency. I am amazed there would be some far-fetched notion that "press releases and interviews" would suffice in lieu of reliable sources. A source can be perfectly acceptable for content without advancing notability so a merge would be appropriate. Otr500 (talk) 02:42, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 23:05, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 04:07, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is quite a common problem with African topics - they aren't covered in nearly as many online sources as their counterparts in the western world. But honestly, if this federal-level institute were translated to an equivalent body in the US, Canada or the UK, it would be almost beyond doubt that it would be notable. So I think we should presume the same here. I find it likely that there is a good body of paper-based sources to be found on the ground in Nigeria, which would give us a GNG pass.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:32, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry but I disagree because in my experience of NPP there are often a very great deal of sources in Africain articles. According to Telecommunications_in_Nigeria there are 67 million users of internet ranking it 8th in the world and according to Media_in_Nigeria#Internet_sites and the BBC [44] internet usage and media coverage is very strong in Nigeria, according to the BBC 86 million Nigerians are online. Also if I may be so bold normally WP:MUSTBESOURCES is usually an argument to be avoided in an AFD. --Dom from Paris (talk) 16:59, 20 September 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. Editors opining here are reminded that the existence of reliable sources discussing the subject is not enough for notability. There must be reliable sources that discuss the subject substantively. Passing mentions do not qualify, and arguments based on those are going to be ignored or given less weight. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:36, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Donatus Kaufmann[edit]

Donatus Kaufmann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Very far from meeting WP:BIO. I am unable to find any substantial coverage of the subject in reliable sources. SmartSE (talk) 13:42, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SmartSE (talk) 13:42, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I found some substantial coverage and put it in the article. Among others from The Wall Street Journal. The structure of the article very similar in to other board members. E.g. Dieter Zetsche. Kaufmann is a board member of an industrial legend Thyssenkrupp. There he is also responsible for North America. He is also Vice President of the American Chamber of Commerce in Germany. Kaufmann is member of the Atlantic-Brücke as well.Riesling2013 (talk) 6 September 2019 —Preceding undated comment added 15:05, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:06, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Strong References and same relevance like other Board Members. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.187.101.62 (talk) 18:30, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The sources do not have the necessary depth to meet WP:BIO. As an example, take the Wall Street Journal reference that has been highlighted. This is simply a directory entry. It is one of no less than 40 such entries on Thyssenkrupp executives. As an obiter dictum, all the 'keep' views have been made by accounts/IPs with little or no other contributions. 2A02:C7F:4481:8300:90DC:E235:5074:54B0 (talk) 20:22, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm relatively new to Wikipedia. I have already tried to improve the quality of this article. I think this entry is uncritical because it has more and better sources than many other articles from top managers. That was rejected here. So I looked for more references and added them. I observe this here and take part in the discussion to contribute and learn. According to Wikipedia only arguments count. So I'm surprised that this article is up for discussion at all. Riesling2013 (talk) 19 September 2019 —Preceding undated comment added 12:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. We don't publish resumes. I looked at the first three references in detail, on the assumption that those are the most important. The WSJ is just a directory listing. Reuters and DW are both passing mentions. Fails WP:NBIO. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:50, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Roysmith fails WP:ANYBIO.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:23, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:42, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ric Clark[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Ric Clark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Created by paid editor, advertising, nothing significant found for him, why he is notable for. Not independently notable outside of his company. Meeanaya (talk) 05:00, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 05:00, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 05:00, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 23:19, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 04:05, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete — If he really were notable, wouldn't he be mentioned on the Brookfield_Asset_Management page? He isn't. Surely if his notability were principally derived from his employer, he'd be notable enough to get cited on the company's page? Reading his achievements, they seem mostly like "worked at this company, did some important things, did a really good job." All looks painfully WP:MILL to me. Simon Wright (talk) 10:51, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete subject doesnt satisfy WP:GNG. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 05:03, 16 September 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) 04:37, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delhi FC[edit]

Delhi FC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD, not sure this team actually exists. None of the links given work. No mention of it anywhere on the Indian Super League's article or website. There's the Delhi Dynamos, but that's something else. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:04, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:04, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:04, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the club does actually exist it seems, see [45] [46]. From Twitter it seems as if they play in the Delhi senior league. I can't find anything on them that's significant that would want me to save this stub of an article. SportingFlyer T·C 05:05, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Most of those initial references are for the Delhi Dynamos FC which isn't a good sign. It does exist but properly not enough for an article to pass WP:GNG. HawkAussie (talk) 02:01, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:46, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 09:48, 13 September 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. These season articles fail both GNG and NSEASONS. No problem with current seasons being recreated after the event if appropriate sourcing can be found Fenix down (talk) 07:26, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2017–18 Saif Sporting Club season[edit]

2017–18 Saif Sporting Club season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The team is not playing in a professional league which means that it would fail WP:FPL. I would also like to nominate these articles for the same reason.

