Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 September 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 21 September 23 September >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. A redirect can be created using editorial discretion. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:40, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RMIT FC[edit]

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

Editors have been engaging in low-key edit warring (nothing sanctionable) over whether this article should redirect to RMIT University#Sports or not, so it's best that we resolve this at AfD.

My own opinion is that this does not meet WP:GNG or the relevant WikiProject football essay WP:FOOTYN, and that thus we should redirect. I'd also like to rebut the argument made for keeping the article in edit summaries, which was Multiple other semi-professional football clubs in Victoria have pages that meet requirements, RMIT FC is no different––to begin with this is a rather weak WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, but if we look at the top league that this team plays in, Victorian State League Division 5, not even 1/6 of the teams listed there have articles (and none of the other teams in the North conference have articles) signed, Rosguill talk 22:53, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 22:53, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 22:53, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 22:53, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:31, 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. Sandstein 08:12, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Doyle (character)[edit]

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

Zero real world notability. All sourcing is simple announcements. Was deprodded without rationale (simply citing DEPROD isn't a rationale, since that clearly states "Explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion, either in the edit summary or on the talk page.") or improvement. Onel5969 TT me 21:02, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 21:02, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nomination's assertion is false as more than one source is about a petition about the actor who should play this part and that's a real-world consideration. Also, there are obvious alternatives to deletion and this is a blatant failure of WP:BEFORE. Andrew D. (talk) 22:34, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (soft delete and merge/redirect are ok too). The only source about real world significance I see is [1]. This is effectively WP:ONEEVENT - outside this petition, covered in few sentences, no reliable source has bothered to discuss this character. At best, a sentence about the petition can be merged to the parent article about the franchise. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:20, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mergers are not done by deletion – see WP:MAD. The simple and sensible process in such cases is to keep the page so that editors may refer to its history when developing and reusing its content per WP:PRESERVE. Deletion is disruptive because it makes the history inaccessible. Andrew D. (talk) 12:02, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - One reference is not enough to establish notability. The above keep seeks pointless bureaucracy rather than presenting a valid opinion on the article's merit. TTN (talk) 10:52, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The character is already covered in a lot of detail at List_of_Halloween_characters#Tommy_Doyle, and there are not enough sources to justify splitting that off into an independent article. The entry at the Thomas Doyle disambiguate page should also be reverted to a link to that list, as it was before the creation of this article. Rorshacma (talk) 14:53, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I found some books that could be used to create a better article (although List_of_Halloween_characters#Tommy_Doyle is probably the best place for this content): [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. I'll leave it to others to decide. Best.4meter4 (talk) 22:11, 29 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) 4meter4 (talk) 22:15, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tourism in Venezuela[edit]

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

An enormous article with only a handful of references, this is basically a tourism ad rather than an encyclopedia article. I came here because someone had added that Caracas was a murder capital - I wanted to revert that, but once I saw that almost the whole article is uncited, I found myself asking why should one opinion go while others stay? From the head tag, it appears that this has been the state of the article since its beginning, so I think we should get rid of it. ubiquity (talk) 21:00, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 21:00, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We have articles about tourism in all parts of the world – see Category:Tourism by country. It is likely that many of these articles are less than good because 99% of our articles are thus. But it's our explicit policy that "Wikipedia is a work in progress. Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome." Improvement is done by ordinary editing, not by deletion. See also WP:ATD, WP:BEFORE, WP:NOTCLEANUP, &c. Andrew D. (talk) 21:42, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Andrew Davidson. I've done some cleanup, and its clear that the article can be salvaged, even if now its not in the best of shape. --DannyS712 (talk) 05:45, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agreed with above. The article may lack sources and solid structure, but the readers will still find it useful. Rather than nominating it for deletion a cleanup is always the better solution. — Kstone999 (talk) 13:36, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I did some clean-up as well but forgot to comment here. Needs more work and sourcing but the topic is worthy of an article. MB 04:03, 27 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. Sandstein 08:13, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Freed[edit]

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

Subject doesn't appear to have been covered in significant depth in reliable, independent sources, so fails WP:GNG. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:16, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:16, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:23, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:23, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - as currently written and with the poor sourcing, I'd delete it. However, there is a claim he won a Grammy for criticism. If verified, he might be notable. Bearian (talk) 00:20, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the book can be borrowed online for two weeks at Internet Archive… Genium. 01:24, Sep 26, 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Amakuru (talk) 20:58, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Has his own entry in the Baker's Biographical Dictionary of Musicians. Genium. 23:59, Sep 25, 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep – Grammy nominated and winner; subject in Baker's and in Grove Music Online (doi:10.1093/gmo/9781561592630.article.47102). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:33, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Michael, and why suggest to delete any 90-year-old with merits?? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:41, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I nominated the article as a result of a request we received at the Volunteer Response Team (VRTS ticket # 2019091210000283), from someone claiming to be the article subject (I haven't verified this, but have no reason to disbelieve it). In a follow-up e-mail, the person wrote "I appreciate Wiki's energetic research, but in this case what it all came down to--what is shown on your site--is simply inaccurate and strikes me as unrelated to the stated subject. If you should decide simply to delete it, that would strike me as an acceptable solution". Apologies for only mentioning this now, but I needed to get the person's permission to do so first. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:43, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is written badly in parts and needs work. However, we can't act on an anonymous request for deletion, and in this case, even a courtesy deletion based on a request by the verified subject, should that be offered, would stumble at the hurdle of other reputable sources having covered the person. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:46, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The standard advice from OTRS when article subjects request deletion is for them to start an AfD, specifying that they are the article subject, that they regard themself as a non-notable, private person, and that they want the article to be deleted. I take the point that Freed now seems notable though. I think we need to focus on making sure that the content of the article is accurate if it is kept, though. I can always ask for confirmation of this by e-mail. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:47, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No prejudice against restoring to draftspace if desired per WP:REFUND. czar 02:06, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Turney[edit]

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

WP:BLP is sourced to a single book. WP:BEFORE on Google News, Google Books, JSTOR, and newspapers.com fails to unearth additional, non-fiction references. Fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. Chetsford (talk) 18:08, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep if more sources can be found, otherwise move to draft space. BOZ (talk) 18:13, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:28, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - that has to be one of strangest Career sections I have ever read - but that's not the reason for deletion - does not meet WP:BASIC; has not been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources - Epinoia (talk) 01:16, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Amakuru (talk) 20:57, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - badly fails WP:GNG. It's unclear whether this person is a hobbyist or professional. There's too little to go on. Bearian (talk) 20:59, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - so many things are wrong with this article; the career section that barely makes any sense, the structure, lack of sources. The article clearly fails WP:GNG. I couldn't locate any more solid references. — Kstone999 (talk) 13:45, 26 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. We have - essentially - the nominator !voting delete, two votes to merge, four to keep, and one comment that seems to be leaning merge. Epinoia, FULBERT, and 4meter4 note that this article has sufficient references to meet the GNG - Epinoia lists three, including several that Uncle G (who did not cast a vote) noted, and 4meter4 notes an additional tertiary source that covers the topic. These effectively counter the nominator's arguments for deletion - there isn't much debate here on how significant this coverage is, but it does appear to be independent, and sufficiently numerous to demonstrate notability. So in my judgment, the consensus is to keep. ST47 (talk) 19:36, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kemetic Orthodoxy[edit]

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

Appears to be a small religion with narrow geographic interest. Many contributions are by SPAs and references are not independent of the topic. Definite COI issues, the lack of significant independent coverage, verifiablility concerns, and no real indication or claim of notability argue for deletion. Sandals1 (talk) 17:12, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Sandals1 (talk) 17:12, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Sandals1 (talk) 17:12, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. I’m just astounded that this has survived since 2006. I can’t see anything that would make me want to keep it. Mccapra (talk) 17:25, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • In addition to Krogh & Pillifant 2004a cited in the article (the same authors incorrectly credited in a second citation which is more correctly Krogh & Pillifant 2004b below), Harrison 2017 now exists, which covers this subject more from an egyptology perspective than a sociology of the Internet one and is fairly in-depth. Uncle G (talk) 21:08, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Harrison, Paul (2017). "Kemetic Orthodoxy and the House of Netjer". Profane Egyptologists: The Modern Revival of Ancient Egyptian Religion. UCL Institute of Archaeology Critical Cultural Heritage Series. Routledge. ISBN 9781351594738.
    • Krogh, Marilyn; Pillifant, Brooke Ashley (2004). "The House of Netjer: An Online Religious Community". In Dawson, Lorne L.; Cowan, Douglas E. (eds.). Religion Online: Finding Faith on the Internet. Routledge. ISBN 0415970210.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)
Thank you for mentioning those. However, I don't think multiple books by the same authors can count as more than 1 source and virtually all of the mentions of this subject in Profane Egyptologists consists of quoting the founder's writings. I must also admit to cringing at the mention in Krogh & Pillifant of the founder's "semi-devine status" even though I know they're just quoting KO's writings.Sandals1 (talk) 13:00, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This was trickier than I expected. It turns out there are two things for this search term. One is the religious sect in Illinois and one is the academic topic of ancient Egyptian religions (Kemet is a term for ancient Egypt). I even found a source that included both--it talked about how the current sect differed in multiple significant ways from the original. Since the article is about the group in Illinois, all of the sources in the body of article are non-independent or minor. It appears that the founder of the sect decided to create her own religion and make herself the leader, using parts of the ancient Egyptian beliefs and I don't think that is any more notable than anyone else creating their own religion. Claims of divinity (or near divinity) should be met with a healthy dose of skepticism and require significant independent coverage (even more than usual). Papaursa (talk) 00:09, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Having said all that, I find it hard to vote to keep the article, the overwhelming bulk of which has no independent sources. On the other hand, there is some academic coverage. I'm not sure it's enough to meet WP:GNG, but a merge or redirect to Kemetism seems reasonable. If the article is to be kept, I think it would need a severe trimming and rewrite to remove the COI issues. Papaursa (talk) 07:09, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - three solid references: Dawson et al, Krogh et al, and Harrison is enough to meet WP:GNG - as an alternative to deletion (if consensus goes that way) perhaps Merge, or at least Redirect, to Kemetism - Epinoia (talk) 05:31, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 11:04, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge very sparingly to Kemetism. I still think it’s dire but having considered what other editors have said here I have struck my earlier !vote as I think a merge is possible. Mccapra (talk) 05:44, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This article needs some work, and while there are a number of self-references, the solid reliable references are sufficient enough to establish enough notability that this article should exist. To this point, we should keep it and revise it. --- FULBERT (talk) 17:30, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The four Wikiprojects which contain this article were not notified about this AfD process. I just posted to their discussion pages to notify their members. --- FULBERT (talk) 17:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge sparingly in line with Mccapra's comments above. There are none to few secondary sources that can be utilized that would resolve the main issues. It is not notable enough to have its own independent article and would be much better served as a section of Kemetism. I do not believe based on available sources that resolving the issues listed on the page is possible for a whole page. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 18:01, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Amakuru (talk) 20:51, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Due to particular importance of religion in human life. Hyperbolick (talk) 00:17, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's an article on Kemetic Orthodoxy on page 197-198 of the Historical Dictionary of New Religious Movements, By George D. Chryssides, Rowman & Littlefield, 2012 (partial view available here on Google Books). If other published reference works cover the topic wikipedia should too. This ref in conjunction with the ones already mentioned by other editors in this discussion meets the criteria at WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 22:42, 29 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) 05:38, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Evgeny Pluzhnik[edit]

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

With an h-index 12, that's a fails WP:PROF. Being vice-rector doesn't impart notability either. For the rest, it's a promotional piece. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:44, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:44, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:45, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Larry Hockett (Talk) 20:53, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In its current state, the page is so promotional that it is squarely in the WP:G11 territory. Nsk92 (talk) 22:34, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Promotional article, subject is not notable. Wikisaurus (talk) 01:48, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I could find no publications of note independent of the subject. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 22:49, 29 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) 05:37, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Official Policies from Medical Organizations on Transgender People[edit]

