Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 September 26

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 25 September	27 September >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 00:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Monteverdi & Cavalli Arias[edit]

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

Fails all of the criteria of WP:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Notability of recordings. -- Softlavender (talk) 20:36, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:36, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. note that it also fails WP:NALBUM and WP:COPYVIO. The main bulk of the article consists of long paraphrases of critics reviews - these are certainly violations of copyright. While I was at it, I also changed the title of the article to accurately reflect its subject.Smerus (talk) 07:12, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NALBUM The article's COPYVIO issue has been addressed, and the reviews will be reworked in due course.Niggle1892 (talk) 17:03, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per criteria 1 of WP:NALBUM. The album has an entry on pages 361-365 of the reference work American Opera Singers and Their Recordings: Critical Commentaries and Discographies, Clyde T. McCants, 2004, McFarland Press. It's also reviewed in The Penguin guide to compact discs, cassettes, and LPs, 1986, Page 547, Edward Greenfield, ‎Robert Layton, ‎Ivan March. The album was also reviewed in High Performance Review, 1984, Volumes 3-4 - Page 167. The critical review in Gramophone can be viewed here, and a critical review in The New York Times can be viewed here.4meter4 (talk) 19:14, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 23:56, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For further coverage, see The New Records, Vol. 52-53, 1984, p. cxiii; Peter Gammond's Opera on Compact Disc, 1987, p. 41; Opernwelt, Vol. 26, 1985, p. 142.Niggle1892 (talk) 00:30, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NALBUM. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:54, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep pet Niggle1982. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 02:05, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 19:45, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 4meter4 and Niggle1892. Daask (talk) 20:32, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 00:05, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mahler Symphony No. 4 (Yoel Levi recording)[edit]

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

Fails all of the criteria of WP:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Notability of recordings. -- Softlavender (talk) 20:37, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. note that it also fails WP:NALBUM and WP:COPYVIO. The main bulk of the article consists of a long paraphrases of a critic's review - this is certainly violation of copyright.Smerus (talk) 07:10, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The criteria in WP:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Notability of recordings is from an essay by a WikiProject and does not carry the broad support of wikipedia policy. Further, this guideline section is currently being considered for removal for WP:NPOV concerns, as well as its conflict with the policy at WP:NALBUM.4meter4 (talk) 01:30, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NALBUM. The article's COPYVIO issue has now been addressed, and brief review excerpts will be supplied in due course. For further coverage, see Classic CD, Issue 107-113, 1999, p. 25; Hi-Fi News & Record Review, Vol. 45, Issues 1-6, 2000, p. 101; Donald Carl Meyer and Jay D. Zorn's Critical Review Guide, 2003, p. 54.Niggle1892 (talk) 16:43, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per criteria 1 at WP:NALBUM. I found critical reviews in two notable publications offline: BBC Music Magazine, 1996, Volume 4, Page 64 and Stereo Review, 1996, Volume 61, Page 80. The work is also critically reviewed on page 120 of Gustav Mahler's Symphonies: Critical Commentary on Recordings Since 1986 By Lewis M. Smoley, Greenwood Publishing Group, 1996 which can be viewed here at google books. One of the two reviews in Gramophone cited in the article is available for viewing online here.4meter4 (talk) 18:42, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 23:56, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NALBUM. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:53, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Niggle1892 and 4meter4. Daask (talk) 20:33, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No new contributors since relist, but in the meantime the wikiproject guidance formerly at WP:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Notability of recordings has been rescinded, and the review information provided previously indicates that WP:NALBUM is met. RL0919 (talk) 00:07, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mozart Mass K. 139 (Claudio Abbado recording)[edit]

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

Fails all of the criteria of WP:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Notability of recordings. -- Softlavender (talk) 20:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. note that it also fails WP:NALBUM and WP:COPYVIO. The main bulk of the article consists of long paraphrases of critics reviews - these are certainly violations of copyright.Smerus (talk) 07:08, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The criteria in WP:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Notability of recordings is from an essay by a WikiProject and does not carry the broad support of wikipedia policy. Further, this guideline section is currently being considered for removal for WP:NPOV concerns, as well as its conflict with the policy at WP:NALBUM.4meter4 (talk) 01:30, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NALBUM. The article's COPYVIO issue has been addressed - brief review excerpts will be supplied in due course. For further coverage, please see Hi-Fi News & Record Review, Vol. 122, Issues 1-6, 1977, p. 4; Fanfare, Vol. 5, Issues 1-3, 1981, p. 204; American Record Guide, Vol. 40, Issues 8-11, 1977, p. 20; La Civiltà cattolica, Issues 3163-3168, 1982, p. 208; The New Records, Vol. 44-45, 1976, p. 65; The Penguin Guide to Compact Discs, 1999, p. 906. Niggle1892 (talk) 16:36, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per criteria 1 of WP:NALBUM. The work was reviewed in multiple publications, including: Gramophone (see here); The Choral Journal (professional journal of the American Choral Directors Association) "A Select Annotated Discography of the Choral Works of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart", April 1991, ([see here); Records and Recording: Classical Guide, Ateş Orga, Josephine Orga, Midas Books, 1978, page 302; and High Fidelity, Volume 23, 1978, Page 237.4meter4 (talk) 18:29, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 23:55, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the multiplicity of reviews is enough to prove notability.Niggle1892 (talk) 02:43, 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. JGHowes ^talk 01:09, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cendrillon (Julius Rudel recording)[edit]