HawkAussie (talk) 23:35, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 23:35, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 23:35, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 23:35, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:54, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the nominator's comment that these articles "fail FLP" makes no sense, given that is just a list of leagues related primarily to player notability. However, these seasons are about non-fully professional leagues and as such fail WP:NSEASONS. Also fail GNG. GiantSnowman 09:59, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral These are seasons for a highest level national league and so should be able to be kept, but they also need to pass WP:GNG. The three I checked at random could, but do not. Since they could in theory, I'm not voting delete. SportingFlyer T·C 18:10, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 04:00, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per WP:NOTDIR. Individual season-by-season stand-alone pages for a single club should only be reserved for those cases where there's so much RS out there on the club, that we can't fit it all into one page. Obviously that's not going to be every club; that's not even going to be every club in the top tier of every country. We could create statistics pages for every season for every club in the world. But we shouldn't, because Wikipedia is not a directory, or a football statistics almanac. – Levivich 03:50, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Project Kenai[edit]

Project Kenai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Short-lived, inconsequential social media/source code hosting project. While plenty of independent niche-news articles mention the project, almost all of them are discussing its shutdown.

Most of the article is unsourced. Toddst1 (talk) 23:50, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Toddst1 (talk) 23:50, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Toddst1 (talk) 23:50, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources as per WP:GNG - Epinoia (talk) 17:12, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 03:59, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:39, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sunny Hinduja[edit]

Sunny Hinduja (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR, and the veracity of the information in the article should be questioned. For example Ballad of Rustom does not appear to ever have been nominated for an Oscar. But I could be wrong, since it is unclear from the article when it was released. The table says 2016, but the lead says it was nominated in 2014 (quite a feat, to be nominated two years prior to release). It's even murkier than that, since one of the sources claims it premiered in July 2012 at the 12th Osian Cinefan Film Festival. This last assertion has since been removed, but points to questioning the whole article. Regardless, still doesn't meet notability requirements. Onel5969 TT me 03:46, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 03:46, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:34, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete the subject fails WP:GNG, and WP:NACTOR as well. —usernamekiran(talk) 10:47, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:NACTOR because of no major role in multiple films. lacks notable awards. Fails WP:GNG and Lacks independent significant coverage as well.--DBigXrayᗙ 07:18, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Rosalía (singer). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:00, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of awards and nominations received by Rosalía[edit]

List of awards and nominations received by Rosalía (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional page on artist's awards and nominations lacking sufficient reliable sources for support. Meatsgains(talk) 02:50, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:35, 11 September 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. North America1000 08:54, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael L. Marin[edit]

The result was keep. Withdrawn by the nominater (non-admin closure) Mysticair667537 (talk) 06:45, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael L. Marin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable vascular surgeon that fails WP:GNG and WP:RS with no WP:SIGCOV. Has only received 1,566 page views from Sep 2018 to Aug 2019. The only sources listed in the article are medical journals which don't count as they're self published. A WP:Before search did not yield any significant coverage. There are also three other articles that I'm nominating for deletion. Mysticair667537 (talk) 02:27, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages]:

Frank Veith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Juan C. Parodi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Claudio J. Schonholz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
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 Infinity (comic book). Mz7 (talk) 05:52, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Infinity (comics)[edit]

Infinity (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable fictional character TTN (talk) 02:09, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 02:09, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 02:09, 11 September 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 Eternals (comics). RL0919 (talk) 04:42, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Uni-Mind[edit]