List of Official Policies from Medical Organizations on Transgender People (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page is not a Wikipedia article, nor do I see any prospect if it ever becoming one. It consists entirely of material copied from the publications of various organisations in the United States; this was initially plain and simple copyright violation, but it's now been supplied with quotation marks so its just an abuse of our non-free content policy, in particular criteria 3, "Minimal usage", and 8, "Contextual significance". I note also the guidance at WP:NFCCEG: "Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited". Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:40, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:40, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:40, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:40, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seems well-intentioned, but can never be encyclopedic and is a likely copyright violation. -Crossroads- (talk) 20:49, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 03:16, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Agree with User:Crossroads1 that this will have a hard time being encyclopedic. When you read it it sounds like a copyright violation. If somebody could find books or articles comparing the policies of different organizations that might become the basis of a Wikipedia article. In other words, find third-party coverage and don't just quote what each organization says. EdJohnston (talk) 02:22, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Crossroads.4meter4 (talk) 22:55, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Futurama characters. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:37, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hermes Conrad[edit]

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

Clearly does not meet WP:GNG as there is not significant coverage independent of the subject. The only reference that is not directly from the TV show is a video interview of the voice actor from Comedy Central [7]. In the last AfD the article was redirected to List of Futurama characters but was undone by @WuTang94: [8]. Unless sufficient reliable sources independent from the show can be found to establish notability this article should be deleted or redirected back to List of Futurama characters. Spy-cicle (talk) 20:38, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spy-cicle (talk) 20:38, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spy-cicle (talk) 20:38, 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 Keep per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) 4meter4 (talk) 22:25, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Nigel Lee[edit]

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

No evidence of significant coverage by reliable third party sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:15, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:15, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:08, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:08, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:08, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:08, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:09, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article already refers to the third party coverage - in fact, there is a full-length biography. StAnselm (talk) 19:42, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @StAnselm: The publisher of this biography, Palmer Higgs Books, appears to be a self-publishing firm rather than the kind of publisher that provides editorial control over their publications. As such I'm skeptical that it contributes towards notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:06, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why would an autobiograpthy be considered third party coverage? Niteshift36 (talk) 15:40, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not - I'm simply showing that the biography is not some source related to the author when he did his own one. Bookscale (talk) 09:53, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then why even mention it if it doesn't help establish notability? Niteshift36 (talk) 15:26, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me explain it again: (1) you assert that the biography is likely to be self-published. (2) I have shown that Lee himself wrote an autobiography. That means that your argument about it being self-published is unlikely to be correct. It does go to notability, because, as StAnselm asserted, it shows there is an independent third-party source that covers his life in some detail. Bookscale (talk) 10:41, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then let me ask again: What biography of him was done by a third party that used a reputable publisher? Self-publish doesn't mean the subject published it, rather the author self-published. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:41, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. StAnselm (talk) 20:01, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - seems to have been a fairly prolific author on topics related to Calvinism and related things. I've tried to add some of his works to the article. Bookscale (talk) 06:55, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Writing a lot of non-notable material doesnt make one notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:40, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep has reliable sources coverage and worldcat shows over 800 library holdings of his works which usually indicates that they have been widely reviewed imv Atlantic306 (talk) 16:50, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 18:58, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep His works have been cited by a few people, as stated by the user above me are widely reviewed, and there are some new sources added by Booskscale and some which i found online to show has the coverage and depth to pass WP:GNG. He also is known under name FN Lee. IlluminatingTrooper (talk) 06:14, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm not sure why this needed to be relisted, as the consensus was already clearly in favor of retention, but the sources provided and the books published by the article's subject satisfy the notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 15:09, 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. The clear consensus here is to keep, with multiple references to WP:PROF as well as the size and impact of his published work. The lack of inline citations in the article is a problem, but not one that invalidates the keep !votes, per WP:ARTN/WP:NPOSSIBLE. ST47 (talk) 19:45, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Gentry[edit]

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

No evidence of significant coverage by reliable third party sources. Writing a lot of non-notable books or contributing to non-notable articles doesn't add up to notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:23, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

No evidence of significant coverage by reliable third party sources. Writing a lot of non-notable books or contributing to non-notable articles doesn't add up to notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:23, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per WP:PROF #1. Google Scholar shows a high level of citations (h-index of 10) for theology. The fact that he is a contributor to the Four Views on the Book of Revelation book shows that he is the foremost proponent of the preterist viewpoint. Yes, this is niche - but still notable. StAnselm (talk) 19:23, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the person is quite notable as a main supporter of Preterism and Postmillennialism, contrary to the majority view, but nonetheless contributing significantly to give a balance of view. The article needs reliable sources. JohnThorne (talk) 19:30, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Don't say he is notable as a supporter. SHOW he is notable via significant coverage by reliable third party sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:07, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. StAnselm (talk) 20:00, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as passes WP:PROF criteria 1 (only one criteria needed) and worldcat shows 1489 library holdings of his works which is usually a reliable indicator that his books have been widely reviewed, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 16:55, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Having just voted to keep the article on one of his books, I feel I have to vote so, but I am strengthened in that view by looking at the length of the subject's bibliography. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:24, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • A long list of non-notable products doesn't fill a criteria. Even writing a single notable book doesn't make the author independently notable.Niteshift36 (talk) 13:47, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there are no sources whatsoever in the article so it does not meet WP:BASIC, which requires significant coverage in multiple reliable independent secondary sources - a search revealed no reviews of his books, discussions of his work or his contribution to theology - non-notable due to lack of reliable sources - Epinoia (talk) 03:24, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 18:57, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:54, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, WP:BASIC requires significant coverage in multiple reliable independent secondary sources, it does not require such sources to be in the article, i am reminded of WP:ARTN - "Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability.", as for book reviews, as brought out at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Before Jerusalem Fell there have been, at least for this book, reviews. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:05, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The book being notable doesn't make the author inherently notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:47, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • agreed, it may, however, indicate possible notableness ie. work or works significant or well-known with multiple reviews (see point 3 of WP:NAUTHOR) note: i am not saying that Gentry necessarily meets this hence my "Comment" above. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:13, 25 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. Sandstein 09:33, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gary DeMar[edit]

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

No evidence of significant coverage by reliable third party sources. Non-notable 10 minute podcasts and a string of non-notable books/articles don't add up to notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:27, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:33, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:33, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I don't see any coverage of him, so the only item to consider is WP:NAUTHOR. No indication of any awards or such. The best I have for him is Google Scholar, one of his books gets 68 citations, but I don't think that's enough to pass NAUATHOR, and he is not an academic anyway to contend for NPROF. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:38, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. One of the key figures in Christian Reconstruction. See, for example, the coverage in Michael McVicar, Christian Reconstruction: R. J. Rushdoony and American Religious Conservatism (The University of North Carolina Press, 2015) and Julie Ingersoll, Building God's Kingdom: Inside the World of Christian Reconstruction (Oxford University Press, 2015). StAnselm (talk) 19:39, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the person is notable as a supporter for Preterism, although considered controversial, providing a significant minority view. JohnThorne (talk) 19:43, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You may consider him important, but that's opinion. Where is the significant third party coverage? Niteshift36 (talk) 16:03, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. StAnselm (talk) 20:01, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which criteria does it allegedly pass? You've used the same reason for multiple AFD's, but never showed how. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:03, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merely publishing something doesn't establish notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:22, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - does not meet WP:BASIC: no significant coverage in multiple reliable independent secondary sources - I didn't check all his books, but some are published by American Vision with which he has a close connection, so they may count as self-published - in any event, I couldn't find any reviews or writeups to satisfy WP:NBOOK - notability not established - Epinoia (talk) 03:16, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 18:56, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. His work was the subject of a highly critical Newsweek article: Beliefwatch: Separated? by Waldman, Steven, Sep 11, 2006, Vol.148(9), p.9. His work was also attacked in Friend or Foe? by David, Jim, The Advocate (The national gay & lesbian newsmagazine), April 11, 2006, p.32(1) His work was also brought to task in "Justice David Josiah Brewer and the "Christian nation" maxim", Green, Steven K., Albany Law Review, Winter, 1999, Vol.63(2), p.427. His work was also discussed in "Purifying the Law: The Legal World of "Christian Patriots"", Barkun, Michael, Journal for the Study of Radicalism, 2007, Vol.1(1), pp.57-70. With national media and academic articles outside of his field publishing criticsm of his work, I'd say he passes WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 23:19, 29 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) 05:35, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Get Rude[edit]

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

Great band, but this cassette was self-released and obscure. Details pertinent to Exhorder's musical development should be discussed in the article about the band. Geschichte (talk) 18:48, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:57, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Note that the demo actually got a minor review here: [9], but otherwise I agree with the nominator. The item was not noticed in enough reliable sources to justify an article, but since the band is notable its existence can be described at their article. See also the unreleased material section at WP:NALBUMS. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:24, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:NALBUM.4meter4 (talk) 00:34, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:02, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Storch[edit]

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

No SIGCOV. Notable for only one event - being appointed to SEC after working at Goldman Sachs - and covered in a total of two sec.gov press releases (one on hiring, one on leaving), one Bloomberg piece, a Business Insider piece referencing the Bloomberg piece, and a Business Insider piece mentioning his now deleted photo. Also note, it was created by an editor with only three other edits, two of which where immediately reverted. Hydromania (talk) 18:17, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Hydromania (talk) 18:17, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Hydromania (talk) 18:17, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Serving on the SEC could certainly count as a notability claim if he could be referenced over WP:GNG for it, but it is not an "inherent" notability freebie that guarantees him an article just because his role is technically verifiable. Nominator is correct, however, that the sources here are not adequate to get him over GNG: two of the four are the SEC's own self-published press releases; the Bloomberg piece reads like a thinly veiled rewrite of the press release rather than anything that resembles a journalist actually talking to anybody personally, and the Business Insider piece is just a snarky blurb about their efforts to find a photo of him — any piece that contains the all-caps phrase "A VAMPIRE SQUID IS RUNNING THE SEC" is not substantive enough to take seriously as a notability-making source. If somebody could do a lot better than this, then things might be different — but this, as written, is not even close to enough. Bearcat (talk) 16:25, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - two press releases and two gossipy "who's moving on" articles are not WP:SIGCOV, and his position is not high up enough to warrant automatic inclusion per WP:POLOUTCOMES. Sorry. Bearian (talk) 21:01, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. No SIGCOV. Notable for only one event. --SalmanZ (talk) 20:55, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a government functionary below the level of default notability and not enough coverage otherwise.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:21, 27 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 14:09, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adolf Sturmthal[edit]

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

Few citations, and little evidence to suggest subject meets WP:NPROF Curt 内蒙 17:47, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Curt 内蒙 17:47, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:50, 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 keep. Sandstein 09:33, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ping Identity[edit]

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

Doesn't passes general company notability guidelines and has been recreated after being deleted previously. Zinzhanglee (talk) 08:07, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. I came across reports that Ping was going public and thought they were notable enough. This would be my first page getting deleted. And I'm fine with that. But would it be better for me to provide more information on them? retiredprogrammers (talk) 12:25, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:11, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:11, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, somewhat reluctantly as this is a significant company in its niche marketplace. However the reality is that there is a lack of independent in-depth coverage. There are lots of product announcements, blog articles, and in the last few days a lot of news relating to the IPO, but these don't help meet the WP:NCORP criteria. I am sure there will be an article about Ping in time, but right now there's just not enough to meet the criteria. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 19:16, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have struck my !vote based on the additional sources that have since been identified. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 08:10, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep See WP:LISTED: many of the IPO-related stories, as well as the coverage of the major private capital raises prior to the IPO, are more than sufficient to demonstrate this now-public company has sufficient notability to meet the WP:NCORP guideline. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:48, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep See WP:LISTED: I just added Bloomberg, CNBC, Crunchbase refs. Since I created it I'm not actually sure if I get a vote. Also as a former software developer I can be somewhat pedantic but after reading the notability guidelines I'm still not sure I have a good understanding of what notable really means. If the creator of a page doesn't get a vote please feel free to delete this bullet. retiredprogrammers (talk) 23:43, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. One in-depth and seemingly independent piece of coverage ([10]) but the source is so-so (linked-in blog), other than that, press releases and their rewrites covering business as usual. This fails WP:NCORP and GNG. Ping me if anyone wants me to take a closer look at any other sources (nothing else present in the article as I said raises above PR level). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:03, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Piotrus:, @Curb Safe Charmer: I think this Reuters story, this Denver Post story, this Wall Street Journal story all certainly qualify. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:09, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator is a blocked sock. MER-C 16:54, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 17:36, 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 Merge.

