Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 September 16

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 15 September	17 September >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:18, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Equality (Titles) Bill[edit]

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

I have nominated this article for deletion for the following reason; Is it Notable? - specifically it seems of temporary interest. As the bill did not progress beyond the committee stage and will make no further progress it has no historical significance and has not received press coverage since a handful of articles in newspaper since it was proposed in 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cappo198 (talk • contribs) 17:08, August 16, 2019 (UTC)

Comment This discussion page was created without the {{afd2}} tag and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have no opinion on the nomination itself. --Finngall ^talk 19:12, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 19:13, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:14, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 23:48, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly satisfies WP:GNG. It received significant coverage in a wide variety of high-quality sources between mid-2013 and early 2014. It has been less discussed since then, but it is not accurate to say it hasn't received any coverage since 2013. Here are a few examples of coverage in recent years: [1], [2], [3], [4]. Moreover, the article is pretty well-written, well-referenced, and linked to by more than half a dozen mainspace articles. Deleting it would be doing a disservice to the encyclopedia. Colin M (talk) 21:41, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think there's enough here to meet the notabilty guideline. The fact that it's only a bill does matter, but not that much -- we should also weight the amount of coverage the bill received on an ongoing, long-term basis as referenced by Colin M (talk · contribs) -- plenty of proposed legislation that never is enacted ends up becoming a major story in and of itself and are worthy of an article. Michepman (talk) 00:03, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others. If this is closed, we may consider reconsidering whether or not Succession to Peerages Bill (2015–2016) and Succession to Peerages Bill (2016–2017) are notable. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 16:17, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sourced provided by Colin M - thanks for your hard work! --DannyS712 (talk) 05:49, 23 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. Randykitty (talk) 07:50, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mountain Valley School[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:NSCHOOL. Vermont (talk) 01:34, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The school has received lots of coverage due to its demolition and reconstruction process; the governor had some involvement in this. It's the biggest, most comprehensive school in one of Colorado's geographically largest counties.Jeffrey Beall (talk) 11:22, 8 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:14, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:14, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:14, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources I found include editorials about repairing the school, passage of the bond for repairing the school, and a single source that looked at the renovations (albeit paywalled without any indication that there is anything interesting beyond the paywall). I think this school is is WP:MILL. Rockphed (talk) 11:45, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Repurpose as Mountain Valley School District. At the end of the day we need to take a view as to whether the Project gains from the deletion of a page and I don't see how deleting an article on a public school is beneficial. However, whatever view is taken on the notability of high schools, school district articles are invariably kept. In this case we have a one school district. Therefore moving the page and rewriting the lead to reflect the district (which I am happy to do) seems the pragmatic way forward. 2A02:C7F:4481:8300:90DC:E235:5074:54B0 (talk) 21:22, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability, run of the mill school; WP:MILL - does not meet WP:NSCHOOL or WP:ORG which require significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources - Epinoia (talk) 00:28, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 23:38, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per not meeting WP:NSCHOOL and not having enough secondary sources. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 00:18, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a little K-12 school in a very rural area, no sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:20, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above editors it is just a little k-12 school in rural area which doesn't show any sign of notability. Funnygooster (talk) 14:30, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked sock. MER-C 16:52, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant coverage. Barca (talk) 18:25, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL.4meter4 (talk) 05:39, 23 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) 00:48, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Stubbs[edit]

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

Fails WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:GNG, as most coverage is routine generated around roster transactions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 23:14, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 23:14, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 23:14, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 23:14, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails all three criteria of WP:NGRIDIRON. Alansohn (talk) 23:33, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Alansohn. It fails the WP:NGRIDIRON notability criteria and only has 1 secondary source. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 00:25, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per above and also fails WP:NCOLLATH. Ostealthy (talk) 08:54, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete Fails WP:NCOLLATH and WP:NGRIDIRON. No evidence he meets the GNG.Sandals1 (talk) 14:37, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone above.4meter4 (talk) 05:40, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Would suggest redirecting to 2019 Cleveland Browns season, but didn't play a full season with them --DannyS712 (talk) 05:51, 23 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. Consensus is that a list article for this specific intersection of attributes lacks encyclopedic value, and a more comprehensive listing would be too large. RL0919 (talk) 00:51, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of living former members of the Ontario Legislative Assembly[edit]

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

Dynamic and unreferenced list that isn't being adequately maintained for utility or accuracy. Firstly, the creator of this list applied an arbitrary cutoff date to it, not adding anybody who was elected to the legislative assembly in or after 1990 even though there's no real reason to treat that year as the bright red line of irrelevance to a list of living former MPPs -- the only reason I can discern for leaving post-1990 MPPs out is that he just didn't want to actually put in any more work. (And if you want to try the argument that post-1990 MPPs are younger and thus simply expected to still be alive without having to be noted as such, well, David Caplan's got news for you.)
Secondly, even former MPPs who are here are not actually getting removed from it when they do die; just on a partial spotcheck of random articles, I caught four people who died within the past year but were never removed from the list at all (and no, Caplan wasn't even one of them, since he was post-1990 and thus never got added here in the first place), and I'm not overly inclined to go through the entire list by myself to check for any other zombies.
And thirdly, the list is violating some very important principles of accessible design -- instead of denoting party affiliation with a small coloured box in front of the row, this is colour-blocking the whole row. But we decided at least a decade ago that we shouldn't do things this way, because people with visual impairments (colour blindness, etc.) may have difficulty reading text against saturated coloured backgrounds -- and even people without visual impairments are a bit fuckered here too, if a Liberal MPP represented a district that doesn't have an article yet. Red on red...very bad idea. (Red on orange, if an NDP MPP represented a district that doesn't have an article yet, isn't exactly a million times better either.)
This was a good faith creation at the time, but it's not worth keeping if we can't commit to maintaining or updating it consistently -- this is not such a critically important page for us to have that it would be worth keeping in a misleading and incomplete form just because bad is "better" than nothing. Bearcat (talk) 22:51, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:51, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:51, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even disregarding these major clean up issues, I don't see the notability and encyclopedicity of such a database of people. I'm not even sure what anyone is supposed get out of this information (especially since it's not exactly reported by anyone other than the organization they're members of). I don't think it's been formalized anywhere but these sort of sections on lists on positions have been somewhat deprecated. Reywas92^Talk 01:06, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:50, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there's no informational value in splitting out what former members of this legislature are still alive, but I'm also having trouble finding a broader list covering all members or former members without regard to that status. So perhaps this should be expanded by dropping "living" from the criteria? postdlf (talk) 14:12, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have one single "unified" list of all former MPPs anywhere, but such a list would have several thousand members and would be too long to be useful or maintainable — what we do already have in place, however, is standalone lists of the members of each session of the assembly, categorized at Category:Terms of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. Bearcat (talk) 17:09, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:06, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since all members of the Ontario Parliament are default notable per our politican notability guidelines, we can just have a category for members that will cover everyone. The lists Bearcat points to are also helpful.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:31, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the intersect isn't helpful here. SportingFlyer T·C 03:57, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can see no encyclopedic value to this list.4meter4 (talk) 11:48, 23 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) 00:53, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Direct imports[edit]

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

Unreferenced personal essay Rathfelder (talk) 22:28, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:40, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing any evidence that this is a recognized term/concept as described. When I search for "direct imports" on Google Scholar, most sources seem to be talking about imports directly into country C from country A, rather than A -> B -> C. Colin M (talk) 21:48, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MADEUP, WP:TNT, and WP:MILL. Every budding entrepreneur has come up with some version of cutting out the middle man. This essay isn't even wrong. Bearian (talk) 15:21, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't pass Wp:GNG. Funnygooster (talk) 15:04, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked sock. MER-C 16:52, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article needs to be expanded. Barca (talk) 18:45, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not verifiable per Wikipedia's standards.4meter4 (talk) 12:18, 23 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) 02:35, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Baradello[edit]

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

Promotional article for professional speaker. No evidence of meeting notability as WP:PROF or theGNG--the refs are either notices or pr, or non-independent. DGG ( talk ) 22:55, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Promotional or vanity page. Also has all the hallmarks of a commissioned work. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:15, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I personally see no significant notability, nor see any sense of statements or refs that could prove notability. In addition, there seems to be a heavy sense that the article is of a promotional nature. - Navarre0107 (talk) 02:53, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, apparently non-notable – seems to have published one article, which has been cited 5 times, and thus to have an h-index of 1. And yes, it certainly looks very much like paid work; Ruhri Jörg, were you hired to create this page? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:12, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Hi all. Same old story - apparently I'm still struggling to find the right balance between wanting to create new articles for people in alumni / faculty environments that I find interesting and think might pass as notable - and them actually doing so. In this case I judged that Baradello wouldn't pass academic notability, after looking at his h-index, but thought that the Spanish sources (esp. this one in El Diario, this and this might suffice and had enough to allow for an article. Especially since the first one was a full cover and not just some trivial mention. But maybe it's too regional? He seems to be a voice in the sector of innovation and I tried to keep the article very neutral. But probably was still influenced by Speaker.com and others. Since most of you are much more experienced than I am - as per usual I bow to the majority vote... just wish I got this figured out faster so I don't always invest so much work :P Should I do this in the sandbox in the future and ask for feedback first? Is there anything else I can do better to make sure they actually pass? Feedback appreciated --RuhriJörg 14:36, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S.: The three mentioned sources seemed to me to be neither notices, pr nor non-independend @DGG: am I wrong? --Ruhri Jörg 14:44, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:16, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:16, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Although the numbers suggest a "delete" consensus, i would like time given to assess Ruhri Jörg's sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:59, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no indication of person ever doing anything notable. Abductive (reasoning) 07:44, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing to see here (fails WP:GNG). Xxanthippe (talk) 10:22, 18 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (academics) and WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 11:51, 23 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. All involved agree that this article needs some improvement. There is a disagreement on how that improvement should occur but general consensus that this a notable topic that should be kept. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:13, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deaf News[edit]