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

Fails all of the criteria of WP:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Notability of recordings. -- Softlavender (talk) 20:41, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:43, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per WP:NALBUM. The article's COPYVIO issue has now been addressed - brief quotes from reviews will be supplied in due course. As the first recording of this opera, the album is of fundamental importance in the history of the work. See Notes, March 2013, pp. 607-608; William Schoell's The Opera of the Twentieth Century, 2015, p. 277; Opera, September 1979, p. 880; Charles Osborne's The Opera Lover's Companion, 2007, p. 221; High Fidelity/Musical America, Vol. 29, Issue 2, 1979, p. 81; and Horizon, Vol. 22, 1979, p. 26.Niggle1892 (talk) 01:18, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. note that it also fails WP:NALBUM and WP:COPYVIO. The main bulk of the article consists of long paraphrases of critics reviews - these are certainly violations of copyright.Smerus (talk) 07:05, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The criteria in WP:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Notability of recordings is from an essay by a WikiProject and does not carry the broad support of wikipedia policy. Further, this guideline section is currently being considered for removal for WP:NPOV concerns, as well as its conflict with the policy at WP:NALBUM.4meter4 (talk) 01:24, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per criteria 1 of WP:NALBUM. According to Gramophone this is the only existing recording of this opera (see here). Niccolai Gedda discussed recording the album in The New York Times (here), and the recording was discussed critically in relation to the work's later performance with the Washington National Opera in this NYT review: see here. The work also has it's own entry in the reference work The Metropolitan Opera Guide to Recorded Opera, Paul Gruber, W. W. Norton & Company, New York City, 1993, page 246 (viewable in google books here) Additionally, I located reviews offline in High Fidelity, Volume 30, Issues 7-12, Page 191, 1980; and Fanfare, Volume 5, Issues 4-6, Page 297.4meter4 (talk) 16:23, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 23:55, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That this is the world premiere recording of a Massenet opera makes it ipso facto notable - Massenet is regularly performed in all the world's top opera houses.Niggle1892 (talk) 02:38, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NALBUM. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:50, 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. RL0919 (talk) 00:09, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chérubin (Pinchas Steinberg recording)[edit]

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

Fails all of the criteria of WP:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Notability of recordings. -- Softlavender (talk) 20:42, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:43, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NALBUM. The article's COPYVIO issue has now been addressed - brief quotes from reviews will be supplied in due course. As the first modern recording of the opera, the album is of fundamental importance in the history of the work. See Opera, February 1994, p. 247; Opernwelt, Vol. 35, 1994, p. 35.Niggle1892 (talk) 01:26, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. note that it also fails WP:NALBUM and WP:COPYVIO. The main bulk of the article consists of long paraphrases of critics reviews - these are certainly violations of copyright.Smerus (talk) 07:03, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The criteria in WP:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Notability of recordings is from an essay by a WikiProject and does not carry the broad support of wikipedia policy. Further, this guideline section is currently being considered for removal for WP:NPOV concerns, as well as its conflict with the policy at WP:NALBUM.4meter4 (talk) 01:24, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per criteria 1 of WP:NALBUM. The work has been critically reviewed in multiple publications, including Gramophone (see here) and The New York Times (see here) in addition to the offline references cited in the article. Additional offline references I have located include a review in International Record Review, Volume 7, Issue 1, Page 278. The work also has an entry in the reference work The Penguin Guide to Compact Discs, Ivan March, Edward Greenfield, Robert Layton, Penguin, 2001, page 797. If other reference works cover this content, wikipedia should too.4meter4 (talk) 15:56, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 23:54, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Chérubin, initially a popular opera, was one that gradually slipped into obscurity. It was this recording that brought it back from the dead. Chérubin is now available on DVD, and has once again become familiar internationally. A premiere recording of a work by a composer as eminent as Massenet is notable ipso facto.Niggle1892 (talk) 02:39, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NALBUM. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:49, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per criteria 1 of WP:NALBUM. Coyvio has been addressed. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 10:04, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article is particularly well written. Barca (talk) 13:49, 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 delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:11, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pearce Robinson[edit]

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

Complete vanity page of a non-notable politician. Article is WP:REFBOMBed heavily and his actions, such as "sitting in on" debates or writing letters to political leaders, are things that many people do on a regular basis. It appears an article on this subject was deleted via discussion in 2012 for similar reasons so I believe WP:SALTing the namespace should be considered. GPL93 (talk) 23:20, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 23:20, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 23:20, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think ‘vanity page’ is quite a kind description. Mccapra (talk) 05:06, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

’’’Don't Delete’’’ instead of deleting the article, perhaps you can edit and or remove the material that you consider ‘vanity’. Please see more notable links from the BBC and UK House of Lords: International Relations in the 21st Century, UK House of Lords Debate, Pearce Robinson speech transcript: https://www.parliament.uk/documents/lords-information-office/2018/20946%20HoL%20Chamber%20Event%20Transcript%202017%20WEB%20SPREADS.PDF please also reference UK Parliament Channel for the debate. Pearce Robinson on Britain’s role post Brexit

BBC Documentary: Truth & The Commonwealth, BBC Panelist https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3csxg9y

Commentary on the racism of Caribbean Next Top Model https://atlantablackstar.com/2018/09/26/caribbeans-next-top-model-contestant-wants-apology-for-being-forced-to-relax-hair/

BBC One: Britain’s Secret Charity Cheats. Journalist on the case of Nadia Chase-Ali https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0005jj5 Capture2015 —Preceding undated comment added 05:27, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

None of these sources are actually about Robinson (you?). The whole thing is vanity and neither WP:GNG or WP:NPOL are passed. Best, GPL93 (talk) 10:50, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The sources actually are about the subject. Please read through House of Lords transcript page 7 and look at the documentary. parliament TV. I’m not sure what the (you?) is suggesting. The Programme on BBC One Britain’s Secret Charity Cheats is actually a news feature done by him on the programme. The link is listed. Please review. I’ve created pages [Reema Harrysingh-Carmona]], [Wade Mark]] and more recently some others that are in draft.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Capture2015 (talk • contribs) 11:03, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't though, Robinson is not the focus of any of these references. The (you?) is because it reads like an WP:AUTOBIO. The fact that you have uploaded an image of Robinson's signature suggests you are close enough to have a WP:COI with the subject at the least. Best, GPL93 (talk) 11:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to pass WP:GNG, but the sources are not getting him over GNG. The notability test for getting a person into Wikipedia hinges on showing that he has been the subject of a significant volume of news coverage about him, and is not passed just by showing that his name has been mentioned in news coverage whose primary subject is other things or people. But the sources here are falling on the wrong side of that distinction — there are sources which mention his name in the process of being fundamentally about something or someone else; there are sources which don't even mention his name at all, but serve only to verify completely tangential facts like how many people are affected by the construction of a highway; and there are blogs and primary sources which are not support for notability at all, but there are no sources which are both reliable and about him. And no, people are also not notable just because you can provide transcripts of their own speeches, or video clips of them talking on the news — a person does not become notable by doing the speaking in a source, they become notable by being the thing that other people are speaking about. So no, none of these sources are sufficient at all, and the article doesn't indicate that he's done anything "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have better sources than this. Bearcat (talk) 16:07, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you ‘move’ this article to draft. I will re-work it. Thanks for your guidance. Talk —Preceding undated comment added 09:14, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd be opposed to moving to the draftspace given that A) the subject does not appear to meet our notability standards and B) this is already a remake of an article that was deleted and both AfDs made note of the promotional aspects of the article. I'd say there's a better argument for WP:SALTing it that draftifying. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:56, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.4meter4 (talk) 01:43, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. --SalmanZ (talk) 20:40, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:16, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Our Last Crusade or the Rise of a New World[edit]