Barkeep49 (talk) 00:34, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 US Open – Boys' Singles Qualifying[edit]

2019 US Open – Boys' Singles Qualifying (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
2019 US Open – Girls' Singles Qualifying (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The junior qualifying sections to the Grand Slam tennis tournaments do not pass WP:GNG. A WP:BEFORE search only found significant coverage for the adult qualifying tournaments or the junior main draws, neither of which are being nominated here. WP:NTENNIS doesn't apply either as neither the participants nor the qualifiers pass NTENNIS (winning the overall title is required for that). Iffy★Chat -- 09:45, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: I'm only nominating the most recent junior slam qualifying draws today as any possible coverage that I may have missed would be recent, and thus easy to find. If this AFD results in a consensus to delete, I'll open another AFD for the remaining 24 qualifying articles in Category:Grand Slam (tennis) junior tournaments at a later time. Iffy★Chat -- 09:45, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:52, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Certainly no stand alone article should be allowed here. No GNG at all. Usually, even on the main ATP Tour, qualification draws are placed at the bottom of the main draw article as opposed to a stand alone article. This is stated in the Tennis Project Guidelines. The minor league ATP Challenger Tour qualifications are not notable. Obviously the Grand Slam tournaments are a bit of an anomaly as to importance for everything that touches them, but Jr qualifying draws "at best" would be put at the bottom of the Jr draws, not as a separate entity. So delete or merge. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:04, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It seems that the outcome of this AfD will have some further implications, thus relisting to get a stronger consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 17:25, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 18:06, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've left a notice of this discussion on the WikiProject Tennis talk page. Iffy★Chat -- 19:49, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The tennis guidelines say "Do not create articles on qualification draws for smaller tournaments" (emphasis mine). The Grand Slams are the biggest tennis tournaments in the world. I'm fine with having qualification articles for Grand Slams. In any event, to merge it into the main articles as suggested in the guidelines for lesser tournaments is impractical here due to the size. Smartyllama (talk) 22:17, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just because they're related to the grand slams, it doesn't make them notable (WP:NOTINHERITED). Where's the coverage for these events specifically? I agree that merging is a bad idea as we don't list qualifying results for other tournaments not at the top level of tennis. Iffy★Chat -- 08:28, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Impractical"? The 2019 US Open – Boys' Singles article is tiny and could easily incorporate the qualifying at the bottom. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:25, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Batman Family enemies#Mobsters and plainclothes criminals. There's consensus that there's not enough in terms of sourcing for a standalone article. It's up to editors to decide whether and what to merge from the history into the target list. Sandstein 09:37, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

James Gordon Jr.[edit]

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

The usual fictional character biography with references limited to primary sources. No hint of any impact, reception, influences, etc. Sources are all WP:PRIMARY. Fails WP:NFICTION. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:18, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:20, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there are reliable secondary sources out there, and they even seem to pass the ongoing test! Here's a few: [[11]]; [[12]]; [[13]]. News sites like these have been used as reliable sources for some time. And that was just a quick Google. --Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 15:37, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Quick look at google produces, as usual, low quality sources. Please tell me how any of those are reliable? Comic fandom is huge and of course there are going to be some hits, like the ones you found - reviews of the books he appears is, fictional character biographies by fans, etc. I don't think this is sufficient for NFICTION. Let me present a brief analysis of three sources:
      • Bleeding Cool may be reliable, but the three paragraph like wikia-style fictional character biography summary hardly seems like in-depth coverage. In fact, this may be the case of WP:CITOGENESIS as the content of this blurb for the readers (this old character returns in new series) is likely copied either from us or from the batman wikia. There's no analysis of the character, his significance, just a few sentences about who he is.
      • Comic Book Resources exactly the same issue as above.
      • Newsarama is a reliable outlet, with few paragraphs about why Ales Kot decided to include him in an issue (or few) of his series. That's actually is a decent source, even if it skirts WP:INTERVIEW.
    • I don't think that should be sufficient for calling a fictional character notable. Sorry, but this kind of niche fancruft belongs on Batman wikia, not here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:18, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's a pretty awful AfD nomination. Egregious violation of WP:BEFORE. Took a look at the AfD nominee's edit activity. PRODed one article [14] at 14:14. Then four minutes later took this article to AfD at 14:18, confidently stating "No hint of any impact, reception, influences, etc.". Again, four minutes later, took yet another article WP: Articles for deletion/Matsuya (department store) to AfD at 14:22, which was rather quickly thrown out as an absolutely baseless crappy nomination. Same with this one. Should be thrown out. Did nominee test any of the fancy links his automated script offers, as a matter of routine WP:BEFORE. Try for instance GScholar. I myself was pretty surprised that Google Scholar [15] offers peer reviewed articles on a figure from the Batman universe, for instance from International Journal of Organization Theory & Behavior [16]. Holy cow. There are many more. What a lousy nomination. I'm glad I left Wikipedia years ago. Too many frustrations. MrCleanOut (talk) 00:41, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I spent quite a while looking for sources, and I didn't find any in-depth coverage in quality sources. Academic works, of course, would be great, but you are guilty of what you accuse me of, that is, insufficient analysis, or WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. I did look at [17], and if you did, you'd realize that the source mentions the subject in passing. Here', have the full quotes: "Notably, she gives birth to a son, James Jr., and not a daughter as in previous depictions of Commissioner Gordon." and " Indeed: When challenged by Two Face to identify “the person you need most”, Gordon chooses his son, James Jr. " That's it. He is mentioned in passing in two sentences. Yes, Batman has been researched quite a lot in academic literature, and to a lesser extent, Commissar Gordon too. But notability is not inherited, and his super niche family member, unknown to all but the biggest Batman fans, is not notable, and the lack of academic analysis of this character is quite obvious once you actually try to read the sources instead of relying on 'google hits'. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:18, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • My apologies for yelling at you. I was tired, and you're completely right. I'm not at all Batman savvy and confused James Gordon Jr. with his father, James Gordon. I still inclined at keep, though. Junior also pops up in very serious scholarly work. Perhaps I can find some time tomorrow. MrCleanOut (talk) 23:33, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • @MrCleanOut: It's all good. I'd be happy if we can find sufficient sources for keeping, through I doubt books/scholar will help here. Maybe we can find sufficient stuff like Newsarama one above which actually go into something besides fictional character biography/powers (which can be possibly copied from Wikipedia itself leading to WP:CITOGENESIS). It doesn't help that 99% of stuff that comes up in search is for his much more famous father. Jr is not that well known, hence my point he is unlikely to be notable. But I guess we can always merge him up to his father article, where as section on his family can include info on Jr. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:37, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Piotrus:Restating my KEEP. - I cant help suspect that much of your deletion rationale, although unstated, hinges on WP:CRUFT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Yes, there is a considerable scholarly interest in the Batman universe. The character James Gordon Jr. appears in quite diverse reputable journals behind paywalls (not predatory open access) such as
  • John Porterfield (2009) A Review of The Dark Knight, A Rorschach of the American Psyche, Psychological Perspectives, 52:2, 271-275, DOI: 10.1080/0033292090288128
  • Timothy D Peters (2015) Beyond the limits of the law: a Christological reading of Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight, Griffith Law Review, 24:3, 418-445, DOI: 10.1080/10383441.2015.1096985
  • Gabriel Huddleston (2016) A Dark Knight for public education: Using Batman as an apparatus of diffraction with neoliberal education reform, Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies, 38:5, 468-489, DOI: 10.1080/10714413.2016.1221713
I found those sources, using "Dark Knight" as search term. I readily admit the mention of Junior is only passing. But, really, what is to be expected for this character, the son of another Batman fictional character, who, at times, interact with the Batman superhero himself. Passing mention in these journals is a VERY high bar to pass. If passing mention in such journals were required for stand-alone WP articles, the WP project would have its number of articles reduced by orders of magnitude.
There is good coverage of James Gordon Junior here: Thigpen AF (2007). Batman as Monomyth [..] the Hero’s Journey to Gotham. MA thesis
See text pp63-65, which examines Junior's importance for the psychological plot. In the story, Dick faces a supervillain that symbolizes Dick’s opposite: the psychopathic James Gordon, Jr. While Dick is empathetic and emotionally healthy, James, Jr. completely lacks empathy […] James, Jr., a clinically diagnosed psychopath, who wants to destroy Dick Grayson. Junior believes that “Gotham City is a city of nightmares... […] ... James, Jr. embodies what Vogler calls, “the archetype of the Shadow” [etc.]
While this of course not is the kind of scholarly work that is published in reputable scientific journals with double-blind peer review, it undermines your claim that he is a "super niche family member, unknown to all but the biggest Batman fans", i.e. the obvious conclusion is that this is not WP:CRUFT.
Content deletion is therefore not the right course of action here. The essential WP question is then if a stand-alone article is warranted or if content should be merged into the James Gordon (comics) article (you also suggest this). I would argue against, as it would make that article even more messy than it already is. I might also frustrate people there and drive good editors away from that project. That's why I stand by my Keep. The surprisingly (to me at least) broad scholarly interest in the fictional Batman universe may warrant a generalization of this position for all the Batman characters.
Taking a step back, we should ask ourselves about the extent to which the efforts put into this AfD actually improves Wikipedia. I have spent far more time on this immensely silly subject than I really like to admit – time I could have spent providing content or doing far more rewarding stuff in real life. Same situation for you, I presume. What an incredible waste of time. I was bored one evening and it was a most regrettable mistake of mine to open the AfD pages. I will now resume my Wikipedia hibernation. MrCleanOut (talk) 11:59, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. We do need some in-depth coverage, but more sources for review are appreciated, I will try to look at them if we have time. If we can save this article, great. And if not, I do believe that keeping spam/fancruft of this project has merits on its own. Some levels of quality have to be maintained. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:52, 19 September 2019 (UTC) PS. I did look at the MT, but the discussion of Jr. does not go beyond the few sentences you quote. I think you really quoted 100% of what the author says about him. It is a good and reliable analysis, but I don't think three or so sentences in a single master thesis are sufficient to argue the subject received significant and in-depth analysis, and this is a treshold you'll notice in NFICTION and GNG in general. At the same time, I strongly encourage you to add this source with a sentence of two to the article; even if this ends up in merger, this will give us a reliable source to merge, besides unreferenced and mostly unimportant (batman wikia does it better...) stuff on character history and powers. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:50, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The above sources don't seem to be enough to hold the character on its own. They'd be better served added to articles about whatever storylines in which they're relevant. TTN (talk) 00:45, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is a purely personal opinion, not supported in WP:GNG. There is serious academic interest in the fictional Batman universe. That fact that the peer-reviewed papers I mention above in the highly diverse journals "Psychological Perspectives", "Griffith Law Review" and "Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies" bother to mention a plot with this character, James Jr. is a clear indicator of notability. The coverage in the Masters thesis is independent and significant, it addresses the topic directly and in detail, and it demonstrates that article content is not WP:OR. These WP:RS are merely what I found for this AfD. It's credible that others exist. Note that WP:GNG does not require definitive proof, only that it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found.
Your suggestion to move content "to articles about whatever storylines in which they're relevant" is completely bogus as no such article is likely to meet WP:GNG. MrCleanOut (talk) 15:29, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's like two things in the above that qualify as proper real world information. That in itself is not enough to build an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TTN (talk • contribs) 00:43, September 21, 2019 (UTC)
Dear MrCleanOut, you still have to show us that the articles you've found contain any in-depth discussion. I did not have the time to look at them outside of the MT you linked, but the first example you found was, as shown, a mention in passing. We cannot use google hits, even in scholar or books, as an argument. Mentions in passing are mentions in passing regardless of the type of the source. Now, did your read those academic articles and can you tell us whether the discussion of the subject in those texts is in-depth? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:44, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re: You still have to show us that the articles you've found contain any in-depth discussion. Is this a straw? In my rationale above I clearly stated: I readily admit the mention of Junior is only passing. As per WP:SOURCES, academic and peer-reviewed publications are the most reliable sources of all. Passing mention in diverse academic work is a clear indication of notability.
  • Yes, I did bother to download and read those articles that Google scholar located. If fact many more articles, as search results were diluted with hits for his more famous father. It was a quite laborious task, as Jr. is mentioned in various ways, James Jr. or "his son", so I actually had to quick-read the stuff. My search was limited. You yourself found the "Newsarama" source, which you say is WP:RS. I have no opinion on that, I didn't check it. Also, I stopped searching after finding one MA thesis - more may exist, who knows. MrCleanOut (talk) 11:36, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You misread the guideline. WP:GNG states that notability is a property of a subject, not the current state of a Wikipedia article. Your WP:PRIMARY claim ignores the WP:RS sources provided in this AfD. MrCleanOut (talk) 15:35, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I didn't ignore the sources provided, but I didn't find them compelling or the sources reliable - do these sources have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? - while notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article, the significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources is not there - the requirements of WP:GNG are quite clear and unambiguous and this article does not meet them - Epinoia (talk) 20:12, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You question if peer reviewed articles and a Master's thesis count as WP:RS? What seems quite clear and unambiguous here is that you consider the comics realm inferior, not worthy of inclusion, i.e. WP:IDONTLIKEIT. MrCleanOut (talk) 07:16, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • - spinning absurd conclusions out of thin air - but you are free to believe whatever you like, even if it is completely, absolutely and profoundly wrong - Epinoia (talk) 02:04, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:45, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with no prejudice towards draftification if MrCleanOut believes that the article has reliable sources. In it's current state it is totally lacking in reliable secondary sources. However, let it pass through AfC first rather than giving the benefit of the doubt.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 23:19, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your comment is not supported by any reference to policy or guideline, it is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Note that AfD is not a vote. Note also that AfD is not for article clean up. As per WP:ATD: If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. ATD is a Wikipedia POLICY, not merely a guideline. MrCleanOut (talk) 11:43, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, article revised. I have revised the article and added RS sources. Many arguments at the AfD are based on the present state and sourcing of the article. AfD is not for article clean up however. Per WP:GNG It is sufficient to provide credible evidence that significant coverage in independent sources exist, which I have done. I don't have to show or prove anything to anybody. In theory at least, if due process is followed. MrCleanOut (talk) 11:51, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're putting too much weight onto trivial sources. Having one or two good sources and a bunch of trivial mentions does not allow for a proper article. Linking a source to a single word shows the source is something that does not actually focus on the topic enough to even be in the article. TTN (talk) 11:53, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have nominated 1,500+ articles for deletion, mostly within the fictional universe. Your own article creation history is nil. With this edit history, it is unsurprising that you are unhappy with a stand-alone article. MrCleanOut (talk) 15:20, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You’re simply refusing to accept that other people may not share your low standard of acceptable sources. We can certainly agree to disagree, but claiming that anyone who disagrees with you simply dislikes the article is disingenuous. TTN (talk) 15:31, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge anything that MrCleanOut added recently to List of Batman Family enemies and redirect. If this is all MrCleanOut could find about this character through hard work, then this character seems rather trivial and should best be covered in a list of characters. – sgeureka t•c 16:30, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I did put effort into examining mention in peer reviewed academic work. I haven't looked for other more mundane sources. You seem to apply criteria that, if applied rigorously, would call for deletion of most of Wikipedia MrCleanOut (talk) 19:29, 29 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. It's up to editors to decide whether to redirect this to somewhere. Sandstein 09:38, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost Maker[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional character TTN (talk) 15:38, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 15:38, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 15:38, 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. It's up to editors to decide whether to redirect this to somewhere. Sandstein 09:39, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ferocia[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional character TTN (talk) 15:36, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 15:36, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 15:36, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge somewhere. Hyperbolick (talk) 15:41, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: F. BOZ (talk) 21:17, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - not independently notable, but the content can be kept, eg at the list suggested by BOZ --DannyS712 (talk) 05:53, 23 September 2019 (UTC) see comment below --DannyS712 (talk) 18:33, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The content is not notable and does not deserve it's own article. Why should transferring the article whole cloth to a list of non-notable articles suddenly make it worth preserving? If these List of Marvel Character articles were simple lists, that might be worthwhile, but as it stands they just seem to exist to allow people to store content which isn't notable. --Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 12:24, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No real sources means that this is entirely WP:OR or WP:SYNTH and doesn't have anything worth preserving. Rockphed (talk) 17:52, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Killer Moff. The character is extremely minor and has no sources demonstrating any sort or real world notability. Merging to one of the Marvel lists means that those already bloated lists just has even more unnotable, poorly sourced information added to it. Rorshacma (talk) 14:56, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect the deletion !votes are convincing, but at the least the page should be redirected to a marvel article --DannyS712 (talk) 18:33, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Killer Moff.4meter4 (talk) 00:42, 30 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. This debate really covers two separate things. First, is the subject notable. Second, what to do about the improper way this article was created.