Uni-Mind (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable fictional topic TTN (talk) 02:08, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 02:08, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 02:08, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge to Eternals (comics). BOZ (talk) 04:11, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Eternals (comics), where enough info exists to describe the subject. I suspect this might be recreated closer to the movie coming out, if the concept is used there, but WP:CRYSTALBALL applies. --Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 12:09, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above Argento Surfer (talk) 16:31, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Eternals (comics), where it is sufficiently covered. It has no sources to demonstrate any notability independent from the topic of the Eternals, and is thus an unnecessary split at this point. Rorshacma (talk) 17:53, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, let's see. It is true that the article doesn't have good refs at the moment. Are there good refs easily available? Yes. Yes, there are. here is one. here is one. here is one. here is one. here is one. Stopped there; there are presumably more. Are these sources, taken together 1) notable enough, and 2) reliably accurate enough, and 3) containing enough usable material, such that the WP:GNG can be met? Yes, I think so. Yes, they are. However, maybe I'm wrong; I don't think so, but other people may reasonably disagree, and its something we can discuss. It's going to have to be a fairly complicated discussion, but we can start here.
We haven't had that discussion yet. There haven't been any arguments, yet. Nominator's rationale was just "Non-notable" (which, if true, is sufficient; not complaining, just that it's not a highly developed argument yet), the other "votes" have basically been people nodding their heads. I'd like to see a bit more rigor before we throw other editors' work in the trash.
So the argument I'm laying out is that it looks to probably meet the WP:GNG. This remains up in the air. We've got some ref-finding and ref-vetting to do here, lads and lasses, so lets roll up our sleeves. We can always relist, there's no hurry, the important thing is to get this right.
Another argument in favor of keeping the article is that the "votes" so far are mostly for redirecting to Eternals (comics). There is a fair amount material about the Uni-Mind in that article, but 1) there is less, and 2) it is scattered here and there around that large article, and 3) there's no infobox with a picture of the thing, who created it, and so forth. And just to point out the obvious, this article does have links to Eternals (comics). It's not like the reader can't read both articles if she wants. So... converting the article to a redirect, you are degrading the reader's experience because... because why, exactly? Hmnh? Isn't that kind of an important question?
Also FWIW, timing. They are apparently making a major-studio movie with these "Eternals" people, and this "Uni-Mind" will maybe be in it. So kind of an awkward time to be deleting it. Herostratus (talk) 02:12, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This and this aren't even close to being independent, reliable sources showing notability as the first is nothing but a list of comics the character appeared in and the latter is a page from the official Marvel site. The other three sources are nothing more than brief rundowns of the Eternals in general, describing the Uni-Mind in only in terms of WP:PLOT, and not demonstrating any sort of real-world notability. In fact, if anything, those sources just strengthen my argument for Redirection, as they pretty much show that the Uni-mind is not independently notable from the Eternals in general. Rorshacma (talk) 04:21, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good points! Let's hop in a little deeper and see what's what. Fleshing out the bare links I threw up earlier, let's see what we get.
  • Den of Geek. Content is about three sentences, plus there are some panels from the comic. It's not a lot, but it's a start toward constructing an article. Den of Geek has an article here and anybody wanting to vet its reliablilty and notability can start there. The article is by Marc Buxton. Buxton has written quite a lot for Comic Book Resources, which has an article here and seems to be a pretty big and professional organization, and Buxton demonstrates exepertise in this area and is active in the field.
  • CMRO, you mentioned. It's got just a little bit of info, such as the date of of the first issue and who created the entity (Jack Kirby, mostly), and list of appearances, This is not a lot, but it's useful info for the "Publication History" section, and for finding out who has drawn and inked and written this Uni-Mind person. So it's useful. CMRO looks to be a one-man operation buy Travis Starnes, who is nobody special, but they do point us to online versions of the comics where we can vet for ourselves if their information is correct (seems to be), and these online versions (which we can't link to directly) are hosted by Marvel itself so they are surely accurate. There's no notability conferred by this source tho.
  • this one is CBR, whom we already talked about. It is by Tim Adams. There is not much there there, tho -- couple sentences.
  • here we have comicbook.com, which I don't know who they are they are (they don't have an article here, but search gives 1,725 instances of the string "comicbook.com" here, most surely being ref cites, and they're a professional-looking outfit, if that means anything. The article is by Russ Burlingame; judge for yourself how expert he is. There's a couple-few sentences in this source, but they're meaty. We are making progress.
  • next up we've got Marvel itself, which is gold standard for reliability I guess. There's a couple of tiny factoids is all, tho. Slim pickings, as you noted.
OK that's that... so hey, what about books? First book returned is "Kirby Five-Oh! Celebrating 50 Years of the King of Comics". It is by John Morrow, and its published by his little house, TwoMorrows Publishing, which you can read about him there. There's not a lot there, but there's enough for a nice quote maybe. "John Morrow describes Kirby's incarnation of the Uni-Mind as as 'just a stylized floating brain which isn't terribly impressive' but applauds his skill in suggesting the 'vague illusion of a face' without actually drawing one." Something like that. Artistic analysis. If John Morrow is anybody worth quoting. He was asked by DC to write the intro for a couple of their books, so maybe.
OK, I'm out, for now, it's late! You guys's turn, let's see what y'all can come up with. We're making good progress! See if you can top me, let's make it a contest. Herostratus (talk) 08:46, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm hearing from this is that reliable secondary sources are not providing ongoing, in depth coverage specifically about uni-mind. what they are doing is devoting, at most, a few sentences while discussing the Eternals. Should we not follow their lead?--Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 09:06, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I hear you. So, the baseline standard is the General notability guideline (GNG). If an article meets the GNG it is "presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article". Not proven, but presumed, so the burden would tend to fall on the person wanting to hide or destroy the information.
The GNG is actually maddeningly vague, but it says that the coverage has to be:
  1. In sources (plural). I've always taken that to mean "two or more", and I think most people do. It doesn't require 7 sources or 12, and it doesn't say anything about "more than two", so: two. At least.
  2. In reliable sources. That's explained at the GNG, and if you want to vet the reliability of these sources -- how confident we can be that they provide accurate information, and what the source of that confidence is -- we can vet each one those grounds, individually. I personally am OK with most of these sources so far. (IMO it's also good, for establishing notability, if the sources are not really obscure, altho the GNG doesn't say that.)
  3. Finally, these multiple reliable (and notable) sources must provide significant coverage. Here's where the GNG leaves us mostly on our own. It only says that a entire book about the subject is significant coverage, and a passing mention in part of a single sentence is not significant coverage. Anything between is up for debate I guess, but a good de facto standard might be something like "sufficient material to create a decent useful article of reasonable size, up to reasonable Wikipedia standards for an article", meaning certainly more than a stub.
Wikipedia:Stub says "There is no set size at which an article stops being a stub... Editors may decide that an article with more than ten sentences is too big to be a stub, or that the threshold for another article may be 250 words. Others follow the Did you know? standard of 1,500 characters in the main text. AutoWikiBrowser is frequently set to automatically remove stub tags from any article with more than 500 words." Wikipedia:Article size says "If an article has remained at less then 1024 bytes for over a couple of months, consider combining it with a related page" if it can't be expanded. Wikipedia:Size comparisons says that the Wikipedia's mean article size is 640 words. Wikipedia:Words per article says 400 words, but they may using a rubric that includes redirects and so forth, or something.
Right now the article is about 483 words, 20 sentences, 2,555 characters (not including the infobox). That is short. It is shorter than than average article. But then, half our articles are going to be shorter than median (not sure about mean... we have a lot of short articles and also some very long ones, so the median size is probably higher than the mean, I guess).
(Whether we should have fewer, but longer, articles is a matter of opinion, and far outside the scope of this discussion; but anyway, we don't, and that is the de facto standard for now I guess.)
Anyway, right now the article is a typical short article, like millions of our short articles. It is more than a stub. . Can that size and level of detail be maintained? I'm not sure... probably, depending on various things. And remember, we're not sure finding good sources yet. Pitch in here, many hands make light work! Herostratus (talk) 22:21, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WAF & WP:NOTPLOT. TTN (talk) 22:33, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK. If you want to play throwing WP: page titles at each other, can I play too? WP:IDONTLIKEIT. WP:ENC ("Wikipedia... incorporates elements of... specialized encyclopedias"). WP:INCLUDE. OK I'm up 3-2, your turn. Herostratus (talk) 19:08, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It would be very nice of you to read and understand them. In your paragraphs of honestly quit pretentious text, you skip about while avoiding actually talking about anything. You address no concerns other than affirming your own mindset. Articles need to contain more than plot information. Neither of these AfDs you're prancing about in have any such information. There are certainly times for walls of text, but yours are just hiding that you have nothing to say. I don't want to be rude, but this is just getting silly coming back to a book that addresses nothing each time. TTN (talk) 21:11, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as above. There is no non-plot-summary content, and the target already has enough in-universe plot summary cruft already. Reyk YO! 11:42, 15 September 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. No argument or request for deletion has been presented. Please use article talk pages for questions or open-ended discussion. postdlf (talk) 14:36, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of mottos[edit]