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

Reads more like an essay-like summary of a topic than an encyclopedia article. ViperSnake151 Talk 20:05, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:08, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I think this falls under the WP:NOTESSAY and WP:NOTFORUM rules, meaning that if it were to be included as an article, it would need to be significantly edited. - Navarre0107 (talk) 03:08, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have been involved in a deaf community and I can tell you that deaf people communicate and express themselves in ways completely different to hearing people (see Deaf culture) - if this article seems stilted and awkward, it's a deaf person trying to express themselves in hearing language - that said, the article is really a list of deaf news outlets - the article is lacking in sources, but Wikipedia:Notability (media) allows that periodicals are notable if they are "significant publications in...non-trivial niche markets" - the deaf community is a non-trivial niche market - unfortunately, only the link to www.thebuffandblue.net is working, all the other links to deaf news outlets listed in the article are dead links - the article could be deleted due to lack of sources, but my experience with the deaf community and knowing the exclusion that they experience from the hearing world makes me lean towards a keep - Epinoia (talk) 21:36, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:53, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The topic itself is interesting, but I would suggest re-naming it Media in the Deaf Community. It's poorly written, and lack sourcing, but it is an encyclopedic topic.4meter4 (talk) 11:55, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: OK Epinoia you have won me over! - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:39, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if cleaned up. Here are several sources that could be used to source this article and make it pass WP:GNG: [5], [6], [7], [8]. Best.4meter4 (talk) 02:09, 24 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. (non-admin closure) ~~ OxonAlex - talk 14:11, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Naomi Wakabayashi[edit]

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

Subject is not known for any significant roles other than Ritsuko Akizuki from Idolmaster and Kud and Little Busters. Sk8erPrince (talk) 18:08, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:28, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:28, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:30, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No need for WP:NACTOR. This person satisfies WP:NMUSIC 2 and 10. Her iDOLM@STER character's three albums and one single (all four solo) charted at 10, 19, 20, and 34. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 16:20, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've skimmed the Japanese article and found out that she is no doubt notable since she only had a significant role in the anime The Twelve Kingdoms.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:37, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is only one reference in the article and that is to Wakabayashi's own blog - does not meet WP:BASIC; no significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources - Epinoia (talk) 03:10, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:53, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per results from the Japanese wiki. Govvy (talk) 22:27, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- Dream Focus 11:36, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NACTOR clearly states: "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." Multiple means two or more, as clearly defined in the dictionary. Since the nominator admits they have two significant roles, I see no reason for this AFD. Dream Focus 11:37, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Statements appear to be reliably sourced. Barca (talk) 19:28, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per results from the Japanese wiki. - MA Javadi (talk) 20:02, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A related AFD is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aoi Ichikawa. More participation there please. Dream Focus 22:09, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How is it related? The only thing these two have in common is their occupation. I don't think you're allowed to WP:CANVASS other editors like this.... --Sk8erPrince (talk) 22:31, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is not canvassing to try to get more people to participate in an AFD which for some reason got overlooked by most. They may be familiar with the roles in the series the person has been in, or have other information about them. Dream Focus 22:46, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Each AFD is different, and independent of each other. I disagree with your assessment that the Ichikawa AFD is in any way related. I just happened to have nommed that for deletion as well. There is no real correlation, and not to mention, I have never seen anyone attempt to call attention to another AFD in an AFD discussion. Heck, I am not even sure if you're even *allowed* to do that (I have a feeling that it's not). --Sk8erPrince (talk) 23:00, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Their articles look about the same to me. Both have a very brief bit of information about them at the top, and then the article lists all their roles. And I've seen this done many times before, it is allowed between similar articles. Dream Focus 23:04, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment AfD is not cleanup. As written, the article clearly fails WP:NBIO and various NACTOR. There is no indication that any of her roles (mostly, voice) where for major characters. No indication she has any fans, got covered in press, etc. FoxyGrampa75 mentions music involvement but it is not discussed in the article at all. As far as I know, idolmaster is a large group, so it's not like they were solo works, through this wikia page suggests there is a lot of related products. There's some minor celeb coverage in anime-fandom [9]. This probably needs fixing, rather than deletion, through I think her notability is more related to passing NMUSIC than NACTOR. I'd appreciate if someone else familiar with NMUSIC could confirm she passes based on this criteria; please ping me if there is more discussion on that. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:55, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. passes WP:NACTOR #1 and passes WP:NMUSIC #s 2 and 10. Lightburst (talk) 22:49, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets basic notability criteria per Lightburst and Piotrus --DannyS712 (talk) 05:52, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NMUSIC and WP:NACTOR.4meter4 (talk) 11:59, 23 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 Kevin Nash. (non-admin closure) ~~ OxonAlex - talk 14:13, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Master Blasters[edit]

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

Non notable tag team. Fails WP:GNG Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 21:10, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 21:10, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete and merge any useful cites and info into Kevin Nash. Not notable Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:26, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
REDIRECT and MERGE to Kevin Nash.4meter4 (talk) 12:03, 23 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) 20:42, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Flint[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that he has played in the EFL Trophy. However, that match was not against another WP:FPL club, so it does not satisfy WP:NFOOTY. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:03, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:03, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:07, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:07, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:04, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:22, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - both fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 07:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now, fails GNG and NFOOTBALL, can be restored if he makes his debut. Govvy (talk) 17:58, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GiantSnowman.4meter4 (talk) 12:19, 23 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 Meher Baba#1950s – God Speaks and automobile accidents. (non-admin closure) ~~ OxonAlex - talk 17:29, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Avatar's Abode[edit]

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

Contested PROD. I am unable to find substantive coverage of this institution in reliable sources that are genuinely independent of the subject. The sourcing looks impressive on the face of it, but in fact consists of two self-published books, two books from publishers associated with Meher Baba, and two from authors affiliated with him. Therefore, delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:25, 16 September 2019 (UTC) To be clear, I'd be fine with redirecting this, too; I'm just certain there's no material for a standalone page. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:51, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:28, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging participants (minus the SPA) from the other AfD about this, since they've bothered to research a similar topic: @Winged Blades of Godric, Sitush, Nemonoman, GSS, Hyperbolick, Rockphed, Randy Kryn, Epinoia, and Rorshacma: Vanamonde (Talk) 20:31, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) ~~Delete~~ Redirect I looked at this earlier today and reached a similar conclusion to Vanamonde93. It is part of the Meher Baba walled garden. - Sitush (talk) 20:32, 16 September 2019 (UTC) Rethought this, based on comments below - a redirect will be ok, although I am confused that people are saying "per nom" because Vanamonde has been proposing a delete. - Sitush (talk) 15:44, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge somewhere. Other end of the equation is that there may be some actually interested in learning about this. Might retain some morsel of information in some article. Hyperbolick (talk) 20:36, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Meher Baba#1950s – God Speaks and automobile accidents where Avatar's Abode is already described - possible Merge, but Redirect seems more reasonable - Epinoia (talk) 20:47, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Meher Baba#1950s – God Speaks and automobile accidents per nom and above. ∯WBG^converse 05:58, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:02, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:02, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:02, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Meher Baba#1950s – God Speaks and automobile accidents per nom and above. 4meter4 (talk) 12:27, 23 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 she has managed to mostly stay out the media, then she will be mostly out of Wikipedia as well due to not meeting WP:GNG or other notability standards. RL0919 (talk) 01:00, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Pedrero-MacMillan[edit]

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

No indication of notability per WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Notability is not inherited like wealth, and I am unable to find multiple reliable sources that discuss her in a significant way. ... discospinster _talk 20:12, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 20:12, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is fundamentally incorrect. The whole point (read the Forbes article) is that this family is incredibly secretive. Your inability to uncover their secrets does not make these billionaires unnotable. Hawerchuk (talk) 20:18, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Actually it does, according to Wikipedia criteria of notability. ... discospinster _talk 01:34, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No indication of individual notability. Simply being part of a family does not makeone notable. Lard Almighty (talk) 07:44, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

She was the chair of Cargill's investment arm, and is on the board of both that company and Cargill itself. Literally one of the most-powerful businesspeople in the country. And you think that's not notable? Hawerchuk (talk) 15:25, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a matter of what you or I think. It's a matter of whether she meets Wikipedia's notability requirements. She doesn't. Lard Almighty (talk) 15:37, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite from there what you view as the lack of notability. It is not obvious to me. Hawerchuk (talk) 17:24, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination clearly states the issues. Lard Almighty (talk) 18:36, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:27, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not seeing notability and mostly primary or self published sources were used. Jooojay (talk) 01:54, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete she may have huge influence in a majr company, but that does not create notability. What is needed is showing this, which is lacking. None of her positions to date make her default notable, and we would need better sourcing to even suggest notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:56, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 12:31, 23 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 independent reliable sources providing significant coverage of him as an individual. RL0919 (talk) 01:07, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Richard A. Cargill[edit]

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

No indication of notability per WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Notability is not inherited like wealth, and I am unable to find multiple reliable sources that discuss him in a significant way. ... discospinster _talk 20:10, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 20:10, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 20:10, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is fundamentally incorrect. The whole point (read the Forbes article) is that this family is incredibly secretive. Your inability to uncover their secrets does not make these billionaires unnotable. Hawerchuk (talk) 20:17, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We can't report on secretive people unless some whistleblower spills the beans, so to speak. Wikipedia doesn't do original research. Unless he has news coverage or some other sort of notability, he does not pass criteria for inclusion. Delete per what I said and nom. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 00:39, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. No indication of individual notability. Simply being part of a family does not make one notable. Lard Almighty (talk) 07:46, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How does he differ in notability from his father Austen S. Cargill II, who has had a page for 6 years? Hawerchuk (talk) 05:13, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:SIGCOV, WP:GNG, WP:SYNTH, and WP:SOAP. Notability is not inherited normally from who one's family; of course there's exceptions such as royalty. Lacking significant coverage in reliable sources, the person is by definition not notable, even if he's famous and wealthy. Also, we don't make up stuff or add opinion to fill in an encyclopedia article. We are a charitable not-for-profit and as such can't politicize our services; if someone has an ax to grind, there are many free blogs (might I suggest DailyKos?). Bearian (talk) 15:29, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dailykos? Is it 2006? Hawerchuk (talk) 18:34, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. I might also suggest salting this as it has been deleted and recreated before and the page creator seems a bit tendentious in this discussion. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 06:42, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not make accusations here. On first creation, the article got a speedy deletion tag. I posted a reason that it should not be subject to speedy deletion, and a different editor ignored that and deleted it. As I understand it, that should not have happened, hence I re-created the page. Hawerchuk (talk) 04:15, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly don't understand Wikipedia policies, so maybe you should stop creating articles until you do. An admin will have read your objection and decided that the article should still be deleted. You are also not helping your cause with these comments. Lard Almighty (talk) 06:27, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawerchuk: You are thinking of proposed deletion here. A speedy deletion can still take place after an objection. ... discospinster _talk 13:45, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Suggest salting to prevent re-creation.4meter4 (talk) 12:33, 23 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. As per the standards usually applied to political candidates, routine coverage of a Congressional race does not confer notability on all the candidates; they must either win, attract some unusual coverage beyond the routine, or already be notable for some other reason. Consensus is that none of those apply here. RL0919 (talk) 01:13, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Damian Kidd[edit]