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

No good sources on this one; Google points to weak passing mentions. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. –eggofreason^{(talk · contribs)} 22:39, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. –eggofreason^{(talk · contribs)} 22:39, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. –eggofreason^{(talk · contribs)} 22:39, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. –eggofreason^{(talk · contribs)} 22:39, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - From what I am reading in Japanese sources, this appears to be a popular series.[1], [2], [3]. I also linked to ja:wiki [4] that indicates its also an ongoing anime series. With all due respect, more research should be done. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:17, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Knowledgekid87.4meter4 (talk) 02:17, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No editor suggested that coverage received confers notability while delete !voters argue it does not. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:15, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Melinda Jacobs Grodnick[edit]

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

No indication of notability Mccapra (talk) 22:10, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:10, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:10, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment a WP:BEFORE search reveals http://web.archive.org/web/20181116073533/https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-133620560.html , http://www.startribune.com/c-j-baby-s-due-when-kardashian-s-math-seems-off/187218561/ , http://web.archive.org/web/20181116171920/https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-62569926.html which shows the person meets WP:BIO Taewangkorea (talk) 21:28, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Thanks Taewangkorea. These three on their own don’t demonstrate notability. The first one is about her but lacks any depth and does not support any of the specific content in the Wikipedia article. The second source in its entirety offers this about her:

“The rumors about entertainment reporter Melinda Jacobs' and businessman Howard Grodnick's 23-year marriage being on the rocks sadly have turned out to be true. They are on very good terms with each other, however. "We have two beautiful kids," Jacobs told me on Wednesday. "It's a new journey. My friend and business manager, Kathy Jalivay [of Aim Clear], said Melly, it's time for you to get your groove back!"”

The third source isn’t about her, it’s a quote from her. Again nothing in it can be used to substantiate anything in the article about her. I don’t think that what you’ve found adds up to a good case for notability. Mccapra (talk) 02:18, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:21, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of significant coverage about her and danger of her possible divorce taking over this stub. Bearian (talk) 19:59, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There's a lot of articles mentioning her under the name "Melinda Jacobs" in the Star Tribune. She seems to be somewhat of a local celebrity, and in gossip like articles. Not sure what to think.4meter4 (talk) 02:44, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus in this discussion and among those who have commented in the related thread at WT:NSPORTS is that participation in the RHI league is not sufficient to presume notability. Since there is otherwise not sourcing to show he meets WP:GNG, the result is Delete. RL0919 (talk) 02:11, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Clarke (ice hockey)[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NHOCKEY. Highest level of play was the ECHL which only counts notability for preeminent honours and the subject has none. Tay87 (talk) 10:33, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 10:33, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 10:33, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 10:33, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 10:33, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet the requirements at WP:NHOCKEY.4meter4 (talk) 20:47, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:SPORTBASIC by playing in the highest level of professional roller hockey. -DJSasso (talk) 17:48, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw Per above, I request the nomination be withdrawn. I honestly did not take roller hockey into account and I apologise for my ignorance towards it. Tay87 (talk) 15:47, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm going to repeat what I said at WP:Articles for deletion/Jason Clark (ice hockey). You might want to reconsider your withdraw vote. For one thing you can't withdraw once another editor has also voted to delete the article. More importantly, there's no evidence he competed at the highest level as WP:NSPORT requires. The Roller Hockey World Cup, which started in 1936, is the internationally recognized world championship for roller hockey and there's no evidence that he ever played in it. Playing in the only pro league in North America does not mean he played at the highest level--especially when the average pay was $314 a week [5] for maybe 10 weeks and the players were predominantly minor league ice hockey players trying to stay in shape over summer. Papaursa Papaursa (talk) 03:41, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Papaursa: I've said all I needed to say on the other nomination. When I got that message, I felt bad for ignoring roller hockey and I felt at the time the least I could do was withdraw my nomination. But I'll certainly keep it in mind for future that after one delete vote it's out of my hands. Tay87 (talk) 07:59, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would point out the Roller Hockey World Cup is actually for a different sport. That is for Roller hockey (quad) and not Roller in-line hockey which he played. -DJSasso (talk) 10:42, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did he ever compete at the IIHF Inline Hockey World Championship? I believe that is the same sport and if he competed there I would agree he meets WP:NSPORT and will readily change my vote. Papaursa (talk) 22:36, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Based on my comment above, there's no evidence he ever played at the roller hockey world championships, the highest level of the sport, so WP:NSPORT is not met. In addition, he fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY and there's no significant independent coverage to support a claim that WP:GNG is met. Papaursa (talk) 03:41, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPORTBASIC defines the highest level of the sport also as the highest professional league. Which Roller Hockey International was and which he played in, and which received a lot of press as well as primetime sports coverage while it existed. -DJSasso (talk) 10:34, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So you're claiming that everyone who played in a short-lived, now defunct, roller hockey league is automatically notable? Do you have any evidence this was the highest level of pro roller hockey in the world? I can see high school football players on primetime TV but that doesn't make them all notable. And they're pro in the sense of making money, not in earning a living. Some organizations/sports differentiate. Papaursa (talk) 22:36, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Djsasso. Rlendog (talk) 14:17, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ST47 (talk) 22:06, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice In order to help clarify the status of RHI players, I have opened a discussion at WT:NSPORTS#Notability of Roller Hockey International players. I'm hoping to get more opinions about whether or not RHI players should be considered automatically notable. Papaursa (talk) 00:12, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This league (RHI) had a brief period of notable coverage, which did not last. It has been argued before that it was the highest level of the sport, which would imply the top players gravitating to it. There is no evidence of that; top players from Europe stayed in Europe. Inline skating and play existed since at least 1972. There is only evidence that some ice hockey players enjoyed it, some of them notable, some not. The players other accomplishments do not satisfy any measure of notability either.18abruce (talk) 17:38, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete Fails to meet the GNG or WP:NHOCKEY. I don't believe that playing in the RHI grants automatic notability and neither does the consensus at the discussion at WP:NSPORT. Sandals1 (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I reject the assertion that SPORTSBASIC grants presumptive notability to the "highest level" of any sport, no matter how obscure. The pertinent sentence is "The guidelines on this page are intended to reflect the fact that sports figures are likely to meet Wikipedia's basic standards of inclusion if they have, for example, participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level (such as the Olympics)." This sets a pretty high bar, and as it happens, we have a pretty good notion of the notability of roller hockey players, almost all of whom were ice hockey minor-leaguers and not many of whom could meet the GNG. Ravenswing 01:58, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Except it doesn't matter how good they were at a different sport. That is like saying Michael Jordan isn't a notable basketball player because he was only a minor-league baseball player. Two different sports. -DJSasso (talk) 15:45, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:HOCKEY. The roller hockey notability auto-notability argument is silly when no sources are available to support his play in the league. SportingFlyer T·C 02:39, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:NHOCKEY, and not enough sources of significant coverage identified to meet WP:GNG. Like Ravenswing, I also reject the assertion by some that WP:SPORTSBASIC is met. The guidelines on this page are intended to reflect the fact that sports figures are likely to meet Wikipedia's basic standards of inclusion if they have, for example, participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level (such as the Olympics).: Here, the "guidelines" being described are the sport-specific guidelines that proceed under "Professional sports people". It does not make sense for it to be a catch-all for the "highest level" of sports for which significant coverage of its players have not been demonstrated. (e.g. obscure sports/leagues)—Bagumba (talk) 06:55, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Except that it was intended to be a catch all, that section was a hold over from WP:ATHLETE to cover the professional sports which didn't get their own section with more specific details when the switch from ATHLETE to NSPORTS happened. The presumption is that if the sport is big enough to be able to have a professional level then it is not obscure. -DJSasso (talk) 15:41, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but consensus can change (witness WP:PORNBIO). I'm not comfortable with blindly green-lighting players from say the National Dodgeball League with a catch all. It needs to be demonstrated that they receive significant coverage.—Bagumba (talk) 00:49, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:23, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nik Daum[edit]