Starting with notability, I am going to review the comments that directly reference notability or some sort of notability guideline, including GNG or NACTOR. To delete: 3 and to keep: 6. (There is also a delete "per Narky Blert" and a keep "per above" that I didn’t count, they would cancel out anyway. The other comments are the nominator (who only links a previous AfD) and two users who suggest speedy deletion on grounds unrelated to notability.) One side says they pass NACTOR the other side says they fail GNG. Both sides raise valid policy-based arguments, so we have a rough consensus that the article subject is notable.

The second matter to consider is what to do about the recreation – there are several users expressing that the article should be speedy deleted, and one voting to draftify. Ultimately there is no policy reason why this article can be speedy deleted, or it would have happened at some point in the last two weeks. With only one person suggesting to draftify, which presumably the keep !voters would oppose, there is no consensus for that outcome either.

So in my judgment, the consensus is to Keep. I will move the article to the correct title after processing the AfD close. ST47 (talk) 20:19, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

VaniBhojan[edit]

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

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vani Bhojan Shirt58 (talk) 10:55, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:57, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:57, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:57, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:27, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:28, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete All you have to do is put db-G4 inside {{}} at the top of the page. Trillfendi (talk) 21:19, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that the nominator declined the G4 correctly as the versions are different Atlantic306 (talk) 22:00, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as G4 does not apply as the 2014 AFD version did not include her later series including the lead role in a 720 episode national television series and she has also had the lead in another 1400 episode tv series as well as being one of the judges on two notable reality tv series so clearly passes WP:NACTOR criteria 1 (only one criteria needed), thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 21:58, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep subject appears to have gotten continued coverage since the deletion discussion in 2014, such coverage is the core of notability. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 04:56, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. None of the citations is specifically about her. WP:NACTOR does not override WP:GNG, with its requirement for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (emphasis in the original). "[S]ubject appears to have gotten continued coverage" is no substitute for actual citations. The most comprehensive source in the article is IMDb, which is not WP:RS. The best sources turned up by a WP:BEFORE search were this and this, such as they are; neither StarsUnfolded nor BehindTalkies has a Wikipedia article, which throws their value into question. Her principal claim to notability would seem to be having twice won a Sun Kudumbam Viruthugal award; but as those are in-house awards by Sun TV for Sun TV, their power to confer notability is also open to question.
I am voting 'weak delete' only because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, in reverse: it seems unfair to single out for deletion this particular biography from the many others of subcontinental actors and actresses which are at least as thin. The whole area of film and TV on the Subcontinent in English Wikipedia is an undrained swamp. Narky Blert (talk) 08:44, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:02, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Hyperbolick (talk) 15:43, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per Narky Blert. WP:NACTOR does not override WP:GNG. All the sources I could find were non-reliable sources, mostly telly-sites or gossip sites. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:27, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:NACTOR. #1 Lightburst (talk) 21:32, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please specify the citation(s) on which you rely. Narky Blert (talk) 21:44, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes the subject specific guideline for actors. WP:NOTABILITY clearly states you have to pass EITHER the general notability guidelines OR one of the subject specific guidelines, not both. Not sure why some still get that confused. Dream Focus 02:26, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please specify the citation(s) on which you rely. Narky Blert (talk) 21:44, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean WP:NACTOR "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." She also meets WP:ANYBIO "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times." She had significant roles to be eligible for best actress award. Dream Focus 22:08, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Narky Blert. Furthermore, looking at the two "best" sources he found, both look like they are populated by information the actress gave rather than by information the source dug up and verified. They might have rigorous fact checking, but they are twigging all my "bad website" alarms. Rockphed (talk) 13:34, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. While it is true that the article is currently horrible written and lacks sufficient sources, she nevertheless clearly passes WP:NACTOR and the Indian media seems to have quite a number of articles on her (the Times of India alone has a selection: [18], also [19], [20], [21]). Not all or even none of these articles are particular in-depth, but probably enough to compile a short article and to illustrate notability.--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:51, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and block or at the very least sternly warn the creator, with no prejudice against good-faith recreation through standard procedures. This title has been salted twice (once in 2015 and once earlier this year), and Iamarjunkumar knew it. I also very much suspect the current article is a copy-paste recreation of an earlier version of the article given that when created the filmography ended in 2015: @Alexf and NeilN: can you confirm or deny this? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:06, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would also not be opposed to draftifying and salting the current title like the last two titles (with the additional reason that this is perhaps not even useful as a redirect). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:05, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Narky Blert and Hijiri88 the article was deleted 9 times 6 times here and 3 times here twice in AFD fails WP:GNG and now feel it may be copy paste of a previous version through not sure.Now the award Sun Kudumbam Viruthugal award to her was given by Sun TV (India) given to actors of its channel alone and is a inhouse award.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:38, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. On my university library site I found this article "Vaibhav-VaniBhojan's film titled 'Kallam Karka'.", The Times of India, August 28, 2019. She was critically reviewed in a lead role in a film just last month. With the other sources provided, she passes WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR.4meter4 (talk) 01:07, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@4meter4: So ... you advocate sneaking around creation protection and violating BLP in the process (Google now thinks she is mononymous because of our current article title!) just because the subject may be notable enough to merit a separate article? That's great, and I would support you or anyone else creating a new article on her and putting it through AFC so an admin can review it and move it into the mainspace, but what happened here was a gross violation of our standard procedure, and you surely recognize that fact. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:31, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Hijiri88, I'm not really sure what you are referring to. My comment was not a commentary on anything but the quality of sources meeting WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. I really wasn't doing anything in my review but commenting in that capacity. I didn't realize there was some sort of unusual history with this article. I hadn't even read Pharaoh of the Wizards' comments until just now. I often just look at the article in it's current state and start hunting for sources to prove SIGCOV and GNG or not without reading others comments first. I like to form my own impressions.4meter4 (talk) 02:44, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Did you not notice the title that was deliberately misspelled to game the system? The fact that the article had been recreated against consensus about a half-dozen times under different titles? In cases like this, notability doesn't really matter; an admin's express permission is needed to recreate the article at its proper title, and that was not done. And I wasn't referring to PotW's comment -- I said pretty much the same thing. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:49, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I didn't until you just pointed it out. I assumed it was just needing a page move due to innocent human error. My usefulness at AFD is usually in finding good independent references which is what is needed in most cases. And occassionally I clean up articles. I wasn't aware of the drama at work in this case until you pinged me. I stopped reading after Narky Blert (because I went into article rescue mode to find better sources), so I missed your comment as well.4meter4 (talk) 03:55, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer All of the "keep" !votes except Hyperbolic (who didn't provide a rationale), and even some of the "delete" !votes, have been focused on the notability of this topic. Assuming good faith on their part, it would seem that there is something of a consensus that this topic is notable. However, the bigger issue here is the repeated disruptive recreation and attempting to get around creation protection by using a deliberately misspelled title. When I Google this actress's name, the first result now is English Wikipedia with its claim that her name is "VaniBhojan", which is borderline BLP-violation in that some Wikipedia editor has effectively changed the way this person's name appears on search engines in order to get around the previous salting. It seems highly likely that the creator of the current page is related to the creators of the 2014, 2015, and January 2019 pages. This kind of disruptive editing is, in my view and no doubt the view of most Wikipedians, totally unacceptable and of far greater short-term importance than GNG and NACTOR (both of which are guidelines, not policies). I would therefore urge you to weigh "notability-based" arguments in relation to the other issues of gaming the system through deliberate mistitling, violating previous consensus and administrative action, and even potential sockpuppetry. I for one, and probably several of the other "delete" !votes, would be happy to support recreating this page based on the apparent consensus that the topic is notable, but that is really not what is at issue in this discussion. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:05, 30 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. There is clear consensus that this topic should be documented somewhere - the answer to where can be debated outside AfD. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 22:27, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KPXH-LD[edit]