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

Previous version of this article was deleted in 2017. Nothing has changed in terms of the person's notability since then. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:00, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:00, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:00, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I added this article because I believe the original should not have been deleted to begin with. Damian Kidd is a noteworthy person because he challenged Jason Chaffetz due to his support for Donald Trump and Kidd was a part of the pushback against the current US President's policies. Adjohnbrock

Running for office is not enough to satisfy WP:NPOL. It does not make him notable. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:30, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Garnering national media coverage does though: Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. I've cited multiple national media outlets that covered his political run. Adjohnbrock (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:46, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources cover Chaffetz and barely mention Kidd, like this one. This source you cited doesn't mention him at all, and neither does this one, or this one. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:56, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. But this one from the Washington Post discusses his involvement at length and even has Kidd's photo at the top. Again, I feel this sort of press coverage makes Kidd noteworthy regarding the blowback against the President in historically conservative regions of the US.Adjohnbrock —Preceding undated comment added 21:00, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. People are not deemed notable just for running as candidates in elections they did not win, and they are not automatically more special than other candidates just because of the profile of who they ran against. And no, to deem a candidate a special case of significantly greater notability than the norm still requires a lot more than just one piece of more than local coverage — the bar he would have to clear is that his coverage had exploded to Christine O'Donnell proportions (i.e. so much nationalized coverage that a full decade later, her article is still to this day longer and more deeply sourced than our article about the guy she lost to, even though he's been an actual senator for that entire decade). This is not referenced even close to well enough to make his candidacy markedly more special than everybody else's candidacies. Bearcat (talk) 23:54, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Preserve.Unfortunately, Wikipedia is full of failed candidates who didn't receive the coverage you are alluding to. In fact, here's one right here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Morgan_(lawyer). What makes this person's wikipedia notable and not Damian Kidd? Neither one of these people won a single term in office. Hardly fair to bend the rules for one person but not another.Adjohnbrock

He doesn't have an article because he was a candidate; he has an article because he's properly sourced as having already been notable enough for other reasons that he qualifies for an article regardless of his candidacy — and, in fact, he already had an article two years before he was ever a candidate for anything at all. People who were already notable enough for Wikipedia articles under other criteria don't lose their Wikipedia articles just because they also happened to run for political office and lose — we're not deleting Hillary Clinton, either, since she had already held three other notable political roles before she lost the presidential election, and was thus already notable regardless of whether she won or lost — but that does not mean that people who weren't already notable enough for Wikipedia articles get into Wikipedia because they were unsuccessful candidates. Bearcat (talk) 16:11, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Adjohnbrock:, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. We're here to discuss Kidd, not Morgan. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:28, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Whatever. Seems pretty arbitrary to me. The rules are only ever really enforced to protect the sanctity of the popular club. My mistake. Delete away then. Adjohnbrock

snort Bearcat (talk) 16:40, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In addition to failing to meet notability standards there is a likely undisclosed WP:COI with the article's creator and the Kidd's law firm, given the editor also created a bio for Kidd's partner, Matthew Driggs (lawyer) (CSDed under G11, appeal denied). Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:59, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
GPL93, good catch. Adjohnbrock, do you have an undisclosed conflict of interest? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:48, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on my standards at User:Bearian/Standards#Non-notability. It's not policy, but it fills in where the policies don't go. In this case, there's absolutely nothing he's done as a lawyer that's beyond run of the mill. As a politician, he never made it past a vote of a district convention - in fact, he never even appeared on a public ballot in a primary election. Lots of people run in conventions, but that does not make them notable as we define it. Perhaps the gentle reader thinks that being a leader of a "never Trump" movement matters? Compare Rich Wilson with this person. Bearian (talk) 15:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unelected candidates for office are not notable, ones who did not even get the nomination of a major party even more so.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:58, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 12:35, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 22:03, 23 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) 02:36, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Durbrow[edit]

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

Advert for the business of an also-ran athlete. Not quite notable, IMO. Killer Chihuahua 19:41, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:42, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:42, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems promotional and not encyclopedic. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 12:39, 23 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:42, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BMI_Gaming[edit]

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

BMI Gaming does not meet GNG. They are a very small company that sells arcade machines with only 21 employees listed on their Linkedin company page. They have no press coverage from reliable 3rd party sources. The only thing that comes up on Google are social media pages, directory listings for the company, a few reviews, and inclusion on a few ranking lists. If any of you worked in B2B marketing, you would know that inclusion on rankings lists is something you pay for. It generally costs around $3000 for inclusion on some magazine's "Top 100" list. Paid media is not credible for establishing notability. I don't see how a small company that sells arcade machines meets Wikipedia's notability standards. The Chinese carry out across the street from my apartment has more press coverage than BMI Gaming and they aren't on Wikipedia. Sonstephen0 (talk) 18:57, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:51, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:51, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As written, based primarily on press releases and such, this fails WP:NCORP by a long shot. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:31, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional and at best borderline notable. The combination of these two reason means there is no justification for having the article. DGG ( talk ) 05:00, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question to Sonstephen0: your statement about placement on top 100 lists and the like seems very reasonable, based on the apparent importance of the companies that usu this argument here, but do you have any source for it. If you do, it would greatly help dealing with similar article problems. DGG ( talk ) 05:03, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 12:39, 23 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. (non-admin closure) ~~ OxonAlex - talk 14:15, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Saffa Riffat[edit]

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

Résumé-like WP:BLP of an engineer, not properly sourced as clearing our notability standards for engineers. The references here are his own résumé in a Dropbox account and the self-published website of an organization he's directly affiliated with, not reliable source coverage that would establish his notability -- and while there are awards listed in the infobox (but not addressed in the body text), every award that exists is not always an automatic free pass over WP:ANYBIO: even an award still counts as a notability claim only to the extent that the award itself can be reliably sourced as a notable one, and people are not exempted from having to have any non-primary sourcing just because the article has the word "award" in it. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt Saffa Riffat from having to have much better sources than this. Bearcat (talk) 18:51, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:51, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:51, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Manually adding up his GS citations gives an h-index of 45, which in any field is enough for WP:PROF#C1. Being a Fellow of the CIBSE and the IMechE, as well as a member of the European Academy of Sciences [10][11] also looks like it's enough for WP:PROF#C3. The "news" search linked above retrieves a decent mix of items reporting on his work [12][13][14][15]. XOR'easter (talk) 19:53, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 20:13, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:PROF#C1 and #C3 as above. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:46, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep Plenty of citations and a position that both seem to meet WP:NPROF. Sandals1 (talk) 15:05, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets the criteria at WP:NPROF.4meter4 (talk) 12:40, 23 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 Maricopa County, Arizona#Education. (non-admin closure) ~~ OxonAlex - talk 14:15, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maricopa County School Superintendent[edit]

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

WP:MILL local government position. No WP:SIGCOV besides routine wording in state statues. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 17:39, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 17:39, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 17:39, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Maricopa_County,_Arizona#Education. That section could certainly use some content but this certainly is too much non-notable primary source material. Reywas92^Talk 17:57, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Maricopa_County,_Arizona#Education. Agree with Reywa92's rationale.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:25, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested. 12 years ago, the community decided that school superintendents were almost never notable, as we define it. I'm not going to cite the particulars, because it brings up bad memories of my losing fight when many strangers insulted me online and I was horrifically ratio'd. I don't see that this consensus has changed - if anything, we've all gone more deletionist. Bearian (talk) 15:44, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Maricopa_County,_Arizona#Education.4meter4 (talk) 12:41, 23 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. (non-admin closure) ~~ OxonAlex - talk 14:16, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doyne Dawson[edit]

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

Unremarkable Person Mdriscoll03 (talk) 17:35, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:38, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:38, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:AUTHOR per the standard of having multiple reviews of multiple books each. This is also an argument for passing WP:PROF in a research area where citation counts are generally uninformative. Reviews of Cities of the Gods: [16][17][18][19]. Reviews of The Origins of Western Warfare: [20][21][22]. XOR'easter (talk) 17:55, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the above reasons, and also because he is the only historian I'm aware of writing about group selection. cagliost (talk) 18:40, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The argument above for notability through WP:AUTHOR is convincing. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:46, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets the criteria at WP:AUTHOR.4meter4 (talk) 12:42, 23 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. – Joe (talk) 20:22, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Uliano[edit]