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

Tagged for notability 2014. I have not found any sources to support notability. Mccapra (talk) 22:05, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:05, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:05, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:05, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, tagged for notability for 5 years without improvement. – Fayenatic London 22:29, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have been unable to find any independent, reliable sources that offer more than a brief mention. There is an interview https://creativemornings.com/blog/nik-daum, but as a primary source, that's not helpful. His own bio is, let's say, of dubious veracity. http://www.nikdaum.com/about/ It changes as you reload the page. Vexations (talk) 23:43, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not pass notability criteria. Was an "emerging artist" in 2007 (as the article states) and has not achieved emergence. Netherzone (talk) 00:43, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, clearly. Search returns almost nothing in RS.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:22, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Need more reliable source to show notability. Barca (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:07, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I found one substantial independent ref through my university library. He was profiled in "The Best Creatives You Don't Know", 2007, Adweek; New York, Vol. 48, Iss. 38, (Oct 22, 2007): 30.4meter4 (talk) 02:55, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. Initially, the discussion tended towards deletion, but following considerable editing, it is now evident that the bio subject's counterfeiting crime has had more than passing mention by independent, reliable sources. Beyond that, however, there is little else to make the case for notability and the BLP1E concerns expressed by others prevent a clear-cut consensus. JGHowes ^talk 04:39, 6 October 2019 (UTC)‎[reply]

Wesley Weber[edit]

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

Most of the information Lacks of references and also person seems does not have reliable sources just known for one thing which 100$ bill. AakashJetli (talk) 14:11, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. AakashJetli (talk) 14:11, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:49, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:49, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Deletion is not cleanup. The articles does need improvement, but a basic search reveals that the subject clearly meets WP:GNG as there is in-depth coverage by multiple sources including news articles and various books and continues to receive current news coverage (see example). The nominator is a novel editor and perhaps is not yet familiar with WP:Before. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 21:46, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am unsure about notability and WP:BIO1E aspects here, but currently the article looks to be pretty much in the WP:G10 territory. Some of the versions in the page history are even worse (here is a sample[6] from Dec 2008). If the page is ultimately kept, even under a different title, I think that portions of the page history log would need to be revdel-ed or oversighted. Nsk92 (talk) 00:36, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without prejudice against recreation if somebody can do much, much better than this. More than half the footnotes here are primary sources that do not constitute support for notability at all rather than reliable ones (even one of the ones that looks like a reliable source is him speaking about himself in the first person), the few that are reliable sources don't add up to enough coverage to deem him as passing GNG, and even with sources present the article still features as many unsourced claims as sourced ones — and when we're talking about people whose notability is staked on crime, we have to be extremely careful to make sure that the referencing is absolutely airtight. (People are not, for instance, permanently notable just because they once got arrested for growing marijuana, so the fact that a local-media citation can be added for that does not actually constitute evidence of notability per se — and even criminals get the basic WP:BLP protection that their alleged crimes still have to be properly sourced, so the securities fraud claims here that are still completely unsourced don't contribute any notability points.) Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable at all, so we definitely need much more reliable source coverage than this before we can deem him as passing WP:GNG in lieu of having to pass any subject-specific notability criteria. We don't just indiscriminately keep an article about every person who's ever been convicted of just any random crime — the crime itself still has to be legally, culturally and socially significant, not just technically verifiable, before an article is warranted. Bearcat (talk) 18:53, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete without prejudice per Bearcat.4meter4 (talk) 01:47, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hello @Bearcat: I have to disagree with you this time. I agree that the article needs to be improved but the notability of a subject is not based on the references included in the article. WP:GNG states that:

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.

Any reliable sources with non trivial coverage that are independent do contribute towards establishing GNG, even if they are not included in the article at this time. As I said above a google search reveals plenty of reliable sources that do fit that criteria, for example from news like:

-Who's really behind Toronto's chain of illegal pot shops that won't quit? extensive coverage

-CBC News program coverage form minute 1:30 - 2:23 labels him as a legendary counterfeiter

-Counterfeiting: Notes on a scandal one sentence about how he crippled Canada's $100 bill by using techniques he found on websites

-The worlds most notorious counterfeiters who made a fortune page 6 and 7

-Cannabis Canada: Is a white knight for CannTrust in 'everyone’s interest'? labels him "one of the country’s most prominent counterfeiters."