List of mottos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I came across this list of mottos and I'm not sure if it is worth having a list of mottos? Do we need a list of mottos? It has been tagged with insufficient inline citations since 2013 and if this is meant to be a list of all mottos, well it's definitely never going to be complete and it is already huge so I don't think it would be a good idea to add more. Anyway, I want to see what others think, don't mind the outcome Steven (Editor) (talk) 02:05, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Steven (Editor) (talk) 02:05, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Steven (Editor) (talk) 02:05, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Steven (Editor) (talk) 02:05, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Steven (Editor) (talk) 02:05, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Steven (Editor) (talk) 02:05, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Steven (Editor) (talk) 02:05, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Steven (Editor) (talk) 02:05, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Steven (Editor) (talk) 02:05, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Steven (Editor) (talk) 02:05, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Steven (Editor) (talk) 02:05, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Steven (Editor) (talk) 02:05, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The size of a length and whether it can be completed are not valid reasons for deletion. This is a useful tool for research, and useful to have in an encyclopedia. Dream Focus 04:42, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep This is certainly an indiscriminate list but has potential despite the current lack of sources – it needs some sort of inclusion criteria. Having written List of U.S. state and territory mottos to FL I know there ought to be sources and a way to establish the the list as a whole, but it shouldn't be indefinitely long. Not sure high schools really need to be listed (and delete the universities since there's a separate list for that). But to begin with, most of those in the Business section are actually slogans not mottos and quite a few of those listed for cities are actually nicknames... Reywas92Talk 05:30, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be more useful as seperate articles. Rathfelder (talk) 07:09, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems like a reasonable list. Will probably require splitting. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:07, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Frivolous nomination without any regard to policies such as WP:ATD, WP:BEFORE, WP:LISTN and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 11:21, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Grogg[edit]