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

Highly advertorialized article about a television advertising producer, not properly referenced as clearing our notability standards for that career. The notability claim here basically boils down to claims that he won awards, but every award that exists is not always an automatic WP:ANYBIO freebie that exempts a person from having to clear WP:GNG on the sources -- the difference between an award that counts as a notability-maker for its winners and an award that does not hinges specifically on whether that award gets media coverage about the award presentation or not. An award whose ceremony gets reported by the media as news makes its winners notable; an award that can be referenced only to the awarding organization's self-published press release, because media coverage about it is non-existent, does not. But this entire article is referenced only to an award organization's press release, and everything else in it is personal information added by the subject himself with no sources for any of it. Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform for people to write about themselves in an advertorialized way; it is an encyclopedia, where notability requires real reliable and independent sources. Bearcat (talk) 16:50, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:50, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:50, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:50, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:29, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We've been over this many times: producers are almost never notable, and adjuncts are neither. Of course, a producer could be come notable for the length of their career, significant coverage in reliable sources such as unpaid coverage in Variety, winning a Grammy, or cutting-edge work, but that's all missing here. Producers, lawyers, and agents often work side by side with famous singers and musicians, but notability is not inherited from their co-workers. Finally, producing a work at the Venice Biennial is not automatically a "gimme" - it's a huge art show over more than a month and often involves thousands of artists; I'd include it as a reason for notability for an artist, but again it's a footnote. Bearian (talk) 16:04, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 12:47, 23 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 sufficient evidence of real-world notability. There was no discussion of a redirect, which is a common result for characters like this; if there is an appropriate target, I assume re-creation as a redirect would be OK. RL0919 (talk) 01:39, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Circuit Breaker (Transformers)[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional character TTN (talk) 16:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 16:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 16:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - absolutely no real world notability.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He may not have any real world notability however, he is a notable character in Transformers. Every Transformers fan knows who he is. Sonstephen0 (talk) 19:13, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Seriously? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:56, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Piotrus: there's no way this was a serious comment. The character's a woman. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:22, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. A redirect from this title is not appropriate because of confusion with circuit breakers and transformers. If kept a rename to something like Circuit Breaker (fictional character) is necessary. --Pontificalibus 10:59, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because Sonstephen0 comment made me almost fail off my chair. WP:ILIKEIT, really? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:56, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - You can't tell from the current article, but this character might have some claim to notability due to a quirk in the original copyright. Details hatted below. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:08, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

explanation of possible notability

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The licensing deal between Hasbro and Marvel for the Transformers comics gave Hasbro the copyright/trademark/legal rights to every concept and character that debuted in the series, which showed the giant robots interacting with Marvel heroes like Spider-Man. Circuitbreaker was created for Transformers, but Marvel snuck her into an issue of Secret Wars first to retain copyright to her. She became a significant character in the Transformers comic, but when the license passed on to different publishers in later decades, the copyright status played havoc with attempts to reprint the old Marvel stories. See this, this, and this for starters.Argento Surfer (talk) 14:08, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- @Argento Surfer: Good finds, as it finally shows some intersection with real worlds impact/significance, through they all mention this character in passing, just as one of the examples of the copyright issues in Marvel / Transformer licencing. I think NFICTION/GNG requires some in-depth coverage, and so far we don't have as much as a paragraph on her. I'll also note that the book you cite, while mentioning her name several times, is self-published (lulu.com). Still, that's a start, and again, thanks for finding those. Feel free to ping me if more sources appear and I'll be happy to reassess the situation. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:51, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree, what I have so far isn't sufficient. I'm looking through some print works I have, but if I can find coverage, it's going to be the minimum, not an abundance. This might be more worthy of mention at Transformers (comics), The Transformers (Marvel Comics), or maybe even a bulleted item at Licensed production, which currently focuses on vehicles and medicines. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:31, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Found this one too Argento Surfer (talk) 15:58, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The character is unnotable, and does not have sufficient coverage to pass the WP:GNG. The sources on the quirks of her copyright status are simply too brief to demonstrate any significant coverage. I would not be opposed to having the copyright issues be mentioned in the The Transformers (Marvel Comics) article, as suggested by Argento Surfer, though. Rorshacma (talk) 05:45, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 15:21, 23 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 consensus here is to delete, should new sources be found down the road those sources could be considered for notability.. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:39, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis P. Fisher[edit]

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

Biography of a person notable only as a smalltown mayor, not referenced as the subject of enough reliable source coverage to clear WP:NPOL #2. To be fair, this was actually created in 2004, a time when we accepted an article about practically anybody who had ever been mayor of anywhere because we hadn't really codified our notability standards for politicians at all yet -- but under the standards that apply in 2019, making a smalltown mayor notable enough for an article requires a lot more than just one or two pieces of cursory verification that he existed. Mayors are also not automatically notable just because they've had local infrastructure in their own town named after them, so the library and the hospital aren't notability clinchers -- but the sources here are a primary source that is not support for notability at all, a single retrospective article in the local newspaper, and a brief unsubstantive blurb about the probation of his will -- but every mayor of everywhere can always show two or three sources of this type to verify that he existed, so this is not enough to establish the permanent notability of a smalltown mayor all by itself. The key to making a smalltown mayor notable enough for an article is to show substantive and well-sourced reasons why he's much more special than most other smalltown mayors, not just to verify that he existed. Bearcat (talk) 16:03, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:03, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:03, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found this source [23] that mentions him with the post-nominal KC or King's Counsel which would mean that he may meet #1 of WP:ANYBIO. There is also mention of him in the Encyclopedia Britannica [24] and other passing mentions [25] but nothing consequential sadly. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:04, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Even a KC/QC lawyer still has to have reliable sources that go beyond just glancing namechecks of his existence — and we would need to see an Encyclopedia Britannica article about him, not just a mention of his name in the entry on the town, to count that toward GNG either. So, yeah, nothing consequential here. Bearcat (talk) 17:52, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Give the timeframe, more work is needed to ferret out sources from newspaper archives, but that doesn't mean the article should be deleted. You can see that he was re-elected 24 times, so there should be more cited. --Auric talk 19:32, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per NPOL, smalltown mayors get to keep articles only if they have a credible and properly sourced claim to being much more special than most other smalltown mayors, and the number of times a mayor got reelected is not such a claim in and of itself. Given that we're talking about an era in which mayoral elections were held annually, 24 elections wouldn't even make him an unusually long-serving mayor — serving for 24 years as mayor of a small town is hardly unprecedented, and wouldn't even get him into a list of the top 100 longest serving mayors in North American political history. Even being able to provide 24 pieces of technical verification of his election results still wouldn't even contribute a bloody thing to his notability, if there were no sources focusing in detail on the work he did in the mayor's chair.
And we also don't exempt articles from having to be properly sourced just because somebody speculates that maybe better sources might exist somewhere that nobody has actually found yet — articles that are not already making a valid and properly sourced notability claim get kept on WP:NEXIST grounds only if somebody shows hard evidence that the quality and depth of sourcing needed to get the article over the bar definitely does exist, and not if all you do is idly speculate about what might be possible. And so far, the only new references you've added to the article are a biographical source about the mayor's father, tangential confirmation of the death of his predecessor in what isn't even his most potentially notable role, and coverage about other things that got bequeathed money in his will — you have yet to add even one single solitary new source which has anything whatsoever to do with getting Fisher over NPOL as a person. Bearcat (talk) 19:36, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the articles I've found have more to do with his will and the results thereof. Note that the money didn't go to those things, they went to the creation of those things. I don't think I've seen any other mayors that have done the same. --Auric talk 10:25, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The distinction between "those things" and "the creation of those things", in terms of where the money went, being...? Also, you're obviously not familiar with a very significant number of mayors if you think a mayor bequeathing some of his estate to the city for municipal projects is unprecedented or unique. Bearcat (talk) 15:23, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

His estate (the majority of it) went to the creation of the L. P. Fisher Public Library, the Fisher Memorial School, and the Carleton County Vocational School. They funded their construction, not just to enrich pre-existing buildings. I didn't link to the notices of tender, but I can. The Fisher Memorial Hospital was previously his mansion and presumably, the money went to help its conversion into a hospital. --Auric talk 16:59, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Mayor of Woodstock, New Brunswick from 1856–1880 (population under 6,000 in 2016). The appropriate standard would be WP:GNG as a mayor of a city this size does not merit a pass under WP:NPOL. --Enos733 (talk) 00:58, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we only keep articles where sources have been identified. We do not keep articles just because there might be sources but people are too lazy to find them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:20, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What about articles where people have been looking for sources, but can't seem to find them?--Auric talk 10:11, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The inability to find notability-supporting sources directly implies the lack of notability-supporting sources. So no, articles aren't exempted from having to have notability-supporting sources just because you're putting in an effort — their keepability or deletablity hinges on the results that you actually get, not on how hard you're trying to find more than you're actually finding. Bearcat (talk) 15:41, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that, I just resent the implication that not being able to find those sources is a sign of laziness on other editors part. There are many people on Wikipedia that lack those sources but are still considered notable. Not everything is available on the Internet.--Auric talk 18:07, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. A search yielded no sources to establish notability.4meter4 (talk) 15:38, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How? From my reckoning, the article passes. (see WP:NEXIST, WP:NTEMP and WP:SUSTAINED)--Auric talk 18:20, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- If the sources exist, please produce them here (such as url links, relevant offline publications, etc). I personally found nothing in a google search, a JSTOR search, a google books search, and a google news search. There are no sources in the article which demonstrate the threshold of notability required in WP:GNG, and with none being produced here at this AFD then the subject can not be considered verifiably notable. Your assurance that there are noteworthy sources is not good enough. You must actually produce them so others can look at them, and agree with that assessment. If you can not do that, then the assumption is that they do not exist and that the subject is not notable. In other words, without evidence presented, there is no evidence to verify notability to earn a keep.4meter4 (talk) 22:30, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per arguments above as well. The standards, such as WP:NPOL and WP:GNG are set up, and if sources cannot be shown to exist, the subject does not pass notability. Rollidan (talk) 21:39, 23 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. – Joe (talk) 20:19, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Customer reference program[edit]

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

Unreferenced essay. Rathfelder (talk) 15:36, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:47, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would suggest merging into Referral marketing, but there's just nothing of value to merge. As nominator says, it's entirely unreferenced, and the prose is very poor. No prejudice against an article being recreated at this title later if there are sources to support it, but the current content has no redeeming value. Colin M (talk) 22:04, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice per Colin M.4meter4 (talk) 15:34, 23 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. – Joe (talk) 20:19, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Customer Access and Retrieval System[edit]