Books besides the one currently used as a reference in the article:

-The end of money More than a page on Weber

-Workplace Privacy: Proceedings of the New York University 58th Annual Conference on Labor a paragraph on Weber

Besides this, he was even featured in the 59th episode of the tv show Masterminds: titled Money Maker it can be watched here (the person appearing and talking as Weber is an actor, not the subject himself)

the show, as well as many reliable sources, label him as the most notorious counterfeiter. There are also international reliable sources in other languages like the one included in the article and this one from Spain: Grandes falsificadores. Also 25 hits in Google Scholar: see here

To me, the subject clearly meets our GNG. I agree that the article can and should be improved, but as I said before Deletion is not cleanup. It is not my area of interest, but I think the subject is notable enough to be in our encyclopedia, so I will try to improve it once this AfD ends. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:53, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GNG is not just automatically passed by everybody who can show an arbitrary number of media hits; for instance, notability is not demonstrated by one-line mentons of his name in sources about something else, image galleries, IMDb, DailyMotion or YouTube content. Sure, we take the number of hits under advisement, but that's not the only thing we take into account: we also consider the reliability of the sources, the depth of how substantively any given source is or isn't about him, the geographic range of where the coverage is coming from, and the context of what he's getting covered for. Not all possible sources are created equal, and not all possible sources contribute +1 to a person's GNG tally — some sources are better than others, and some sources fail to count as GNG support at all. There are people in the world who can show twice as many sources as that but still not be notable, if their sourcing still fails any of the range, depth or context tests. Bearcat (talk) 21:12, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not an arbitrary number of hits, just in depth coverage by multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. Did you review the sources I posted? please let me know if you think any of this three books does not contribute towards establishing notability: [7], The end of money, Workplace Privacy: Proceedings of the New York University 58th Annual Conference on Labor. do you think that this article with extensive coverage is a one line mention? do you think that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation ([8])is not reliable or independent? What about the sites like lovemoney.com that dedicate two pages to the subject in their article about most notorious counterfeiters. is the site not WP:RS or the coverage not in depth. Being the subject of a whole TV series episode of Masterminds (Canadian TV series) which was broadcast in the US and Canada television by History Television and Global TV does not contribute towards WP:GNG? About the Geographic range, isn't the US, Canada, Spain and Indonesia for which I listed reliable sources with in depth coverage enough? The reasoning about other people is not valid per WP:WHATABOUTX and the opposite argument (also not valid) could be easily made by looking at the subjects included in Category:American_counterfeiters. Please do review the sources. GNG is clearly met. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 13:14, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LoveMoney is the image gallery, and is not a reliable source in the first place — so LoveMoney counts for nothing no matter how many times you hammer on it. Book the first is simply a reprint in a compilation of previously published content of one of the articles you've already brought to bear, so is not a new data point that increases his notability score by +1. "The End of Money" just links to a directory entry for the book itself, failing to verify that Weber is actually the subject of any content in it — he might be, sure, but I can't assess whether it constitutes substantive content or not since the link you've shown fails to prove that there's any content at all. "Workplace Privacy" is just a transcript of a conference, not a notability-building piece of written work. Being the subject of an episode of a TV series is not a notability claim in and of itself; such sources go toward notability only if the actual content of the episode is used to support content about Weber as a person, and not if they're being used solely to metaverify their own existence as TV episodes. And on and so forth. Bearcat (talk) 18:00, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LoveMoney meets WP:RS is a financial news publication subject to editorial control as you can see here: About us - meet the lovemoney team their publications have been used as references in at least 14 other Wikipedia articles. The images in the article titled the world's most notorious counterfiters who made a fortune are the least relevant part of the content. What is clearly in-depth coverage is the two pages about Weber (page 6 and 7). A book reprinting previously printed content is clearly RS and if you do read both the article and the book you will see that they are not by any means the same. they just talk about the same subject but each provide unique information. Clearly one is not a reprint of the other. The end of money is a link to google books where you can read a bit more than one page about the subject. Please try again to access it through the link in my previous comment or the reference in the article. The description of the book by Kluwer Law International is a "collection of essays by outstanding scholars and practitioners in U.S. labour law and practice" why does it not meet RS? The TV episode obviously has in depth coverage of the subject that can be used to source content of the article. I am still improving the article, so I will also be able to use it as a reference. Are the references from Spain or Indonesia or the article from CBC news not RS? I feel that they also meet the requirements for GNG. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:53, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete basically per Bearcat above. The article has been from the start and remains one giant WP:BLP disaster, and currently is essentially a ~~WP:G11~~ WP:G10 case. If someone can rewrite the article from scratch into something resembling a neutral and properly sourced to secondary sources actual biographical WP:BLP compliant article (rather than a list of arrests, charges and convictions), go right ahead. But there is nothing in the current page worth keeping. Nsk92 (talk) 21:15, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is without a doubt notable since it has received the required in depth coverage to meet WP:GNG there is plenty of source content to create an encyclopedic article so I will start doing it now to prevent it from being deleted. ~~You claim that the article is promotional while another editor claimed just the oposite to justify the !vote~~. I will try to write a neutral stub to save this notable subject. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 13:25, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I meant WP:G10 (an attack page). Nsk92 (talk) 14:03, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying. Timeline section has been removed and all claims are sourced by RS so I do not think WP:G10 is met since there is no libel or intimidation anywhere in the current version of the article. Subject has been convicted by a court of law and per WP:PERPETRATOR his crime has been deemed notable by various WP:RS and the coverage has been in depth and persistent in time (latest sources are from a few months ago). --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 14:19, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. The current version is better, but it is still essentially entirely focused on a single crime. For a BLP bio article, there would need to be at least a modest amount of non-negative biographical information, such as family background, early life, education or something similar. Or, if the main claim to fame here is the counterfeiting of the $100 bill episode, it may be better to create an article specifically about that event/crime instead of a bio article about Weber. Nsk92 (talk) 14:28, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am planing on adding an early life section next, also a section to expand on the counterfeiting (reducing the lead), and another to cover his other activities, trading activities and Marihuana cafes owner/activist. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 14:39, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete i too agree with Nsk92 (talk) for deletion under WP:GNG as there is not much notable resources available online, the individual's activities can figure prominently in the section of the act for which he is known for, in this case counterfeit; but to create a bio based on one topic, with not enough supporting online source available is a bit tall ask. Joydeep ghosh (talk) 19:20, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have removed all primary sources from the article as well as the timeline section and changed the article into a referenced stub. I added three sections that can be expanded with the content from the available sources. I still have not included information about his co-ownership of the marijuana cafes or his expertise and business with cryptocurrencies which is also covered by the cited sources. I feel it is now a valid stub, but will continue to improve it. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 22:07, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I was about to close this as delete, but I note that most delete votes had concerns about sourcing, and the article has been substantially overhauled in the last day or two. I will relist this one time, and would be interested to hear from @Bearcat:, @4meter4:, @Nsk92:, @Joydeep ghosh:, and of course anyone else who is able to comment, on whether the present version of the article is the better version that they were hoping for, or if they would still vote to delete today.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ST47 (talk) 22:01, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. With the improved sourcing on the counterfeit topic, and the removal of some blp concerning content, and the addition of his coverage by the cbc in cannabis advocacy (although running illegal cannabis stores is also criminal however you spin it), I have decided to withdraw my delete nomination. However, I am not certain if the articles really demonstrates signidicant coverage as he is not the main subject of the articles. I want to hear more from some other contributors on this issue. I am on the fence.4meter4 (talk) 01:44, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 4meter4. Thank you very much for your comment and for the implicit recognition of my efforts with the article, I just wanted to point out that "'Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Bold mine. All that is required for significant coverage is that it is more than trivial mentions and that we can extract content for the article without WP:OR. The guideline expressly clarifies that being the main subject of the articles is not a requirement. Regards. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:26, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. i still have issues like how being a computer nerd or buying cars are added as these are just trivia, also in marijuana advocacy how is his wife owning property matters for a bio, as per WP:BLP1E that states 1. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. 2. If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article. as such my vote for delete stays. its better to include the individual's activities in the section of the act for which he is known for, in this case counterfeit; but to create a bio is still doubtful. Joydeep ghosh (talk) 18:52, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The abilities of the subject with computers and the fact that he called himself a computer nerd was found notable enough to be included in multiple reliable sources, it introduces his ability to be able to perform the complicated task of counterfeiting one of the most secured bills at the time. The luxury is also covered by at least three of the sources and is another important part of a chapter of the biography as they were purchased with the profits from the counterfeiting. The relationship of his wife with the chain of cannabis stores is also covered by a reliable source and helps establish his own relation with the business.