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

Low power station which meets neither WP:GNG or WP:BROADCAST. Onel5969 TT me 17:39, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 23:29, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:56, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to those: Why do you have to delete KPXH-LD or redirect to Daystar? CentralTime301 (talk) 23:52, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: But for reasons specified by Mlaffs. I believe keeping the article as/is is better than redirecting it and it getting forgetten about. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:20 on September 8, 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:36, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think List of television stations in Colorado or Media in Fort Collins, Colorado would be better redirect targets than the corporate owner's page. But given that this should be documented somewhere, the best way to do that should really have been discussed on a talk page rather than a deletion forum. postdlf (talk) 13:41, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Only due to its past history as a satellite of KPXC-TV and the maintenance of that history. If not for that, a rd to the Daystar page would have been my choice. Nate • (chatter) 02:18, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:01, 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 Keep.  JGHowes  talk 01:47, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Imogen Waterhouse[edit]

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

The reality is, notability is not inherited from the more famous sister. Any- and everything about "Immy" is always about being related to Suki. Nothing more than a blurb. I have yet to see independent notability. I have yet to see significant coverage without them talking about Suki foremost. "Suki's sister this" or "another Waterhouse that" (there are 4 of them altogether) don't give indication of notability. So for that reason, I am proposing deletion of the article. Trillfendi (talk) 16:02, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:16, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:16, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:16, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No offense, but i'm getting the impression you don't know what you are talking about. Yes, Imogen pursued a career path similar to her sister and her sister probably helped her out. But so so what? That has no bearing on assessing her notability.
For an actor/actress you look whether they have appeared in several notable works. Which is true for Imogen who works as an actress now for 5 years and has appeared as a guest star or in supporting role in several notable TV shows and 2 movies. In addition she has a leading role in current tv series out and a had a leading role in a 2018 movie. None of those have anything to do with her sister btw.. So as far as I can see notability as an actress is passed.
In addition she probably also passes the notability for models as she had her own vogue cover (without her sister).
There have been press reports about her (with and without her sister) for 5 years now and even in non-English languages.
All of that you can get more or less from the current WP stub, if you read more than the first two lines or do some research on your own.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:33, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have been making articles on this website for years now—over 130 as a matter of fact, and yes some happen to be a family member—so I do know what I’m talking about when I see an apparent lack of independent notability. I’ve been knowing about Suki Waterhouse since 2013; I’ve been editing, and fighting for BLP on her article since 2015, (it was I who resolved the ridiculous dispute about her birthday which happens to be the same day as a certain guy from Philadelphia, for instance). It was I who added names with sources about her siblings, albeit one is now on the blacklist, 3 years ago. So no you can’t say I’ve never “done my research” into Imogen. I added the Tatler source as you can see, as a citation for the names of Suki’s relatives. Not for notability. They give 2 trivial sentences to each family member! And Appearance doesn’t equal notability according to the countless page reviewers and administrators who have said that. And no, she doesn’t have a Vogue cover. An editorial is not a cover. And Even covers are debatable notability for some reason, but that’s another story. If “notability” for an actress is simply appearance in a role to you no wonder there are actor articles in the AfD everyday. Trillfendi (talk) 17:49, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – I warned this article's author that the subject does not pass WP:NACTOR and especially WP:BASIC (there is pretty much no in-depth coverage of the subject in WP:RSs...), but they ignored the warning. FWIW, I think this should be replaced with a redirect back to Suki Waterhouse#Early life, as it was before – it confirms the existence of Imogen Waterhouse, and confirms that she's Suki's sister and an actress. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:25, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Same as above, I suggest you read more than the first 2 lines of the lead. The stub tells you where she grew up, where she got her training as an actress and shortly describes her career as an actress.
And yes it is currently only a stub, but notability is not about requiring lengthy articles. You're free to add further details about her acting roles or modeling jobs or her private life. However I didn't set out to create a lenghy article but i changed a dysfunctional Redirect (linking to a non-existing section in Suki Waterhouse, which has almost no information on Imogen anyhow) into a short article that can grow overtime. The rather unfriendly reaction that this triggered (from a speedy deletion request without informing the author for something that is at best AFD case to getting lectured on draft space) strikes somewhat kafkaesque - note that i'm editing WP for good three years longer than you.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:51, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – I have been, over the years, both a Deletionist and an Inclusionist. Quite frankly, there are merits to both. Here, there is ample reason for inclusion of the person's article to remain. She is an actor and has appeared in several television programs and at least one film. That in itself is notable. That she is young and will likely expand on her acting career seems likely. She is not her sister, and tying her article as a redirect to her sister's article seems...rude, as if her accomplishments were subsidiary to, or dependent upon her sister. Which of course is wrong. I say leave the article alone, and seek to improve and expand the article. Removing it just means someone else will recreate it when Ms. Waterhouse is cast in something new. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:38, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how the "let's keep it wait to see if her career actually develops" fallacy is criteria for keeping. Trillfendi (talk) 18:21, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's a mistake I made earlier in my editing career – I've created a couple of articles on the basis of "they're "new" and will likely keep working..." fallacy, and have come to regret it... Bottom line: Waterhouse does not currently have enough coverage to be considered "notable" – she clearly fails WP:BASIC, which is the only discussion that matters in this case. Whether that will change in a year or two is irrelevant: right now it's WP:TOOSOON for an article. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:36, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as an actress she passes WP:NACTOR ("significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows") since 2015 she appeared in several notable tv shows, 3 movies (2x supporting, 1xleading) and has leading role in current tv series running for 2 seasons now (see filmography in the article). Imho she also passes WP:BASIC as there have been multiple reports on her and/or her work as actress or model in the media/press over the last 6 years (see for instance Radio Times 2018, Tattler 2019, W 2016, Fashionist 2016, Town & country 2017, Daily Mail 2015, Telegraph 2015, Vogue 2018, Elle 2015, Gala 2014 (German)). In addition to the formal notability argument one may ask the question about what is supposed to be gained her by a deletion at this point. Before this (expandable) article stub was created, there had been a redirect in the ANS already leading to the more famous older sister Suki Waterhouse informing us that she has a sister named Imogen. No information on her education, acting or modelling career not even her full name, so from that perspective a deletion and/or return to the redirect seems like clear disservice to our readers to me. Probably also worth mentioning that the German Wikipedia already has an article on her for about a year, which roughly matches the time she started passing WP:NACTOR.--Kmhkmh (talk) 07:14, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My God, you've been here more than long enough to know better. By now you should know what type of sources quantify notability. For you to think just any website mentioning her name is usable or acceptable (including the BANNED Daily Mail) is egregious and quite frankly, nonsensical. The German Wikipedia article's only references given are Famousbirthdays.com for fuck's sake, not even remotely a reliable source, and "Suki's sister follows her in the fashion industry", an article that focuses on Suki's accomplishments only saying Imogen "dreams of one day modeling for Topshop" (which she has yet to do) and that she is signed to the same agency, which isn't an accomplishment. And no, she's not a notable model having only done 12 jobs in the past 4 years. I'm still trying to figure out how the uncredited appearance of "daughter" in The Last Photograph or one line in Nocturnal Animals are "significant". As for The CW's "The Outpost", I neither see what routine listing of Waterhouse in parentheses for playing a character does for notability. Trillfendi (talk) 15:11, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed I'm long enough around to know that your argument is not correct and it doesn't become any more correct via repetition.
  • a) The Daily Mail is not banned as such, but her use as a source is discouraged (I actually participated in the discussion that got it "banned"). I listed it above merely to show a somewhat regular press coverage over the last 6 year (as the sentence states). All the links listed above are media/press publications rather than merely arbitrary sites mentioning her name, some of them you used yourself as a source before if I'm not mistaken.
  • b) I'm not arguing she is notable as a model (as such) but as an actress.
  • c) Notability is not about "accomplishments" or a reward WP bestows for such "accomplishments". The basic motivation behind the notability of the article's topic is the (potential) interest to readers and Wikipedia can provide information on the subject in an encyclopedic fashion.
  • d) Yes, the article on the German Wikipedia uses famousbirthdays.com to verify her date of birth, which is probably a mistake by whoever editor did that. However it does not use it to determine the notability, the notability for actresses is determined by de:Wikipedia:Relevanzkriterien#Darstellende_Künstler,_Moderatoren,_Filmstab which roughly the same as similar to WP:NACTOR.
  • e) As far as her roles in Nocturnal Animals and The Last Photograph is concerned, I don't know more specific details and haven't seen the films myself, I took the information the according IMDB entries and news articles mentioning her participation.
  • d) As far as her role in the Outpost is concerned, I've no idea what you exactly mean by "routine listing in parenthesis". Yes, films and shows (and their descriptions in sources) routinely list their actors/actresses - so?. As far as it connection to notability is concerned, I'd thought it is rather obvious, that a leading role in tv series contributes to "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows" (WP:NACTOR). Or is it that you are not clear about the exact scope of her role? In this case let me assure you her role is significant and central to series (This one I've actually seen myself rather then just compiling it from sources). So for arguments sake, let's discount her roles in Nocturnal Animal and The Last Photograph due to potentially not being significant enough, then you still have her as a guest star in several notable tv shows, as a lead in a movie (Braid) and as a regular in a leading role on the Outpost. That still passes WP:NACTOR.--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:02, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Last I checked when someone tries to add the Daily Mail as a source the action is blocked. For acting, I don't see how a few "small parts" contribute to notability as an actor. That would make anybody with a SAG card notable and 160,000 useless articles of people who did things such as appear in a Reese's Puffs commercial or as an extra on Modern Family–obviously that's not how it works. Mere appearance in a show that can't crack a million viewers is now notability? The bar has become that low to y'all? That's sad. What happened to performance. Is that not how an actor gets recognition? Trillfendi (talk) 00:41, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Technically speaking the Daily Mail is not blocked but deprecated, meaning if you try to use it in an article you get a warning/strong advice not to use it short of certain exceptions, you are however not blocked/banned from using it. The Daily Mail has repeatedly not to say endlessly been discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard (see archives). The (temporary) decision of the discussion I vaguely recalled on top of my head was to discourage the use of the Daily Mail, albeit with different template than the one for deprecated sources you currently see.
As far as notability of actors is concerned significant roles in multiple notable shows/films is the criteria not any appearance in any show or commercials. And yes that potentially allows still for large number articles (as notability for most subjects/topics does). Formal arguments aside it is imho somewhat fair to assume that actors being regulars in notable tv series or in movies are of interest to readers. In fact that is exactly how I ended up creating the stub in the first place: I looked up the Outpost on Wikipedia and clicked on the linked actors and in the case of Imogen Waterhouse I ended up with that somewhat unfortunate Redirect (this) linking to a non-existing section in the article for Suki Waterhouse.--Kmhkmh (talk) 02:07, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It shouldn’t have been redirected in the first place, but there goes what I’ve been saying this whole time: the belief that Imogen’s notability has been contingent upon Suki’s. Trillfendi (talk) 02:20, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:59, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - clearly passes WP:NACTOR even just on the basis of having a major role in The Outpost and lead role in a movie (let alone her other roles). How is notability even a serious question now? Glenbarnett (talk) 01:44, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lead role in what movie? None. Trillfendi (talk) 01:56, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've already explained that several times now including in an earlier discussion we had above, she had a lead role in the 2018 horror movie Braid.--Kmhkmh (talk) 06:49, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What was “notable” about the virtually unknown VOD film that undoubtedly you never heard of until a week ago perusing her IMDb, because if you’re scraping the bottom of the barrel, existence of a film isn’t notability of it. Trillfendi (talk) 07:42, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The notability of film does not depend on you or me having heard of it. The notability of a film can be due to variety of reasons but first and foremost of course for getting reviewed in news outlets, film magazines and review site of well known movie critics. The probably best known general film review site Rotten Tomatoes currently lists 19 reviews for Braid among them the Los Angeles Times, The New York Times and Variety. It might be also worthwhile to point out that Braid is not "just" a VOD film, but it was shown on several film festivals and had a limited theatrical release as well. That aside a theatrical release is of course no requirement for a movie to be notable. Many tv movies or streamed movies are considered notable (in a general sense as well as in the wikipedia notability for an article sense).--Kmhkmh (talk) 17:32, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Because WP:NACTOR is a sideshow – people are only presumed to be notable on that basis (and it's a serious question that she even passes NACTOR anyway): the important guideline is WP:BASIC, which demands significant (and in-depth) independent coverage which this subject has not received. So, no – it's a very serious question in this case, and the benchmark has not been met. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:28, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And very serendipitous how all of a sudden an article for the film has materialized out of almost thin air. Trillfendi (talk) 18:57, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NACTOR and WP:NMODEL. She was the main subject of the article "Sitting Pretty.(Imogen Waterhouse )" by Guiducci, Mark Vogue, 2015, Vol.205(8), p.188. She was a headlining model of Aldo's 2017 Fall Campaign which was reviewed in "Aldo Introduces Fall Campaign", Wireless News, July 29, 2017 and "Aldo celebrates individuality and love through its fall 2017 campaign", PR Newswire Europe, July 24, 2017. She also headlined an international campaign for British Airways (see "Imogen the Possibilities This Winter, with British Airways, New Winter Schedule", India Aviation News, Oct 31, 2017 and "BA celebrates 80 years of Hong Kong service with VIP gala", TradeArabia, Apr 12, 2016) 4meter4 (talk) 01:13, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, people truly fail to understand the ever-debated NMODEL criteria (then again this is the same website that where just months ago editors who know scrap about fashion really tried to claim avowed supermodel Birgit Kos "wasn’t notable" because reliable sources were "name dropping" designers she walked for. Complete ignorance but what else is new). This certainly isn’t it. A "notable" model yet hasn’t modeled in years? And only did a handful of jobs in a 2 year span? An Aldo shoe ad and a British Airways ad is all you could muster up? That’s not how any of this works. You have to even be a working model to become a notable model, for one. (Exhibit A) And that Vogue piece by Guiducci goes back to exactly what I’ve been saying this whole time—this brief blurb only talked about Suki, and comparisons to Cara Delevinge’s model sisters. Nothing about her own career! Trillfendi (talk) 06:53, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Trillfendi, I think you are missing the point about sustained coverage over the length of time in the entertainment field as a whole. On a side note, I find your interaction with other editors in this discussion to be condescending and rude. You won't convince other people you are right by insulting their intelligence.4meter4 (talk) 12:56, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn’t change the fact of all this “coverage” being about perceived inherited notability of being Suki’s sister (...following in the footsteps of her sister Suki, Suki’s little sister... [a headline that doesn’t even mention her name]; the common motif.) with any of it barely even bothering to note what she has done with her own career exploits. Nor does it change what is NMODEL. And if she were actually a notable model why does this article make no mention of it? Now if I cared about being a sweetheart maybe I would become a kindergarten teacher. Trillfendi (talk) 18:37, 30 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. Sandstein 07:40, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of devices with an IR blaster[edit]