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

Very technical and impenetrable and out of date. Not obviously notable Rathfelder (talk) 15:33, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 15:33, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:54, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find any evidence that this meets WP:GNG or WP:NSOFTWARE. Colin M (talk) 22:07, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The whacky acronyms of the titles discussed in the article (CARS and BOSS) are mildly amusing, but this article is describing a cog in a large machine, without giving any context about it. I believe it is eligible for speedy deletion, but that's probably just me. flowing dreams (talk page) 13:42, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to telecommunications billing. I believe the Phrack article is a reliable source for hacking of telecommunication systems, most or all of the article stems from that source. The context seems obvious to me; hackers want to know details of customer databases to aid in their activities. Such details are typically not made public, which is why there are no other secondary sources from mainstream publishers. With the one source, the article fails notability guidelines, but is still verifiable material. Unfortunately, I could not find any suitable merge targets. CARS is a type of telecommunications billing program (among other things) and a redirect would be useful to at least give context for the topic. Per our deletion policy WP:ATD, alternatives to deletion are preferred over deletion for verifiable material, and I think redirect is the best compromise here. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 18:40, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG or WP:NSOFTWARE. I see no reason to redirect.4meter4 (talk) 13:38, 23 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. I'd be happy to draftify on request. – Joe (talk) 20:18, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas Coupon[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON by a long way. The only sources are press releases, there are no known stars in the film and the producer owns the production company, so it's basically self-published. Guy (help!) 14:19, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:18, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now due to lack of significant coverage about the film; the existing sources are essentially about one of the actors and mention their supporting role in this film in passing. If the film gets release-related coverage, then the article can be recreated. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:28, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:55, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This movie features Napoleon Duraisamy in a lead role, he is one of the biggest movie stars in the Indian film industry. Napoleon was also India's previous Minister of State for Social Justice and Empowerment (similar office to the USA's Secretary of State). The news source Times of India is the largest English publication in the world. Also, Gulf News is a major international publication covering this movie. AmericanEagles (talk) 17:52, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
An actor being notable does not mean that every single work they are in is notable. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:56, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These articles are major world press specifically about this movie. AmericanEagles (talk) 15:55, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NFP, WP:NFSOURCES, and GNG. No significant coverage of this film in independent reliable sources. Available significant coverage is actually about about the Indian actor "Napoleon" and not the movie. Notability is not inherited. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:09, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Christmas Coupon is an American Made Romance film starring Courtney Mathews as Allison Grant and Aaron Noble as Ivan Hall. Courtney Mathews is an American Actress that has acted in over fifteen films. She started acting in 2015. Mathews Had many other roles in the film, “Christmas Coupon” such as a producer, location scout, prop manager, and casting director. Aaron Noble is an American Actor who was also an associate producer on the film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Courtneymath84 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 20 September 2019 (UTC) — Courtneymath84 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Move to User Space. It's a bit too soon for this article. Best to wait until better sources crop up. Rather than discourage User:Tbc32, the creator, I would suggest saving his work by moving it to user space until better sources are available and it can go live.4meter4 (talk) 06:04, 23 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 Withdrawn. Giant Snowman 17:06, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zouhair El Moutaraji[edit]

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

Subject is a footballer/soccer player. Fails to satisfy WP:NSOCCER as subject has yet to played in a professional club under Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues guidelines. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:03, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw by nominator. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:56, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:03, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:03, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:03, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The Botola is in fact a FPL under the guidelines cited by nom and he has played over 50 games there. I suggest withdrawal given the flawed premise. Smartyllama (talk) 15:12, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:35, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - has nominator not heard of WP:BEFORE? This is a current and longstanding player in the Moroccan top division (which is listed at WP:FPL), numerous appearances confirmed here and here. Clearly meets WP:NFOOTBALL and I suspect he would easily meet GNG with a bit of digging (particularly in Arabic-language sources). Giant Snowman 15:41, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NFOOTY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:59, 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 delete. Tone 13:34, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lokalise[edit]

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

No indication of notability per WP:GNG or WP:NSOFTWARE. Google search comes up with fewer than 100 results, none of which discuss it significantly. ... discospinster _talk 13:21, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 13:21, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 13:21, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:NSOFT as it has not been discussed in reliable sources as significant in its particular field; and per WP:GNG as it has not been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources - Epinoia (talk) 01:30, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NSOFT and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:47, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails to meet the criteria at WP:NSOFT and WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 12:08, 23 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. Tone 13:34, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bill2phone[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unreferenced article. Organisation may no longer exist. Rathfelder (talk) 13:19, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 13:19, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - although there are no references in the article, an internet search turned up eight articles on Bill2phone, until I looked at them and saw they were all variations of the same press release - no significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources per WP:GNG - Epinoia (talk) 01:23, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 12:07, 23 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. I note that the article has been greatly expanded from its nominated version, and the nominator's concerns have been addressed. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 10:56, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Glasse[edit]

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

No claim of importance or significance, and no independent references. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:35, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:35, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:35, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - there are claims of notability - such as being involved at a high level in the Masons - but no significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 15:51, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article would seem to have been improved since the nomination was made as there are references in it which are drawn from major academic works on the growth of the labour movement and socialism in Scotland notably Donachie, Harvie and Wood (1989) and Kenefick (2007). These would seem to suggest that Glasse was of importance in labour and Socialist politics, especially if Lowe signaled him as being of importance in 1919. Equally the Webb comment at the start would support this. Also if he is credited with founding the first Glasgow branch of the ILP then this is of huge significance given the importance of the ILP to Glasgow History. I do think the article could be constructed more effectively and I would like to see if material from other Scottish and labour histories could be added to further demonstrate his importance. Dunarc (talk) 22:56, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. on balance, though I am not all that sure of the direct relevance of some of the sources listed at the bottom. My attitude to notability is much more relaxed when we're dealing with earlier periods. The most important thing about the notability requirement is that it helps keeps out promotional junk when used for what people wish to advocate or advertise. DGG ( talk ) 16:31, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 11:39, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:58, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination's objections have been invalidated. Andrew D. (talk) 17:25, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEYMANN. St Anselm (talk) 19:31, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- He is very obviously a key figure in the development of socialism in Scotland. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:55, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep per WP:HEY. My objections have been satisfied. Bearian (talk) 16:18, 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. – Joe (talk) 20:16, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rock Island Auction Company[edit]

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

Originally a highly promotional article, which has been edited to remove much of the more blatant promo issues. However, I still think there's a WP:CORPDEPTH issue because, despite the copious references, they are almost all articles about a famous/interesting weapon that is being auctioned, and give a passing mention to the auction company. The only exception are a couple of small articles in trade publications, which should be taken with a huge pinch of salt given the questionable independence. Overall, a lack of reliable, independent sources covering RIA in sufficient depth, so this is a WP:NORG and WP:GNG fail. Hug^syrup 10:00, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is plenty to build upon here and a quick search discovered many sources to establish notability. I will try and improve this as soon as I can.Luke Kindred (talk) 20:58, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:01, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:01, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A good chunk of the references are blogs, shop blog and other non-RS junk and stuff like but it has very wide coverage passing WP:SIGCOV. Its needs slimmed right down, the promotional muck removed and a wee article with half a dozen ref's will emerged. scope_creep^Talk 22:54, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 11:37, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Scope Creep. Trust his research. Hyperbolick (talk) 14:09, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:58, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The current coverage is limited to mentions in passing, with only a 2-paragraph blog being about the company ([26]). I failed to find any in-depth coverage. There's a lot of mentions in passing, but they are generally one liners, quite a few are photo credits. I don't see anything that suggests SIGCOV or NCORP is met here. I will caution the closing admin that AfD is not a vote, and nobody voting keep has explicitly mentioned which references are good, all I see is just a sentiment that WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES, and I will repeat that I just spent several minutes looking for them and failed to locate any. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:19, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Piotrus. I too couldn't finding any sources that were significant enough in coverage to meet WP:GNG or that would indicate the article met the criteria at WP:SIGCOV or WP:NCORP. There's a lot of trivial mentions in independent sources, but none where the organization itself is the primary subject. Those where the Rock Island Auction Company is the main subject are all closely related/promotional.4meter4 (talk) 13:23, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ORG. The key points about sources is that they must be reliable, independent and have sufficient depth but I am not seeing that in the sources here. 2A02:C7F:4481:8300:90DC:E235:5074:54B0 (talk) 14:18, 23 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:33, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Athena Framework[edit]

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

Not notable. There are no independent sources. Obmpeace (talk) 16:15, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:22, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 10:41, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:59, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nom seems to be from account not here to build an enclopedia given contribution history only to raise AfDs claiming no independent sources whilst failing to do dilligent WP:BEFORE and explaining why relevant hits are appearing on the book link above.Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:17, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:NSOFTWARE as it has not been discussed in reliable sources as significant in its particular field - lack of references inidcate the article does not meet WP:GNG as there is no significant coverage in multiple reliable independent secondary sources - Epinoia (talk) 01:05, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lacks independent reliable sources. The hits that are coming up in the book search are for unrelated frameworks (A Technology CAD product and a older framework for software interoperability]. The software interoperability framework may be notable, but the ORM framework this article is about probably is not. You can rule out lots of the book hits because the publication dates of the books are before the release of the software discussed here. - MrOllie (talk) 01:25, 22 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:33, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Donate-ng[edit]

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

Non-notable company. Lacks WP:GNG and WP: COMPANY Beasteggs (talk) 06:41, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Beasteggs (talk) 06:41, 16 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 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:07, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:18, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable paid spam. Fails GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:57, 16 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 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:22, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very weak sourcing and clearly bordering on covert ad. – Ammarpad (talk) 22:34, 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. A wider discussion on the merits of such articles may be in order elsewhere, but there is a clear consensus here that WP:NOTSTATS#3 currently allows for content like this to exist. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:36, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion polling for the 2018 Italian general election[edit]