Charles Grogg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to meet WP:CREATIVE. Does not meet WP:NPROF. Received one award (the Clarence John Laughlin Award) - given out by a regional organization (New Orleans Photo Alliance), neither of which are notable. Note that almost all of the content within the article was added by SPAs in 2010 and 2015 (before undisclosed paid editing was a rule). Risker (talk) 01:47, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • DeleteKeep. At first I thought this was an automatic keep per WP:ARTIST, as his bio page indicates numerous muusem collections. However I tried to verify these and all attempts failed. At the same time, there are a few reviews along with several sources that are older that would seem likely to make him meet GNG. Pinging @Lopifalko:, as they might have a relevant and useful opinon, and they have previously edited the article. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:08, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you are referring to his personal website. I removed the data from the article. The "collections" that are referred to are the libraries of those organizations, which have one of his books, or the book about his photography, in their stacks. Risker (talk) 05:49, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I understand how the inflated museum collection claims worked, I am changing to delete. It calls all the good faith claims made by the article into question.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:09, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:36, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:36, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:36, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even in 2010, we had rules on conflict of interest. Even at that time, paid editing, declared or undeclared, would have been regarded as conflict of interest. Though we did not usually use COI alone as a reason or deletion, we certainly did use it to establish promotional intent, and we certainly deleted purely promotional articles. What we didn't have in 2010 was the present emphasis on examining new articles for this. But even not looking closely it should have been noticed that the main contributor to the early version was "PhotoDealer" and to subsequent version "Photoartistcompiler ". DGG ( talk ) 23:57, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:37, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lex Ledesma[edit]

Lex Ledesma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I PRODed this but it was contested by another editor. I can find 2 interviews with ABS-CBN but apart from that all I see is Wikipedia mirrors, some info on the site of the school he founded and some trivia. I don’t think there’s enough here to demonstrate notability. Mccapra (talk) 01:36, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 01:36, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 01:36, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 01:36, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - only currently cited source is clearly not independent; interviews are likewise not independent. Without any significant independent coverage, fails WP:NBIO. MarginalCost (talk) 01:59, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Fails notability required for a BLP. Utopes (talk) 03:37, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nomination - MA Javadi (talk) 23:00, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:37, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Reed[edit]

Aaron Reed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was created by an admitted employee of Reed's publisher, who also admitted that this bio was sent to her by Reed himself and is continuing to work with the subject on the article. He also does not appear to pass WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR, but even if he did it would most likely be a WP:TNT situation. GPL93 (talk) 00:43, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 00:43, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 00:43, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A Google search on my end returns several different Aaron Reeds in the first two pages, none of whom are the one in question. None of the sources given establish notability as they are not independent. I'm not aware that the employee knew that submission of copyrighted material by its owner to Wikipedia cedes that copyright to Wikipedia's licenses before I told her, so I say we delete it especially if Reed wants to keep the copyright to that written bio. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:08, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete I am not in direct contact with the author. I was misunderstood in that. I am in contact with the publisher, and we are happy to revise, rewrite, suggest edits, and add citations to amend this issue. Hbrennah (talk) 02:05, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
— Note to closing admin: Hbrennah (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.
You can only vote once, but you can comment as many times as you'd like. The awards are not at level in which passing WP:GNG can be bypassed. GPL93 (talk) 19:09, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Finday[edit]

Finday (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability. Sources are Alexa rankings, the company website, and a couple of press releases, none of which meet the standard for reliable sources. Couldn't find any third party coverage from my own search. creffett (talk) 00:12, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 00:12, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 00:12, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 00:12, 11 September 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2019_September_11&oldid=1142612938"