I fully disagree with your analysis of this article with regards to WP:BLP1E. Point 1 is not met as the subject has received non trivial coverage by multiple reliable sources in relation to various individual events; Counterfeiting, Marijuana, and trading. Point 2 is also not met, as coverage has been persistent in time. the article now includes references from 2006, 2007, 2010, 2013, 2016, 2017, 2018 and various from 2019.

I ask you to please review WP:BLP1E again, because even if the first two would have been met, which is not the case, it clearly states that all three conditions must be met ("We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met:") Bold mine. the third one is:

3. If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant and his role was both substantial and well documented.

According to this point alone inclusion criteria is clearly met, as the event is clearly significant since it affected more than ten percent of retailers in Canada and prompted the creation of a new 100 dollar bill and clearly his role as mastermind was both substantial and very well documented.

On top of that I think I have shown that the requirement of having received in-depth coverage from multiple independent and reliable sources outlined in our general notability guidelines is reasonably met and since it does no longer violate WP:ISNOT after my extensive rewrite, I don't think that we can recommend deletion based on our policies. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:17, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. To those arguing WP:BLP1E, I don't think this argument can be made on the first criteria. The subject has been covered in the context of two different events: counterfeiting and later his work within the cannabis industry. That said, I do think both the 2nd and 3rd critera for that rationale are accurate which is why I am on the fence.4meter4 (talk) 20:41, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @4meter4: WP:BLP1E Requires for all three to be met. My interpretation of point two is that after the single event passes the subject does not receive any additional coverage form reliable sources. That is also not the case here. I would appreciate it if you could please elaborate on which part of point three do you think is accurate?. do you think the event was not significant or do you think that his role was not substantial or well documented and why? and finally do you agree that if just one of the three points is not met WP:BLP1E does not apply? Thank you for taking the time. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 21:21, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not convinced that either event in which he was involved is that significant. I would be much more likely to support the article if one of the events he was involved with satisfied wikipedia's notability guidelines for events and had its own article. To me it seems like he was involved significantly within two non-notable events that were covered in the news, and wikipedia is not the news.4meter4 (talk) 22:05, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @4meter4: Reliable sources claim that the subject "crippled Canada's $100" others label him as "legendary counterfeiter" other as "one of the country’s most prominent counterfeiters."; The Globe and Mail, the History channel and the Windsor Star label him as a "mastermind" They are referring directly to the subject himself and not the event, but in any case, of the multiple events he has received coverage for (there are many more than just the two you mention) the counterfeiting in my opinion clearly meets all requirements for notable events. The first mentions enduring historical significance and lasting effect. It had clearly rippling effects. The History channel made a documentary about the subject and the event. Between 10 and 19 percent of all retailers stopped accepting the 100 dolar bill in the whole country and many continued not accepting them even after he was caught. Countries like the US and others were also affected. Canada changed its currency to incorporate new security features. the event has been used as a case study on various papers and cited by multiple books. Depth of coverage is clearly met, enduring of coverage also (article now includes references from 2006, 2007, 2010, 2013, 2016, 2017, 2018 and various from 2019) and diversity of sources is also met Geographically it has received coverage at national level in Canada and from various other countries as far as Indonesia.

But also finally WP:BLP1E does not apply to subjects who have been covered in the context of more than one event as it specifically states that each and not some of the 3 points must be met. Would you agree with me that BLP1E can not be applied here? --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:07, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am still on the fence with this article. @DGG:, what do you think about this one?4meter4 (talk) 16:42, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @4meter4: Can you please say on which policy are you basing your answer. Do you agree with my argument that WP:BLP1E does not apply since, as you said, the subject has received coverage for multiple events?. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:42, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've already been clear, and I am avoiding being explicit on purpose until I make up my mind. Ultimately, it gets down to a question of failing WP:SIGCOV or not which is evaluating where "Wesley Weber" himself was actually the primary coverage of the sources, or whether the events/businesses were the main subject and Wesley Weber was just tangentially a part of those events. It's somewhat subjective, and in this case I could see an argument being made either way.4meter4 (talk) 19:58, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All the content of the article is sourced by reliable sources that directly mention the subject. He was the "mastermind" of the counterfeiting and the subject of the trading and marijuana sections. Let me insist that WP:SIGCOV explicitly states that

"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material."