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

This - currently en.Wikipedia's largest article - is chiefly a mass of data, from original sources, which would be better uploaded to Commons as spreadsheet-compatible CSV data files. This is not what Wikipedia is for. If kept, it should be reduced to a summary of tertiary sources which in turn summarise the statistics. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:02, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:02, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:02, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:02, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep, because this does not meet any of the reasons for deletion, and because this seems like a deliberate attempt to game the system by trying to achieve through deletion what was not achieved through discussion and consensus at the proper talk page. There is absolutely no difference between this article and other similar opinion polling articles in the en.wiki, the only measurable reason brought for deletion being an obsession with the size of the article, which is not even close to a valid reasoning for deleting an article, and just because the nominator couldn't win their case through at the proper discussion. Impru20^talk 11:03, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The article meets WP:DEL-REASON for the reason given in the nominaton. However, this nomination does not meet any of the criteria for WP:SNOW. And congratulation: your comment meets WP:OTHERSTUFF. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:25, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are providing no rationale backing why this meets DEL-REASON (being the largest or one of the largest articles in Wikipedia is not even close to a reason for deletion) and why this does not meet any of the criteria for SNOW (i.e. in no circumstance would an article like this one be deleted just because it is large), nor why does this meets OTHERSTUFF (just because I mentioned other opinion polling articles? Then you are also OTHERSTUFFing yourself when comparing this article size with others. See the contradiction?). You should at least try to elaborate your arguments some more. Impru20^talk 17:56, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - What part of "chiefly a mass of data, from original sources, which would be better uploaded to Commons as spreadsheet-compatible CSV data files. This is not what Wikipedia is for" are you having trouble seeing? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:18, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - Seemingly, the same you are having to notice WP:NOTSTATS, point 3. Also, should I remind you about this? Where you clearly acknowledge you filled this AfD as a direct result of the article byte size? Do not try to make any excuses now. Oh, and the from original sources-bit is also false, btw: it can be easily checked that the vast majority of the sources are from websites reporting on the polls, not from self-published sources. So they are mostly not "original", actually (merely as a matter of getting all facts right, not that this would be a valid reason for deletion, actually). Impru20^talk 18:37, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Split. Obviously a notable subject but the size of the article warrants splitting. As the largest article on Wikipedia, WP:ARTICLESIZE and WP:SPLITLIST most definitely apply. Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:29, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Firstly, this is not the venue for warranting a split, but a proposal for deleting the whole page. Secondly, it is the second largest, not the largest. Thirdly, there will always be a "largest article on Wikipedia" for a reason of logic, so that alone is not a reason in itself for warranting a split. Other reasons were already discussed at the proper talk page and no consensus was reached for splitting, much less deletion. This is not the procedure for obtaining a consensus for split, and both of you can't just pretend turning this into a "split it or delete it" issue. Impru20^talk 11:37, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - It was the largest until a few hours ago, only because another article has increased in size. Being the largest on Wikipedia isn't the reason, but that there will always be a largest article only matters when there is no such thing as an article that is too large. Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:43, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Then that is an issue that is to be discussed at the proper talk page, where we've already seen that there is no consensus for it at its current form. Other proposals could have been raised and/or discussed that could gather a prospective consensus, or further input could have been requested if needed to sort out the issue. None of this was attempted. Instead, what we see is an attempt to circumvent the normal consensus-building procedures by bringing this to AfD just because the argument for splitting didn't win through the discussion. This is an outright violation of the spirit of both ARTICLESIZE and SPLITLIST, to seek a large article deletion as a whole just because some people do not like it being large. Impru20^talk 12:00, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - In the various screeds you have posted here, you have utterly failed to address - much less counter - the rationale for deletion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:25, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Then you've surely failed to acknowledge the point of my comments altogether. I have repeteadly stated that this is not a valid rationale for deletion. You can't just pretend deleting an article just because you can't get a consensus for its splitting in the article's talk page. Just like you attempt to reply to comments from others with an effortless "you have utterly failed to address the rationale for deletion", I'll rather point to you that it is you who have failed to propose a valid rationale for deletion. It is not me who filed this AfD, but you. It is not up to me to convince others to keep the article, but for you to provide convincing arguments for deletion. So far, you are only arguing it should be deleted because of its size, proposing instead a solution (i.e. "upload it to Commons as spreadsheet-compatible CSV data") that you did not even care proposing at the talk page discussion (in fact, you have been mostly absent from that discussion in the first place). So far, you have only shown a willingness to game the system by circumventing consensus and to try to get rid of this article with as little effort from your part as possible. Impru20^talk 16:50, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Onetwothreeip: "Split" is not a valid reply to the AfD request, and I find it misleading. I suggest you review your statement and either !vote for "keep" or "delete" or any other reply to the question "Should this article be deleted?", or just comment and not vote. The discussion about the split of the article is done in the article's talk page. --Ritchie92 (talk) 10:36, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion can reach any conclusion that it chooses to. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:45, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep without reducing its size. Totally agree with User:Impru20. --Checco (talk) 14:07, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- ...and like Impru20, you have not addressed the rationale for deletion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:37, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obviously fails WP:NOTSTATS and the data is ephemeral too – we don't need polls and projections once we have the actual result. Andrew D. (talk) 17:33, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Andrew Davidson: You do acknowledge that WP:NOTSTATS, point 3 actually contradicts your own claim by bringing Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2012 (i.e. opinion polling articles) as a valid example of stand-alone lists, as well as clearly stating that statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability, and articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context. Where statistics are so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article, the statistics can be split into a separate article and summarized in the main article (i.e. exactly what is done with opinion polling articles), right? Further, the argument you propose is surprising: no one would argue that List of World War II battles should be removed just because such data is "ephemeral" and since we know the actual result of the war. Impru20^talk 17:53, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Impru20 makes a interesting point. The 2012 US example is clearly a statistical appendix without any significant narrative or analysis, contrary to the text of WP:NOT and yet there it is. This demonstrates the incoherence of WP:NOT, to my mind – it has long seemed to be a compilation of arbitrary likes and dislikes. We'll have to look at that history of that section to understand how this happened but I'm supposing that the original prohibition of WP:RAWDATA has been nobbled by a psephology wonk. From a policy POV, I'll have to switch to WP:OR. If you're compiling raw data and then using that as the statistical support for separate summary analysis then that's too much like original research. Andrew D. (talk) 19:12, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Much to the contrary, actually. WP:NOTSTATS does not require "narrative or analysis" (as you say) but context or explanation, which is not the same. Namely, that statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability, and articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context. Where statistics are so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article, the statistics can be split into a separate article and summarized in the main article. This is very clear and is not subject to other interpretations, and is exactly what is done for most (if not all) opinion polling articles (including the 2012 US one). I should remind that it was you who brought NOTSTATS into the fray, so I will not make any assumptions on whether the actual writing of the policy is appropiate or not because this is not the venue for it. It should be noted that, as of currently, a massive amount of articles are abiding to that policy, so if you consider that the writing of it is an issue, it wouldn't be one of this article in particular but one affecting many others. The solution for that would be to achieve a consensus for reforming the policy, not for us to cherry-pick in a whimp (and against current policy) which articles should be deleted and which ones not. Impru20^talk 19:43, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - I've had a look round and see that there quite a few of these pages. The one of local interest to me is Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election. Looking at this, it appears that:

These polling pages are built up ahead of each election. In the current UK case, we don't know when that will be as a date has not been agreed yet.
The polling data is tabled and graphed to produce regression lines.
Political events such as leadership changes are added to the tables to suggest cause and effect and help readers "look for patterns".
There are disputes about which polls will or won't be accepted as "reliable"

I'm most familiar with this sort of political analysis on sites like politicalbetting, where partisans and punters engage in speculation and banter about the state of the parties and politics. I can see that it's quite fascinating for such people to track the polls, like following a horse race or the stockmarket, but it seems contrary to the spirit of WP:CRYSTAL and WP:SYN. One big issue is the supposition that the polls are reliable sources when, as many results show, they are not. Andrew D. (talk) 21:36, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are a lot of them because they have never been shown to cause any of the issues that now, as of suddenly, are seemingly presented.

This is not relevant, because the pages themselves do not make any assumption on when the next election will be held. Note that WP:CRYSTAL or WP:NCGAL, for example, do make provisions for next election articles to be allowed under some specific set of guidelines, all of which these articles do comply with.
Yes, this is a mere WP:CALC procedure, and this is allowed and does not constitute WP:OR.
I fully agree with you on this. I'm entirely against adding events to the tables because they may pose a NPOV and SYNTH violation, and have in fact fought throughout time to get rid of such events from these tables. However, while most opinion polling articles throughout Wikipedia do not include events, for some ones (such as Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election) a strong local consensus in favour of adding some events has developed.
Also agree with you on this, but I would like to note that, just as events, this only happens for some articles, not for most of them, because of local consensus (yes, the UK one is a very "special" one on these things...).