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

This is a list of products with a particular feature. The list is large, so that feature is clearly not particularly notable or an novel differentiator among products. I don't think there's encyclopedic value in such a list, so this seems to only serve for promotion of the individual products. Many non-links, so the products themselves often aren't notable. Very few references. This very broad list will never be current and will be quite difficult to support. Fails WP:NOTPROMOTION, WP:NOTCATALOG, WP:RAWDATA. Mikeblas (talk) 14:41, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:49, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:04, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Just not encyclopedic in any way. Ajf773 (talk) 20:29, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - does not appear to meet Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists --DannyS712 (talk) 05:56, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - now days there are less and less devices that support remote IR blaster, though almost every household still has TVs and other items that controlled by ir. So this list is very rare and at the same time very useful, if you need to identify which device has support for ir blaster. Please don't detete it) 23 September 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.193.117.102 (talk)
  • Delete per nominator.4meter4 (talk) 01:25, 30 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. Note: the AFD was created 22 September but the nomination was not signed until 28th so it has had a week. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 14:41, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David Thomas Roberts[edit]

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

Fails to meet notable guidelines for Musician, strictly promotional, resume in structure, unable to find secondary sources, not enough content to warrant an article at WP Maineartists (talk) 00:16, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:04, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:05, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:15, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree this seems promotional, but he was interviewed on All Things Considered which is more legit than many RS that pass muster in these musician AfD's, but it appears to be the only thing so it's probably not enough. ShelbyMarion (talk) 20:17, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Good to know. Then it's just a very poorly written article about a rather significant BLP. Will adjust accordingly to update content. Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 11:32, 30 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. The arguments to keep are persuasive; the argument to delete is weakened by the fact that the over promotion has been cleaned out. A merger would have consensus here, but in the absence of a viable target, this is a "keep". Vanamonde (Talk) 14:49, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Douglas Smith[edit]

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

This article is sourced to a link that leads nowhere, and an IMDB page. I searched for better sourcing, but drew a blank - can't see how this passes GNG or NCREATIVE. GirthSummit (blether) 22:21, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit (blether) 22:21, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit (blether) 22:21, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit (blether) 22:21, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:43, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:43, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:46, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Smith has been nominated for and won significant awards so meets WP:ANYBIO, but the article is not encyclopedic, no more than a list of award nominations, more like a promotional résumé - notablility is not based on content, but there is so little information and material of substance here that I don't think it would be missed if it were gone - Epinoia (talk) 01:31, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:27, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - winner of a Prime time Emmy. Bearian (talk) 21:04, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep Emmy winner seems good enough to justify notability. However usable sources on film staff other than actors and directors tend to be rather rare so the likelihood of acquiring any to turn the article into more that a one or two liners we currently have seems rather low and hence one might argue that this case might be better suited as list entry (on emmy winners) rather than its own article.--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:24, 25 September 2019 (UTC) Changed my opinion/assessment to neutral due to Girth Summit's last comment.--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:48, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the article has been greatly improved by the removal of all the spam - thanks Kmhkmh. With regard to notability, I note that the award was not given to the subject as an individual, but to a team of professionals: "Marina Adam, Foley Artist; Rob Bertola, Sound Editor; Tom Bjelic, Supervising Sound Editor; Anthony Currie, Sound Editor; Allan Fung, Sound Editor; Garrett Kerr, Sound Editor; Craig Pettigrew, Music Editor; Donna G. Powell, Foley Artist; Paul Shikata, Sound Editor; John Douglas Smith, Supervising Sound Editor". Other than that one mention in a list of a team that won an Emmy, we seem to be devoid of sources; if the consensus is that this is enough to establish notability, then I'll be happy to go with that, but it seems weak to me. GirthSummit (blether) 19:22, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to point out that I've essentially just returned the article to its original state, the list spam was added by some IP later rather than by the original author/creator.--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:54, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Bearian and Epinoia - I just wanted to check whether, when you !voted, you recognised that the Emmy was awarded to an entire team, rather than individually to the subject of the article. Apologies for the intrusion if you'd already factored that into your decision, just wanted to make sure. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 19:57, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the ping. No, I had not seen it was a team effort, but as the "Supervising Sound Editor" he should still get credit. Bearian (talk) 13:29, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bearian, FWIW, note that he isn't the only 'supervising sound editor' on the list of recipients - I still think this is weak, but I'll stop badgering you now! GirthSummit (blether) 18:06, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Bearian.4meter4 (talk) 04:59, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not keep - Is there a place we can merge? If not I guess I'm at delete. He's one of 10 people for a miniseries Emmy win. TEN. For one show. A miniseries at that. If there are not reliable sources then we are either left with a BLP that lacks RS to do more than Verify or we're left with a place that someone can use for promotional purposes. The latter has already happened - will it stay in its current form over time or will it turn back into an IMDB listing? This guy has doubtless done real work - including on projects of note - but that doesn't mean he's notable. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:27, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Barkeep49, I'd be happy with a merge of some sort. I'm not sure all the content would be a good fit for Hitler: The Rise of Evil, which doesn't include biographical info about any other of the sound editors who won the award, but we could for example list the names of the sound design team who won the Emmy for that show? GirthSummit (blether) 06:17, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Pono (digital music service). Or the other way round as proposed below. Sandstein 09:40, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PonoMusic[edit]

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

Same subject as Pono (digital music service) Rathfelder (talk) 14:09, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:28, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:28, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:28, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect Article creator here - thanks for the ping Rathfelder. I think this may be better as a merge and redirect with Pono (digital music service), but the question is which one stays as the main article. When I created this in 2014, the digital music service article was there, but not the company article, which this one was intended to be. There was a player, a service and a company, like with the iPod, iTunes and Apple. The PonoPlayer article was created in January 2015 by bp0, who appears inactive since May but I pinged him (her?) anyway. The service and player subsequently failed, but we want to keep a record of everything as part of the digital graveyard. Whatever the consensus is, a merge and redirect will keep the separate editing history. Without going too much down memory lane, my initial instinct is to merge and redirect both PonoPlayer and Pono (digital music service) to PonoMusic (the company). We could have a player and service section in the company article. That seems more elegant. I'll revisit when I have more time and after others have had time to chime in. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 15:38, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you are happy to merge them I'll withdraw this proposal. Rathfelder (talk) 15:40, 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 redirect to Guntur. Mz7 (talk) 10:10, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Guntur City Police[edit]

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

City-level law enforcement agencies fails WP:GNG to have stand-alone article, has been without any citations since 2014. KCVelaga (talk) 13:32, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 13:32, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 13:32, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:05, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...and so what about something other than a stand-alone article? Please discuss the possible options. postdlf (talk) 22:57, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Guntur - relevant content, even if it isn't enough (in terms of coverage) to warrant an independent article --DannyS712 (talk) 05:58, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Guntur, but please don't merge anything. I can see Guntur Rural Police and Guntur Urban Police [23], but no Guntur City Police (unless the term is being used in an informal manner). The information in the article doesn't have inline citations and it anyway not suitable for merging into the city article.--DreamLinker (talk) 18:42, 26 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) 05:33, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New Rising Sons[edit]

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

Not a notable band. It's founders are also not independently notable and nothing afaict that would meet nmusic. Praxidicae (talk) 12:48, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:06, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:06, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) ~~ OxonAlex - talk 14:08, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel Griggs[edit]

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

Another former Split Enz member that fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:38, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:38, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:07, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Member of several notable bands, satisfying WP:NMUSIC criterion 6. There are sources available, e.g. [24], [25], [26], [27] and no doubt quite a bit in the various books on Split Enz and Crowded House. --Michig (talk) 18:18, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per passing WP:NMUSIC together with the reliable sources book coverage identified above that means there is no valid reason for deletion imv, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:01, 27 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) 05:32, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Gillies (musician)[edit]

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

Google search could not verify the subject is notable. Gilles did play in band Split Enz, but other than that there aren't any RSs that confirm Gillies is notable on his own. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:33, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:33, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:34, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and change the entry at Robert Gillies to link to the article on Split Enz. Doesn't appear to have any real notability beyond his membership of Split Enz. There's no sourced content to merge, and I feel that the disambiguation page is a more likely destination from any searches so a redirect to Split Enz from this title wouldn't be useful. --Michig (talk) 18:21, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above as not independently notable from the band, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:57, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable indepdently of the band.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:44, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:NMUSIC.4meter4 (talk) 04:09, 30 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 and redirect to Allies of World War II. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:31, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Western Allies[edit]

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

This article is unsourced original research. The subject is ambiguous, and is much better covered in 2 existing articles: Allies of World War I and Allies of World War II. The article is effectively an orphan: links to it are invariably better going to Allies of World War II. I suggest the article and Western Allied, an equally ambiguous redirect, be deleted. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:14, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:17, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:07, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • support BN2412. This provides a good means of disposing of a poor article. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:03, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • support upmerge per BN2412.Hugo999 (talk) 05:09, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The term is used, but not necessarily in a consistent or well-defined way. The Western Allies are just those Allies that a given author considers Western. As a term, there is not enough discussion of it to warrant an article. Srnec (talk) 19:11, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a commonly-used term in regards to World War II (where it's usually applied to the British Empire/Commonwealth and the US). Nick-D (talk) 07:43, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Redirect per BD2412. It's a term that typically is interchangeable with the Allied Powers.4meter4 (talk) 04:06, 30 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. Mz7 (talk) 10:01, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