Bold mine. So even if you could argue that he was not main subject of the sources (with which I disagree), that is clearly excluded as a valid reason in the current wording of the policy (in bold) as long as there is more than trivial mentions by multiple reliable sources so that no WP:OR is needed to extract the content. So I am still asking for a single policy based reason to not !vote to keep the article after all the changes I had to do to try to save it. You at least removed your delete !vote. I think other editors in this AfD need to provide valid policy based reasons to justify their !vote after those changes, as requested by the admin that relisted the discussion. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 21:37, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and trim since I was asked. His counterfeiting is notable. Most of the rest is trivial fluff.

I have noticed that many bios of people in either cryptocurrency or cannabis or some genres of music or self-help or professional speakers or life coaches seem to be very willing to acknowledge their earlier misdeeds, as if it in some way validates their later accomplishments It for many centuries has been customary for religious figures to emphasise their sinful earlier life to emphasise the power of their salvation. . G10 does not apply here--the intent of many such bios is self-advertising. DGG ( talk ) 05:26, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @DGG: I agree with you about not meeting G10 but disagree with the comparison with other bios which could imply that the current version of the article is self-advertising. I stumbled on this article while patrolling for new changes and reverted multiple IP's that were "trimming" sourced information, it seemed strange, so I added it to my watchlist. Then a new user with very few edits opened this AfD, that to me is suspicious. Because of this AfD I found myself forced to improve the article. As you can see by the comments of the relisting admin, If I hadn't done so it would have been deleted. The article has been completely overhauled, so I am responsible for most of its content, and it was me that created those sections. I highly doubt that the subject would be interested in keeping them for the reasons you pointed out, probably the opposite, As you can see in the link to his webpage included in the infobox, he continues to offer cryptocurrency services, something that various independent reliable sources found notable that he did without a license. So I think it is clearly not promotional. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:57, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and trim per DGG.4meter4 (talk) 14:20, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 02:17, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Judith Blegen & Frederica von Stade: Songs, Arias & Duets[edit]

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

Fails all of the criteria of WP:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Notability of recordings. -- Softlavender (talk) 20:33, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:35, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. note that it also fails WP:NALBUM and WP:COPYVIO. The main bulk of the article consists of long paraphrases of critics reviews - these are certainly violations of copyright.Smerus (talk) 06:56, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

copyvio concerns can be removed, this has happened. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:38, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, although technically meeting no. 1 of WP:NALBUM - "subject of multiple [ie. 2 or more], non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble who created it." as article (now after possible copyvio being removed) lists reviews by Gramophone and Sound & Vision, past consensus amongst classical album wikieditors appears to require more. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:53, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NALBUM The article's COPYVIO issue has now been addressed - brief quotes from reviews will be added in due course. See Opera, July 2011, p. 670 for further discussion.Niggle1892 (talk) 12:30, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per criteria 1 of WP:NALBUM. The work has received critic reviews in several offline publications, including High Fidelity, Volume 25, Issues 7-12, Page 91, 1975; Records in Review, 1976, Volume 21, Page 415; and Opera, 1976, Volume 27, Issues 7-12 , Page 875 in addition to the Gramophone and Stero Review articles cited in the article. The album was also reviewed in The New York Times (see here) You can also see that the work charted at number 9 on the Classical Billboard charts here.4meter4 (talk) 21:11, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:58, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For further coverage, see Hi-Fi News & Record Review, Vol. 21, Issues 1-6, 1976, p. 103; The New Records, Vol. 53, Issue 4, 1985, p. 12; Fanfare, Vol, 9, Issue 1-7, 1985, p. 91; Esquire, Vol. 84, 1975, p. 32; Time, Vol. 107, 1976, p. cxli. (Source: Google Books.) Any classical record reviewed in both Esquire and Time had to be very high-profile indeed. (The Esquire reviewer was William S. Burroughs!)Niggle1892 (talk) 00:07, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NALBUM. Note that the mentioned extensive quotes from reviews were added after the article's author was advised to include them. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:42, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, demonstrably meets WP:NALBUM with the reviews in the article and those listed above. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:18, 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. RL0919 (talk) 21:44, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Iuliia Savushkina[edit]

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

Fails notability criteria - Wikipedia is not "LinkedIn". Doesn't meet WP:AUTHOR, WP:NACADEMIC, WP:GNG, etc. I was not able to find multiple reliable independent sources with significant coverage. The existing citations are all to the subject's own publications, none of which appear to be notable. There are no notable awards or highly prestigious appointments. Also, the article was created a few days ago by translating the Russian Wikipedia article, and that article has just been deleted following discussion that concluded it did not meet notability requirements, which strongly suggests that the English Wikipedia notability requirements are not met either. IamNotU (talk) 21:08, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:14, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:14, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There appear to be zero GS cites to her published work and little to suppoprt GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:09, 27 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Comment A publication record that only goes back to 2015 suggests that there has not been enough time to build up wiki-notability by becoming highly cited. XOR'easter (talk) 17:15, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable at either as a scientist or as a politician. AfD in ruwiki found nothing worth mentioning. Wikisaurus (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:40, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:16, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NACADEMIC, WP:GNG, and WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 19:04, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted as G11. (non-admin closure) — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:00, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shahryar (singer)[edit]

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

Spammy, promotional article since its creation. Relies entirely on self-published and primary sources. No revision, past or present, would pass WP:BAND. Best to WP:TNT. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 20:34, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:36, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:36, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete very promotional and a copyvio, have added G11 and G12. The earlier and earliest versions are still very promo, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:41, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable; couldn't find references in Persian either.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 21:33, 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 no consensus. The closest thing to a consensus that has arisen in this discussion is to merge the article somewhere, perhaps to Paris' law - this can be deliberated on outside AfD. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 21:05, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha-beta model[edit]