I don't think this goes neither against CRYSTAL nor SYNTH because, at large, these articles do not pretend to forecast the future or to interpret opinion polls (and when they do, such as by adding event rows or interpreting which polls are worth it and which ones aren't, it should be prevented), just to keep track of them and list them as they are very notable and encyclopedic-worthy ahead of the scheduled next election. Impru20^talk 04:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Size isn't a make-or-break issue, and as argued just above, this is in keeping with WP:NOTSTATS, point 3. Polling data is of enduring historical interest even after elections, such as in historical analysis about whether the polls were reliable. XOR'easter (talk) 17:59, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- "Size isn't a make-or-break issue" - true; and size is also not the rationale given in the deletion nomination. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:15, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Impru20's reasoning. --LiamUJ (talk) 18:07, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Query I'm not fully understanding the background to this but one thing I notice is that the page has equivalents in other languages – Italian, Spanish, Portuguese and Persian. I can understand Italian interest in this but not the other languages. Is someone being paid by the kilo for this stuff or what? Andrew D. (talk) 19:28, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a site for data aggregation and drawing WP:OR conclusions from that data. Gamaliel (talk) 20:19, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- This is explicitly allowed under WP:NOTSTATS, point 3 + no WP:OR conclusions are presented, so both of your premises for deletion are incorrect. Impru20^talk 20:26, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea why these articles exist but there are a lot of them. Category:Opinion_polling_by_country Dream Focus 21:40, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article does not contain only original sources, actually the majority of them are taken from other polls aggregators who list the polls taken from the pollsters. The fact that it is too long does not have anything to do with the deletion, probably only with a possible split or reduction. The article does not meet the deletion criteria, as per point 3 of WP:NOTSTATS, where the possibility of having aggregation of polls is specifically addressed. I agree with User:Impru20 that this AfD has been filed only in order to deal with the length of the article, which is ridiculous. Also, but this is not the main point, because my arguments apply also to this single article, it should be kept in count that there are infinitely many more articles like this one, and deleting just this one would just be plain disruption (see for example in Template:Opinion polling for Italian elections). --Ritchie92 (talk) 08:07, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This should be a more general discussion about opinion polls article, if the OP really means what they wrote in the AfD request. If this one has been filed for deletion, why not the others? This is not WP:OTHERSTUFF, because they are invoking a WP policy, that should be applied everywhere. My point is not about the relevance of the article, i.e. I am not saying "this should be kept because it is as relevant as WP:OTHERSTUFF". I want to stress this, because I am only invoking coherence in the policy application. So there are Nationwide opinion polling for the 2016 United States presidential election, Opinion polling for the next UK general election, Opinion polling for the next Spanish general election, and so on for many more countries and other elections. Also, going further, by the OP's reasoning we should also delete all articles that list data, like List of countries by GDP per capita, and all tables in economy-specific articles, like in Economy of the European Union, or Economy of India, and so on. Even List of films with a 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes is taken entirely from one original source, namely Rotten Tomatoes. --Ritchie92 (talk) 08:07, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it seems odd that the nominator, although they have stated that this sort of article is unsuitable for enwiki, has not also nominated the plethora of articles similar to this one. --LiamUJ (talk) 11:29, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NODEADLINE. HTH. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:01, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ritchie92. These articles exist as (to me, fairly natural) accessories to the articles on the elections themselves. Whether there might be some policy-based reason to eliminate all of them is a much bigger question than a single AfD and would call for a different venue. XOR'easter (talk) 21:35, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The size of the article does not justify the complete deletion as a measure. I would be in favour of a split (between single parties, coalitions and seat projection?) since it's the second biggest page on Wikipedia. --Broncoviz (talk) 08:46, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By now I removed all useless spaces in the tables, and it's number 29 in the list. --Ritchie92 (talk) 12:19, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. One should consider that the government that ended in 2018 lasted a full five years AND, when compared to other countries, Italy has a lot of polling firms publishing their results. One needs only to look at polling results in Canada, for example. It would be totally unfair to penalize the italian polling results for only these reasons. I am open to any discussion that debates the relevance of some of the polling firms included. As already stated, the size of the article does not justify the complete deletion. I am not sure if including each year's results in its own template is an acceptable compromise.Juve2000 (talk) 23:27, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I sincerely don't see ANY difference between this article and articles regarding other opinion polls. Why this one should be deleted, while Opinion polling for the 2017 United Kingdom general election is still there? They are both useful articles, so I strongly oppose deletion. -- Nick.mon (talk) 10:29, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nick.mon
Keep per WP:IINFO #3: Where statistics are so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article, the statistics can be split into a separate article and summarized in the main article. These statistics are too large to be placed within 2018 Italian general election so it should be in a separate article. feminist (talk) 10:53, 23 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. Notability is not asserted. The article is promotional in tone. The original text is at least partially a direct copy from the company website. In addition we already have five delete !votes and no argument has been presented for keeping. Haukur (talk) 09:34, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Integra Software Services Pvt. Ltd[edit]

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

Company doesn't meet Wikipedia basic notability guidelines. Seems like a promotional article Doingitgimpy (talk) 08:45, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Doingitgimpy (talk) 08:45, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Doingitgimpy (talk) 08:45, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:04, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:ORG, nothing of any significant notability. Ajf773 (talk) 09:14, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Spam for a non-notable business. Cabayi (talk) 10:13, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Author's userpage strongly hints that this may be paid editing. Cabayi (talk) 10:50, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:01, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NORG. --qedk (t 桜 c) 18:25, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete Lack of evident notability, lack of independent sourcing. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:35, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Should have been CSDed for WP:G11. Now that it is here, it needs to be speedily delete per WP:PROMO. Bishal Shrestha (talk) 01:04, 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. Tone 07:46, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lyn Ott[edit]

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

I am struggling to confirm his notability. I can see mirrors of our article (or bits of it) but little else. I would have thought that someone who was suffering from a degenerative eye condition and engaged with art would attract a lot of attention if their life was notable. The sources in the article are self-published or from the cult/sect/religion/whatever related to Meher Baba, the premises of which seem likely to be the collections "around the world" to which the article refers. We say that one of his writings - Journey Out of Darkness - was not published but simultaneously cite it, which is confusing although I did find what may be the thing here. There was a (now dead) link to South Carolina Commissions for the Blind but that seems to have been to verify that the SCCB exists, not that Ott was there. All a bit of a mess, I'm afraid, and probably the result of a creator with some sort of Meher Baba COI. Sitush (talk) 07:27, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:42, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:42, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I searched by his full name, Lynfield George Ott, on newspapers.com and found one small article announcing that he had won an award. The article mentioned that he went by the alias Lynot. I searched under Lynot and found nothing. Netherzone (talk) 14:25, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot find enough sourcing to indicate he meets GNG.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:31, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Another search brought up a few articles (reviews of group shows) that mention him. All local to Woodstock, NY. A review of a group show in the Williamsport Sun Gazette (Pennsylvania) mentions that he showed at the Corcoran Gallery of Art in Washington DC in 1954. Nothing in the Archives of American Art nor in the Corcoran’s collections or library search tool. It seems that he was a regional artist who showed in group exhibitions, but that's not enough to pass WP:NARTIST. Netherzone (talk) 20:57, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I loved the guy, we shared a birthday, and I own one of his paintings, but as an artist he is effectively unknown outside the Meher Baba community, and the sources in the article are insufficient to assert greater notability. Ref 1 doesn't contain any information about the facts being cited. Ref 2 verifiably says he met Meher Baba, like a few hundred thousand others. Ref 3 quotes him as saying he began to paint Meher Baba because: not a particularly notable factoid. --Nemonoman (talk) 19:54, 18 September 2019 (UTC) [The fact is that his achievements (painting realistic complex 3x3 meter canvases with RP and a focal length of about 10 cm and a 15x15cm field of view) really should get documented someplace. I hadn't realized it was so unknown.--Nemonoman (talk) 19:59, 18 September 2019 (UTC)][reply]
Delete per nom and because I have been unable to find any substantive, independent sourcing. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:42, 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 speedy delete. The article was speedily deleted by administrator RHaworth at 08:11, September 16, 2019 per WP:CSD#G11. Mz7 (talk) 10:42, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sky international insurance company[edit]

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

I am struggling to find the notability of this company in RS 10MB (talk) 07:22, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:23, 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. Tone 07:45, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Bain[edit]

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

The subject of the article does not meet notability guidelines, failing to meet every criteria per WP:AUTHOR. KidAd (talk) 07:05, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:17, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:17, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - has not had significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources per WP:BASIC - does not meet WP:NAUTHOR, no significant body of work widely cited by peers - Epinoia (talk) 00:56, 22 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. Tone 07:45, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ponnapula Sanjeeva Prasad[edit]

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

I believe this page fails WP:BLPCRIME/WP:CRIMINAL. It is a poorly sourced BLP article as well, and in-depth sources on his life do not seem readily available. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 06:13, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:55, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:55, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice served at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Ponnapula Sanjeeva Prasad. Uncle G (talk) 09:25, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only sources in the article, or that I could find, accuse him of crimes, or being "shady". Outside of these references, he fails Wikipedia:BLPNOTE. The references to questionable activities themselves fails WP:BLPCRIME.---- Work permit (talk) 14:33, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete In its current state, article doesn't pass A7. Jmertel23 (talk) 21:55, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete blank article.— Hammad (Talk!) 03:02, 23 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. Tone 07:45, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ebrima Sanneh[edit]

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

Footballer who fails NFOOTY. Despite the number of references, I believe he also fails GNG as almost all of the sources are trivial transfer updates. -- BlameRuiner (talk) 05:36, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:52, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:52, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:31, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL (never played in a fully-professional league) and also WP:GNG (no significant coverage from reliable sources - as nom says these are trivial reports from questionable websites). Giant Snowman 08:33, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:08, 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. Tone 07:44, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Bass[edit]