George Pirie (mathematician)[edit]

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

No indication of satisfying WP:NACADEMIC. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:50, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Am now content that notability is satisfied, at the very least technically. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:53, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:15, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:15, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:07, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. For someone who mainly lived in the 19th century, I think we have to go by WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Adsmittedly, there is not a whole lot here, but there examples of substantive coverage. There is a published obit in Proceedings of LMS[28], a semi-obit in Nature[29], and another one here[30]. There are also two publsihed reviews (in Nature) of his books. Plus there are a few other brief mentions, and an honorary degree from the University of St. Andrews. Overall, I think that's enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Nsk92 (talk) 17:12, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:PROF is often beside the point for historical figures; its purpose is to help evaluate biographies of currently (or recently) active scholars whose achievements may be noteworthy even when biographical profiles are lacking. Here, as argued above, WP:GNG or WP:BIO are more appropriate, and the available sources are satisfactory on those grounds. (I believe the LMS obituary is here.) XOR'easter (talk) 20:05, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources provided by Nsk92 --DannyS712 (talk) 05:59, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. It's still the case that one can look at the article and think "what did he do to merit an article?". But I think the standard is met. Certainly we should be judging this sort of person by WP:GNG or maybe WP:AUTHOR, not WP:PROF. WP:PROF is really designed around the expectations for modern American research-level academics and even among those it doesn't work particularly well for mathematicians. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:07, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The obituaries are from major reliable sources, so WP:GNG is appropriately satisfied here. — MarkH21 (talk) 11:09, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets WP:NACADEMIC #5 in any case. In those days there was only a single professor per department, so he was the Professor of Mathematics at the University of Aberdeen, not just a professor. So "an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon" applies, as it still does with all established (as opposed to personal) chairs at major British universities. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:16, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I would support the well-made arguments above and think there is clear evidence that Pirie was a notable individual. Dunarc (talk) 18:34, 28 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. Considering the new sources and the removal of promotional content after the AfD, in addition to the consensus towards keep after those sources are added, I am closing as keep. (non-admin closure) Taewangkorea (talk) 21:30, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Somoy TV[edit]

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

No indication of notability, no secondary sources, the article is still written like an advertisement despite being tagged for years, it is supported by spammers, COI editors and sock puppets. Google does not show significant coverage in reliable sources, only passing mentions, press releases, blogs etc. J. M. (talk) 11:33, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:06, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:06, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:08, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Care to include any citations Itsabouttech (talk) 18:57, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It turns out that no references in this article. No matter how important a topic, without reference a article is not supported. --Shahidul Hasan Roman (talk) 05:34, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have added citations and removed promotional content. Those who have voted for delete, please take a look now and see if it is enough to change your mind on the issue. A gentle reminder, the absence of citations in the article does not mean sources do not exist and often it means no one has gone around to adding citations. National news network with coverage in reliable sources that meet notability guidelines. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 05:26, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The citations do nothing for establishing notability. First, all of them come from a single source. Second, they do do not discuss Somoy TV in any significant way, they're just passing, trivial mentions.—J. M. (talk) 12:00, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia sets a low bar for broadcast stations. WP:BCAST says notability may be presumed if the station produces some of its own programming. Somoy TV does, specifically current affairs talk shows and news.[31][32][33][34][35] Alexa ranks their website, somoynews.tv, seventh in a country of 165 million people.[36] The Routledge Handbook of Contemporary Bangladesh (2016) says that BBC Media Action placed Somoy TV's talk show Sompadokiyo among the five most popular of the 51 being aired on various Bangladeshi channels in January 2014. Common sense tells us that even if the amount of information available in English is limited, our readers would be served by a stub that tells them what we know - when it was licensed, when it began broadcasting, who owns it, what format it follows, how popular it is, what has gotten it into trouble with the authorities, etc. --Worldbruce (talk) 00:56, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Somoy TV is one of the most popular private News TV channels in Bangladesh, in the news media related publisher. also i agree with Vinegarymass911.--Nahal(T) 07:27, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes WP:BCAST. Here are some secondary sources from my university library:
  1. TVU Networks Integrates TVUPack Solutions with Somoy TV, Wireless News, Jul 20, 2013
  2. Somoy TV uses AP ENPS in South Asia, Broadcast Engineering, Mar 3, 2011
  3. [Somoy Tv's] Zafrullah apologises for remarks on Army chief, The Financial Express, Oct 14, 2018

In addition the BBC, The Times of India and The Wall Street Journal have used their footage and reporting in their articles on occasion. For example:

  1. "Bangladesh Ferry Carrying 200 People Capsizes; Scores Are Missing and Feared Dead in Padma River" Wall Street Journal, August 4, 2014
  2. "Journalist injured during Bangladesh garment workers protest", BBC Monitoring South Asia, Jan 9, 2019

4meter4 (talk) 03:22, 30 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. Noting the nom's final comments (essentially withdrawing the nom), there's clear consensus to keep, but there's also a fair amount of agreement this this needs major rewriting, perhaps turning it into a set index or stub. Nobody explicitly mentioned WP:TNT, but it sounds like that's what we're talking about. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:03, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Digital empathy[edit]

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

This essay comprises a great deal of original research and synthesis. A GSearch of "Digital empathy" returns one reliable source in the form of a paper in the medical field from 2015 with 18 citations, the remaining results being the name of an unrelated veterinarian clinic, a Medium.com entry, a Wix site, a Forbes.com contributor article, this article, and a couple of articles of like ilk. (LinkedIn, etc.)

The paper is Terry & Cain, 2015 located here. If the concept described therein is notable (and it doesn't seem to be related to the stuff in the Medium and Forbes.com articles), and this article is kept, then the article will have to be cleaned up. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 07:02, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 07:02, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 07:02, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (without prejudice to it being completely rewritten, properly sourced, and reduced to about a 3rd of its current size.) Written very much like a term paper (and probably is/was one) and/or synthesis, partly in the creator's own words, of material harvested from the many sources. See WP:OR. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:56, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a valid topic and AfD (still) isn't for cleaning up article quality. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:24, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Asargana96 Thankyou for everyone's suggestions.Please see the edited version, i've made changes based on the feedback. Please review and let me know if more changes need to be made. Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Asargana96 (talk • contribs) 00:41, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looking at the sources I can find on the Internet, I am not convinced that "Digital Empathy" is a concrete enough idea to write an article on. Of the 2 reliable sources I found that even mention "digital empathy", one is a scholarly paper that uses the definition this article currently espouses. The other is the "Handbook of Research on Media Literacy in the Digital Age", which has an entire chapter on "Digital Empathy", but uses such to mean "The cognitive and emotional ability to be reflective and socially responsible while strategically using digital media" with a cite to "Friesem, 2015". Add that those are the only even semi-reliable sources, and I don't think this concept exists in the public sphere. A more extensive look at scholarly literature might yield an article, but I am not sure it wouldn't be a WP:FRANKENSTEIN. Rockphed (talk) 12:13, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Based of the comment on notability and frankenstien article, I wanted to let the editors know that the concept around digital empathy is well talked about in different aritcles and many opinions are existing around this topic. As wikiepedia is a place for consolidation of existing research, I've touched upon all credible research found on digital empathy and based on my research, Friesam 2015 has extensively researched on digital empathy and has relevant findings, however his concept is different as applied in healthcare, therefore it might be coming off as a frankenstien article. So if somebody else wants to edit and improve it, i'm okay with it. But in my humble opinion, the notability of this topic is well adressed online, just needs to be worked into wikipedia for readers to have an understanding of this newly constructed term.Asargana96 (talk) 16:34, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This is certainly hard to decide. I can see why people here keep call it a Frankenstein's article. One reason for deleting it could be that after Asargana96's modification of the article, it no longer contains any actual material. (rv. #916097500) It consists of frame contents only. It does not say what digital emphaty is. But right now, I am thinking if a rename or simply a reinterpretation of the title can affect the content requirement. For instance, an article titled "Wikipedia's ethtics" does not need to describe a unique thing called Wikipedia's ethics. It can simply link to the ethics article and discuss the abundance or lack of online ethics. What I currently recommend is to notify the editors who know about sociology and psychology. They may be able to tell if this subject is worth an encyclopedia article or is a rapidly dated blog post. For example, consider this:

    However, the society’s communication patterns are altering, both positively and negatively, as the contemporary culture is characterized by rapid adoption of social and mobile technologies.

    Will this sentence be true one hundred years from now? "Are altering" is a timed expression. In the end, if all such investigations for eligibility failed, keep it. It does no harm. Sometimes, to decide the impact of one thing, we have to let it run its course. flowing dreams (talk page) 13:36, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:08, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Here are a list of published peer reviewed journal articles on the topic:
  1. "The emerging issue of digital empathy.(SPECIAL ARTICLE)(Report)", Terry, Christopher ; Cain, Jeff, American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, May, 2016, Vol.80(4)
  2. "Situational determinants of cognitive, affective, and compassionate empathy in naturalistic digital interactions", Powell, Philip A ; Roberts, Jennifer, Computers in Human Behavior, March 2017, Vol.68, pp.137-148
  3. "For an inclusive innovation. Healing the fracture between the human and the technological in the hypercomplex society", Dominici, Piero, European Journal of Futures Research, Jan 2018, Vol.6(1), pp.1-10 ("also a refer- ence, with an approach that absolutely fails to convince me – to “critical thinking”, where the oxymoronic term “digital empathy” is actually")
  4. "The need for digital intelligence",Chawla, Dalmeet, Nature, Oct 4, 2018, Vol.562(7725), pp.S15-S16 ("importance of their digital identity, privacy management, their online footprint, critical thinking, digital empathy, cybersecurity, cyberbullying")
  5. "Smart Humanitarianism: Re-imagining Human Rights in the Age of Enterprise", Dale, John ; Kyle, David, Critical Sociology, September 2016, Vol.42(6), pp.783-797 ("spawning an increase in compassionate empathy. New projects to cultivate ‘digital empathy’ seek to develop ways of transforming our electronically mediated...")
  6. "Psychopathic traits and social anxiety in cyber-space: A context-dependent theoretical framework explaining online disinhibition", Antoniadou, Nafsika ; Kokkinos, Constantinos M ; Markos, Angelos, Computers in Human Behavior, October 2019, Vol.99, pp.228-234
And here is a list of other publications:
  1. Emotions, Technology, and Behaviors, Yonty Friesem, Boston : Academic Press, an imprint of Elsevier, 2016, the entire second chapter is devoted to Digital Empathy pages 21-45
  2. "Digital empathy is key to tackling the robo adviser question", Wise, John, FTAdviser.com, Dec 11, 2018
  3. "Aurorasa Coaching launches Project Empathy Social Skills Training, the first holistic digital empathy training with Dr. Mark Goulston". M2 Presswire, Aug 17, 2018
  4. "Digital Empathy and Fetchit Announce Partnership", PR Newswire, Feb 19, 2019
  5. "Empathy: A must-have in digital marketing!", Point-of-Purchase, August 16, 2012
  6. "Forget IQ. Digital intelligence will be what matters in the future", Claudio Cocorocchia, Pakistan & Gulf Economist, Feb 18, 2018, Vol.37(7) ("different countries, found that over half were exposed to at least one online-related threat. Such threats include reduced digital empathy - leading to...")
  7. "Artificial Intelligence-Changing Lives", Cynthia John, Open Source FOR You, March 4, 2019 ("we are doing or what we intend to do with the given a suggestion. The time is not far when machines will have empathy too, digital empathy."}

These are just a selection of sources I found in my university library's database. Passes WP:GNG. Stubify but not delete if needed.4meter4 (talk) 03:18, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment in light of the above discussion I no longer believe that this article should be deleted. Perhaps it can be stubbified or turned into a set index article if the term covers multiple concepts. It still needs a great deal of cleanup, but this is not the forum for that. I do not think this counts as a "nominator withdrawal" in the sense of speedy keeping as too much good-faith discussion has occurred and I wouldn't want to short circuit any more, however I'd like to "strike" my implicit delete !vote. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:31, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:39, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Advance HE[edit]

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

Non-notable organization. Sources don't prove its notability. Zinzhanglee (talk) 07:46, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Zinzhanglee (talk) 07:46, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:12, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No current source is independent of the subject. While I have not done a complete search of the internet, most of the results I have seen so far are places where Advance and HE are separated by some punctuation (e.g. He went for dinner after orderinging the advance; he ate chicken while his men died by the thousands). Everything else I am seeing is either press release, vanity press, or passing mention. Rockphed (talk) 15:23, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Source search doesn't show anything notable. Just because its connected to notable orgs doesn't grant it auto-notability. Clear delete. IlluminatingTrooper (talk) 04:34, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator has been blocked for sockpuppetry. MER-C 16:56, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs a few more comments; two deletes, one blocked sockpuppet and one comment on the latter are not enough consensus for anything.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:08, 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. Mz7 (talk) 05:29, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

HD 209142[edit]

HD 209142 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NASTRO. No specific coverage of this object in journal papers. Some mentions in popular coverage as appearing near IC 5152, possibly redirect to IC 5152. Lithopsian (talk) 09:59, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:10, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It only seems to be covered in articles that are about many stars, with only a line or so in a table. Or as a mention with IC 5152. However I can cite all the information in the page. This does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:37, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:NASTRO. Not naked-eye visible, and nothing else particularly special or notable about it. Aldebarium (talk) 21:15, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:NASTRO.4meter4 (talk) 23:01, 29 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. Mz7 (talk) 05:22, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shelillon dog[edit]

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

Not recognised as a breed by any major kennel club. References consist of a single dead link. CountessCobra (talk) 08:34, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:36, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, completely fails GNG. Cavalryman (talk) 10:58, 23 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete (possibly move sourced content to a suitable list if one exists?), the dog is listed as a mixed breed in this reference work: [37]. This kind of content might fit better in a list. It certainly lacks enough sourcing for an individual article.4meter4 (talk) 19:46, 29 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 OFC Nations Cup. Can always be restored as a standalone article once more is available on the competition. Fenix down (talk) 07:49, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2020 OFC Nations Cup[edit]

2020 OFC Nations Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No information is available for this competition. Possible WP:CRYSTALBALL. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 05:49, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 05:49, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 05:49, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or Delete WP:TOOSOON --qedk (t 桜 c) 18:40, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Redirect is fine by me as well. --qedk (t 桜 c) 13:53, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Redirect to OFC Nations Cup. I'm not sure the point of deleting this three-year old article with dozens of edits, only months before the tournament. It will inevitably be quickly recreated once tournament details are published. This is the kind of stuff that just wastes everyone's time. The article was unreferenced, so I referenced some recent easy-to-find articles confirming the timing of the tournament. While I think keep is the best approach at this point, no prejudice against redirecting until there is further information. It's standard practice when the article for a regular tournament is created too early, to redirect to the main article to the tournament. I don't know why the nominator couldn't have simply tried this first, rather than a more dramatic process. Nfitz (talk) 18:48, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Jalen Folf (talk) 22:44, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Nfitz. GiantSnowman 08:27, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Obviously notable, plenty of information available, and will certainly be notable soon regardless. Complete waste of time. Smartyllama (talk) 12:22, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it just me or is "will be notable soon" absolute and purely WP:CRYSTALBALL. --qedk (t 桜 c) 13:38, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Obviously notable, plenty of information available, and will certainly be notable soon regardless and need to be recreated. Complete waste of time. Victoryboy (talk) 10:46, 25 September 2019 (AEST)
  • Redirect I do feel like this needs to be redirected for the time being until we get some more information about the 2020 tournament. For now though, I think the best course of action is to redirect to it's parent article (OFC Nations Cup) HawkAussie (talk) 23:06, 26 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) 06:55, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvie Silva[edit]

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

Apparently same page as one deleted, as evinced by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sylvie Silva being older than this page. Please salt. From AnUnnamedUser (open talk page) 03:19, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Only known for one event, sources lacking and didn't win the event yet (WP:CRYSTALBALL. IlluminatingTrooper (talk) 03:29, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would also delete Draft:Sylvie Silva and its talk page; would recommend salting it too. From AnUnnamedUser (open talk page) 03:45, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: We have four sources now, the article is only short. Triila73 (talk) 04:07, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't seem to understand the nomination. From AnUnnamedUser (open talk page) 04:12, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Administrator comment: This article was deleted on 17 September in accordance with WP:G5 because it was created by a banned user. Then on 21 September it was re-created by Triila73 (talk · contribs). All of the history has been restored so anyone can examine it. The new version from 9/21 is dissimilar to the deleted version from 9/6 and in spite of a sockpuppet of the banned user returning to edit the new version, it remains substantially different. Therefore, the rationale of this nomination isn't valid. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:30, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Slight correction to your comment. The current article at this AfD was created by Unitech2019 (talk · contribs) on 9/22 who is now blocked as a sockpuppet. The version created by Triila73 (talk · contribs) on 9/21 was moved to draft at the time. It was later merged into this. So technically the article (before merge) qualified for G5 as a creation by Unitech2019, the problem was that another article (created by Triila73) was merged into it; I am not sure why. And that's the reason the article "remains substantially different" from the first deleted version. The better thing would have been to delete the version by Unitech2019 when he was blocked and leave the draft version by Triila73 as it was, since they are different users and on different standings. – Ammarpad (talk) 05:58, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable beauty queen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:57, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:05, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:05, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:05, 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 redirect to Cosmopolitan Soccer League. Fenix down (talk) 07:50, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KidSuper Samba AC[edit]

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

Nowhere near meeting WP:GNG, coverage is either trivial or not independent, and even the trivial coverage is in sources of unclear reliability. signed, Rosguill talk 03:19, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 03:19, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 03:19, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 03:19, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Pancrypian-Freedoms are at least three-time national cup winners. SportingFlyer T·C 14:26, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why are you continually targeting this article for deletion? There are sources cited, far more than some articles like Manhattan SC, and there will only continue to be more as time passes. As user Willbb234 said, if this article were to be deleted then there are others that would need to be deleted as well. Everything in the article is factually correct, has citations, and can also be confirmed by the league's website. The club exists, and having a wikipedia page adds to its credibility, furthering the opportunities for the players at the club. To delete the article would actively harm real people's lives and future possibilities, as the club is a benevolent entity helping people in difficult life circumstances through the sport of soccer. Furthermore, by not allowing the club to have an active wikipedia page, you are hindering the reputation and development of the sport of soccer in the United States. Most clubs operating this high up in a nations league system will have a wikipedia page, and it is important for international player transfers coming from KidSuper Samba that the club has a legitimate web presence. Furthermore, there are clubs playing in the lower divisions of the Cosmopolitan Soccer League that have fewer sources and less professionally maintained article pages, such as Williamsburg International FC. There's no reason to target this harmless article for deletion, please move on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trallazo4567 (talk • contribs) 07:21, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:31, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As nominator, no objection to redirect per the above vote. signed, Rosguill talk 17:06, 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) 05:28, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ekaterina Katashinskaia[edit]

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

Simply doesn't meet either WP:GNG or WP:NSKATE. Onel5969 TT me 02:26, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:37, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:37, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:37, 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 speedy delete. Fenix down (talk) 09:03, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Manchester City F.C. 8–0 Watford F.C.[edit]

Manchester City F.C. 8–0 Watford F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and only exists due to WP:RECENTISM. It's not even the highest-scoring Premier League match or really a memorable one. There have been five other matches were a team won by 8 goals in the Premier League. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 02:15, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:28, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:28, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOTNEWS, non-notable game. SportingFlyer T·C 02:46, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Manchester City - there might have been a lot of goals scored in this football match, but we do not really need to have specific articles on specific football matches unless these are in big events, such as World Cup of F.A. cup. Vorbee (talk) 06:23, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. I'm skeptical this game will have enduring notability, bearing in mind WP:10YT. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 06:46, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Although City scored five goals quicker than any team in PL history, that is a fractional record. The final score was not a record. – PeeJay 09:26, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A single high scoring game is not notable enough for it's own article. Govvy (talk) 15:23, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a regular league game, albeit it with lots of goals. It might have lasting notability in the future (like Manchester United F.C. 9–0 Ipswich Town F.C. did) but nothing for now. GiantSnowman 15:47, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - spoilers! (I've been too busy watching rugby). Seriously though ... list the score on the Manchester and Watford pages ... no redirect needed. Nfitz (talk) 18:50, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Jalen Folf (talk) 22:42, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nothing especially remarkable about this game in the grand scheme of things. Not a Premier League scoring record, not a club scoring record - the only possible claim to significance is that it set a new record for the earliest point at which a team had been 5-0 up, but that's so trivial that I don't think it merits an article. Definitely don't merge -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:33, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and a severe WP:TROUTing for the article creator (10 years on Wikipedia!) for wasting our time with this. Number 57 12:06, 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 and redirect to Bisexuality. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:53, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Innate bisexuality[edit]

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

I don't believe that "Innate bisexuality" is actually the name of a specific "psychoanalytic theory", as the article claims. The article is completely lacking in citations, except for a single citation to Freud's "Three Essays on the Theory of Sex", and it could be considered an original research interpretation of that one source. Essentially the article is about one narrow aspect of Freud's views on bisexuality: there is no evidence that this specific aspect of Freud's views is notable as a separate subject. There is almost no worthwhile content and no reason for it to exist as a separate article. Any relevant content (which would at most be a sentence or two) could be shifted to the article on Bisexuality. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 02:16, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:03, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the content and replace with redirect to Bisexuality, per nominator, WP:TNT, and WP:NOPAGE. It does indeed appear to be unsourced original research on the primary source of Freud himself. It has been tagged as needing more sources since 2008. The Bisexuality article already discusses Freud; and there we have the benefit of context, showing all the perspectives RS have had on the topic. This page is an inadvertent WP:POVFORK. By the way, the first AfD should have no bearing on this; it is from 2005, and all of the keep votes are vague assertions with no basis in policy. -Crossroads- (talk) 02:26, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to the Bisexuality article. Any necessary material about the topic, which is seen addressed in book sources on Google Books (linked above), can be covered in the Bisexuality article. Not every topic needs its own article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:54, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The content of this article could possibly be very briefly mentioned in the Bisexuality article. It has one reference...from 1920. TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 04:01, 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 merge to Autocorrection#Humour. (non-admin closure) ~~ OxonAlex - talk 14:06, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Damn You Auto Correct[edit]

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

Seeing very little independent coverage with little news coverage since 2013. Fails WP:WEB. -- LuK3 (Talk) 00:04, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- LuK3 (Talk) 00:04, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Autocorrection#Humour, where it is already mentioned. The NPR, CNN, and ABC sources in the article are pretty significant coverage for a website—it isn't that often that a website started by a single individual gets attention from national media. The Autocorrection article also cites The Daily Telegraph. However, in terms of long-term significance, it is interesting how the website faded into obscurity until it quietly shut down without fanfare. I suspect autocorrect mistakes were a short-lived novelty that was interesting to people only when autocorrect was still a new feature—nowadays smartphones and autocorrect are so commonplace that a whole website devoted to autocorrect mistakes doesn't have the attention needed for a permanent standalone encyclopedia article. I do think, however, that owing to the bit of national media coverage when the website was still around and alive, it should have a place in our Autocorrection article. Mz7 (talk) 09:56, 29 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) 06:52, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Area Secular Humanists[edit]

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

Local branch of national society. We do not usually make articles for these; the references, obviously enough, are local announcements of local events. Even the material about their bus ads is already in the main article. All the main article needs is an indication that there are state chapters, and where to find a listing of them on the main national site. DGG ( talk ) 10:08, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:19, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:19, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:19, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 00:02, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless a local chapter is very, very notable in its own right, it does not get a separate article. This chapter does not seem even modestly notable. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 04:49, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2019_September_22&oldid=1142224955"