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

Fails WP:ATHLETE. Inherent notability does not come from being a D1 football player. CNMall41 (talk) 05:27, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:54, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:54, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:54, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCOLLATH. Ostealthy (talk) 08:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found [27], [28] and [29] for coverage. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 13:34, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete Fails WP:NGRIDIRON, WP:NCOLLATH, and still fails the GNG. The three sources above consist of a report on the Camellia Bowl, him being names Sun Belt special teams player of the week, and being named to the AP all-bowl team. Routine sports coverage is not enough.Sandals1 (talk) 14:44, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:NCOLLATH. Coverage is routine for a collegiate kicker and being named All-Sun Belt isn't a high enough honor for any inclusionary criteria. Best, GPL93 (talk) 11:46, 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. Tone 07:44, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Gladstone[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:SIGCOV as only one piece actually discusses the subject at length and even that coverage is WP:ROUTINE. Appears to be a page to promote the subject's candidacy in Canada's 2019 federal election. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:16, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:16, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:16, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:38, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not notable. Alaney2k (talk) 12:42, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in future elections they have not yet won — the notability test for politicians is holding office, not just running for it, and the only other way he can qualify for an article before winning the seat is to show that he was already notable enough to have an article before he was even a candidate at all. But, naturally, that's not what this is demonstrating — this is saying and sourcing literally not a single thing about him that would have gotten him an article independently of the candidacy itself. So, as usual: no prejudice against recreation on or after October 20 if he wins the seat, but nothing here is a reason why he would already be eligible to have an article today. Bearcat (talk) 23:38, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- To be fair, it said a bit more when I nominated it, but the creator gutted it when I pointed out that most of the sources were primary or associated with the subject in some way. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:11, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - OIC. But to be honest, even the older version wasn't substantive enough to tip the scales either. You already knew that, obviously, since you were the nominator here — I'm just restating it for the benefit of any other participants. Bearcat (talk) 01:04, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Welcome to election season in Canada everybody! Candidates are not inherently notable. If he wins a seat we can re-assess. Bkissin (talk) 17:40, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above^ FUNgus guy (talk) 06:29, 23 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:32, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Elledge[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:ANYBIO. There are a lot of references but they are about his business, him giving advice, brief mentions, or unreliable. The only reference that focuses on him is a Forbes article but that was written by a contributor with no editorial oversite. CNMall41 (talk) 05:16, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:37, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:37, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:07, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:07, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This looks very much like PR, it's almost a G11. Guy (help!) 14:20, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it reaches notability for WP:AUTHOR as "1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." The citations clearly show that Elledge is widely regarded as important in both the brand/reputation management and podcasting spaces. --tbc32 (talk) 15:31, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He is widely regarded as important by his PR, but the evidence for anyone else agreeing is strictly limited. Guy (help!) 12:18, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So I'm not quite sure what you mean "by his PR"? Is that because some of the claims (e.g. 2,000 media appearances, syndicated column) show up on his own site? I think part of my struggle to show notability and validity may be tied to the issue of podcasting being a legitimate news-sharing medium. For example, I cite an interview with John Lee Dumas on a few of the points made in the article. Dumas is one of the leading podcasters in the world so I viewed his interview as a significant one in lending credibility to Elledge's accomplishments. But if podcasts aren't viewed as legitimate sources for information than about half the articles I use wouldn't be valid (of course the other half are from other reputable online sources). Any advice for me here? I have this same issue on other articles I've written about influential public speakers, so I'd like to know how to better establish credibility of those who make their living through audio, not written word.tbc32 (Deletion discussion about Josh Elledge) 06:18, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which references show that he is regarded as an important figure? If you are saying that he is because he appears in references, then that is original research or an assumption which is subjective. --CNMall41 (talk) 15:11, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jaime Tardy, Michael Stelzner, and John Lee Dumas (three of the interviews cited in the article) are three of the biggest names in brand management and podcasting. All three brought Elledge onto their show as a "guest expert" on brand building and getting press. Maybe you can help me with this... one of the struggles I'm finding in establishing both notability and credibility for this article stem from the sources being podcast interviews. Podcast transcripts do a much better job of showing how Elledge is an important figure in this space than the shownotes that are usually published online (most transcripts aren't published). Is there a way of using/citing audio content instead of relying on shownotes? --tbc32 (talk) 07:34, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A few comments. First, saying these three people are the "biggest names in brand management and podcasting" is subjective (and inaccurate). I am sure people like Gary Vee would disagree (as do I). Also, what you are saying in your argument boils down to WP:OR. Because they brought him in for an interview does not mean he is highly regarded. We need a reference that says exactly that - that he is highly regarded - otherwise we are creating new statements based on our opinions. Finally, you state that "one of the struggles [you're] finding in establishing both notability and credibility for this article stem from the sources being podcast interviews." That is exactly the issue. Wikipedia relies on reliable secondary sources which there are few of that talk about the subject in enough detail to amount to WP:SIGCOV. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:25, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - promotional intent could not be more blatant. Notability is therefore irrelevant. Deb (talk) 08:24, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deb, can you please clarify what you mean by that? What makes the article promotional? I genuinely want to know, I wrote the article and tried to make it as objective as I could. tbc32 (talk) 07:24, 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. Tone 07:44, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cody Saul[edit]

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

fails WP:NGRIDIRON; fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 04:22, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:55, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:55, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:55, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Only other two current Sharks players with pages satisfy notability through AFL/CFL games. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 22:21, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete I don't believe that playing in the National Arena League is enough to meet WP:NGRIDIRON and I see nothing to show he meets the GNG.Sandals1 (talk) 14:46, 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. Tone 07:43, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tasha Scott[edit]

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

Non-notable actress who has only appeared in minor television roles. Contested prod. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 04:17, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:56, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:56, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:05, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:05, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:05, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:05, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification, this is her best role South Central (TV series) Atlantic306 (talk) 14:36, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant roles in South Central and the Wiz. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:24, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[30], [31], [32] attests to the notability of the production of the Wiz that she was in. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:21, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in view of the evidence above, she does seem to pass WP:NACTOR with prominent roles on tv and theatre as theatre is included in the criteria, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 21:10, 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 keep. Tone 07:43, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Child Passenger Safety Week[edit]

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

This is basically a PSA. For a worthy cause, but still a PSA and that's WP:NOT why we're here. Created by a WP:SPA as part of a walled garden of articles related to Diono, some of which I've already deleted under WP:G11. This one is a little better, so bringing it here. None of the sources in the article are WP:INDEPENDENT or WP:SECONDARY; they're all just announcements from the entities sponsoring the event. My own searching failed to come up with anything better. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:48, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some references from reliable sources. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:55, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:04, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:05, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are sufficient reliable sources in the article now, and overt PSA type language is gone. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:42, 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 keep. Seems GNG is met. Tone 07:44, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nir Eyal[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Still not meeting WP:BIO or WP:AUTHOR. They have a new book out, but what appears to be coverage in the Guardian is in fact him running a "masterclass" i.e. not independent or reliable. SmartSE (talk) 19:04, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SmartSE (talk) 19:04, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:42, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be acceptable to replace the Guardian citation with either of the following? https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/333412 or https://www.fastcompany.com/40579601/this-behavioral-designers-top-brain-hacks-for-beating-distraction ? Both reference the same information and may be considered more independent and reliable, yes? Even if those replacement citations won't work and the info about his second good needs to be removed he still qualifies as notable under WP:AUTHOR since he developed the "hook model" and has been cited a fair amount on Google scholar: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C50&q=%22Hooked%3A+How+to+build+habit-forming+products%22&btnG= Scruitineer (talk) 13:17, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Scruitineer (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.

Delete per nom fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:28, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for weighing in. I obviously disagree, but would you mind at least elaborating on why you don't think the subject meets WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR? I would like to better understand why this page is going to get deleted when, in my view, the subject meets (exceeds?) those thresholds for a page. Thanks in advance for any explanation you're able to provide, and again I appreciate you weighing in. Scruitineer (talk) 19:52, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:01, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. While there may or may not be some COI issues going on with this article, the subject of the article is in fact notable. He was the subject of a segment on NPR (see here), an article in Forbes (see here), Arab News (see here), and is an on air contributor for CNBC (see here) in addition to the things already mentioned in the article.4meter4 (talk) 05:55, 23 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) 04:08, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kent North[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Just another porn performer BLP with negligible independent reliable sourcing and no legitimate assertion of notability. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 01:50, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:58, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:58, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:01, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:02, 16 September 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Delete: fails WP:BASIC / WP:ENT. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:50, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable performer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:16, 22 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) 02:58, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Angel Dark[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Yet another porn-related BLP without independent reliable sourcing or a legitmate claim of notability. And the "lingerie shoot" story is standard porn kayfabe. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 01:18, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:59, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:59, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:52, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:52, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:52, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:54, 16 September 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:00, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete recently depreciated Pornbio. Wm335td (talk) 20:10, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete inadequate sourcing. I am cheering that we are finally getting close to ridding Wikipedia of the overabundance of articles on pornography performers, although we need a lot more nominations for deletion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:53, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A few news/tabloid stories say that Donald Trump may have (inadvertently) indirectly referenced her once [33][34][35] but obviously that doesn't make her notable. Cheers, gnu 57 01:08, 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 delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:08, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjeev Datta[edit]

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

This article came to my attention after I noticed several suspected WP:PAID accounts created it/worked on it. Nearly all of the references that looked like they might meet WP:RS were broken or did not mention the subject. The only one that wasn't broken, an uncredited article in India Times, looks like a press release. That article includes the sentence "He has been listed by Wikipedia as an Indian mentor, trainer and curriculum developer," which is a bit WP:CIRCULAR for a reference. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:57, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Well sourced article that meets notability guidelines.BigDwiki (talk) 01:21, 16 September 2019 (UTC) Bad faith view, per several administrators. Killer Chihuahua 17:30, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is ongoing at WP:ANI under Wikihounding, false_accusations

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Note to closing admin This user is clearly wikihounding me after I cautioned them for POV editing on an unrelated article. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:54, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note to AfD closer; note that this user has a history of blocks and evading blocks and continues to make false allegations against editors. User also has a history of improper AfD nominations. BigDwiki (talk) 13:03, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this on ANI, people. BigDwiki, be aware that the Admin is perfectly capable of checking both your records to determine whether it's pertinent, and generally it is not. Your allegations here are unsupported by any evidence, and bear the strong appearance of attempting to malign an editor in good standing. We do not judge AFD entries based on long ago blocks for other reasons. I suggest you cease taking your battle to every page possible - afd, usertalk, etc - and go make your case on WP:ANI. Puppy has spoken, hush here now. Killer Chihuahua 13:49, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. User:Ohnoitsjamie Should not have maligned me by adding his/her comments to my vote. I am obligated to respond when attacked by another editor.BigDwiki (talk) 13:53, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And now I must repeat myself, something I despise having to do, because YOU have pasted your snide comments on both of these AFDs. As I have already said; What the ACTUAL F. Can you not read and follow simple directives? I told you NOT to continue this here. I told you to put your response on ANI. You have NOT posted any response on ANI and you HAVE continued to WP:BATTLE here. You are on thin ice. Killer Chihuahua 14:05, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, Killer, So, let me get this straight. I place a simple vote on this article, User:Ohnoitsjamie maligns me and accuses me of "wikihounding". I respond, making similar and equal accusations in defense...and it's ME you're threatening with a block? BigDwiki (talk) 14:08, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:59, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:59, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems not notable. Hyperbolick (talk) 14:01, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems to be an advert for him. Listed sources do not support notability. Rockphed (talk) 16:07, 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 speedy deleted as WP:G5 by User:Berean Hunter. (non-admin closure) FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 18:08, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Withers[edit]

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

No indication of notability per WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. ... discospinster _talk 00:13, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 00:13, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 00:13, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:49, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:49, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:50, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:50, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:50, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was gonna say the same thing. Trillfendi (talk) 14:30, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This might be a candidate for a speedy. At the very least it looks incredibly creepy what with mentioning her favorite movie. Though, full disclosure, I didn't actually check for sources, so she might have 50 full write-ups in the New York Times. Rockphed (talk) 16:06, 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.