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

WP:OR concerns; I've been unable to find other coverage, and all the references are to papers by Baptista and Adib. The article could use a rename even if kept - there are many alpha-beta models. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:46, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:52, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge This is similar to Titanium adhesive bonding – a narrow technical account of some aspect of titanium material science. This seems to be a student assignment and so is quite unlikely to be OR. What it needs is more context and wikification. To understand the apha/beta aspect, see titanium alloy and sources such as this. To understand our policies on such pages, see WP:ATD; WP:BITE; WP:IMPERFECT; WP:NOTPAPER; WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 09:54, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All the papers are written by a small group of people, with two names that are common to each, apart from one entry. That is the very definition of WP:OR. It is not verifiable. Perhaps in 5 years when it is well known, but not at the moment. I can't find anything on it either. There way to verify it. scope_creep^Talk 18:53, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rollidan (talk) 17:57, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Needs to prove notability with reliable, third-party sources. --Darth Mike^(talk) 18:15, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to Paris' law, where it can be briefly treated as a generalization. XOR'easter (talk) 01:07, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to Paris' law.4meter4 (talk) 14:59, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:06, 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. RL0919 (talk) 21:03, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jadin Gould[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NACTRESS. Doesn't have other references beyond her role on Man of Steel. Even that has 9 articles on Google news, none of them could be considered as significant coverage. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:05, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:05, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:05, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:05, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:06, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete when you are best known for a bit part with no importance to a film that only gets even name checked because of the role in a much larger mythos, a role that was not even hinted at in the film, than you are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:40, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete minor character actress. Hasn't worked in 5 years with no independent significant coverage.4meter4 (talk) 19:11, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 14:17, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Geophysical Planet Definition[edit]

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

Page was de-PRODed.

This page serves no clear purpose that is not already covered in Planet. Planet covers what a planet is and there is no need for an entire page discussing a specific subset of the definition of what a planet is. This may fit into WP:A10, but since I already PRODed it, I figured I would take it here. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 19:55, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This page serves the same purpose as the IAU Planet Planet Definition wikipedia page. Also, this page DOES serve a purpose in that it clearly articulates the definition that many planetary scientists use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nasaman58 (talk • contribs) 20:13, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:21, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move or Merge This page should either be at geophysical planet or should have all of its information presented on planet. Nasaman58's argument leads me to believe that this page is either a POV fork from planet (possibly because he thought planet was not giving due weight to the geophysical definition) or simply improperly named. I say "improperly named" because Geophysical Planet Definition is about planets as defined by planetary scientists, not about the process of defining planets by geophysics. Either way, this article does not really fit the criteria for deletion since there are 6 references (of varying quality) in the article that could potentially be merged into planet. Rockphed (talk) 12:39, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The IAU definition of planet has its own page so the geophysical definition should also have its own page. Fdfexoex (talk) 05:21, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article. I strongly disagree with the statement that "This page serves no purpose that is not already covered in Planet." There is disagreement in the planetary science and astronomy communities about the definition of a planet. The IAU voted in 2006 for a particular definition but the vote was split and geoscientists have continued to argue for a different definition than the one the IAU voted for. It is important for readers of Wikipedia to have information about this alternative definition. Planetary scientists have continued using this geophysical definition at odds with the IAU definition. It is not a fringe definition but is actually mainstream among a large segment of the planetary science community and is the historic definition that has existed since Galileo. The modern uses of this geophysical definition are in published papers in science journals. There was a recent paper arguing that the IAU definition was based upon arguments that are now shown to be historically incorrect in the scientific literature (Metzger, Philip T., Mark V. Sykes, Alan Stern, and Kirby Runyon. "The reclassification of asteroids from planets to non-planets." Icarus 319 (2019): 21-32.). A recent debate occurred between a leading planetary scientist and the astronomer who was president of the IAU leading up to its vote, and the IAU past president stated that planetary scientists could developed other definitions than the one the IAU created (https://vimeo.com/333420664). This is that alternative definition, but it is not new because it is the prevailing definition that existed historically and is still the only once consistent with scientific usage among geoscientists. Therefore it is important for readers of Wikipedia to know about it. There is also, already, a Wikipedia article on the IAU definition of planet which is separate from the article on Planet, and therefore it is important for readers of Wikipedia to have access to information about the definition of Planet that planetary scientists are using and debating about in contrast to this IAU definition. This is especially important since the geophysical definition is the historic definition that has been used since Galileo. Galileo effectively replaced the previous dynamical definition that existed since pre-scientific times. The discussions about definitions is a taxonomical matter that is distinct from the content of the Planet article, because that article is dealing with planets themselves as objects, not with taxonomy. Taxonomy of planets is a different thing than planets themselves. This is exactly why the IAU definition of planet article exists in addition to the Planet article, because the definition is a taxonomical question and that is a thing distinct from the planets themselves. However, including just the IAU definition in this taxonomical information is incomplete because it leaves out the historic and still prominent geophysical definition as a taxonomical system, and this omission does not serve the readers of Wikipedia.Sanddune777 (talk) 04:29, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do not merge into Definition of planet unless IAU definition of planet is also merged. It is notable because there are recent news articles and scientific papers on it. Instead, this article should be kept separate and expanded because there is a large amount of material that should be added including the wealth of references both historic and recent. I will begin adding this material immediately, so please hold judgement until you see this material. A paragraph should be added to Definition of planet with a link to this as the main article. This is exactly how IAU definition of planet was handled, as a separate article with a paragraph in Definition of planet and a link back to the main article. Including all the new material in Definition of planet would overwhelm it, exactly as including all the material from IAU definition of planet would have overwhelmed it.Sanddune777 (talk) 04:29, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Geophysical Planet Definition page should not be deleted, as it does NOT serve the same function as the IAU planet definition page. The IAU planet definition page presents just one view of an ongoing debate regarding definition of the word planet. The IAU planet definition was adopted by just four percent of its members, most of whom are not planetary scientists, and was rejected by an equal number of planetary scientists in a formal petition. Unfortunately, the mainstream media reported only the IAU decision and completely ignored the strong scientific opposition to it in the planetary science community. This one-sided reporting is a genuine disservice to the public. The reality is there is no consensus among the broader scientific community as to how to define the term planet, and many planetary scientists rightfully object to the notion of science being done by decree of "authority."

Many planetary scientists see the IAU definition as flawed for numerous reasons, primarily the fact that it gives primacy to an object's location over its intrinsic properties. The New Horizons mission found active geological and atmospheric planetary processes on Pluto that are very similar to those that occur on Earth and Mars. Yet the IAU definition ignores this data and defines Pluto and other dwarf planets solely by their location. It also controversially claims dwarf planets are not planets at all, which runs contrary to the intent of the scientist who initially coined the term, Alan Stern, and is not borne out by the New Horizons findings. Planetary scientists who prefer the geophysical planet definition hold that dwarf planets are a subclass of planets, just as dwarf stars are a subclass of stars, and dwarf galaxies are a subclass of galaxies.

Keeping this page rather than folding it into a general planet definition page will provide awareness to readers that there is more than one legitimate, scientific planet definition in use by scientists today. It is an important step toward providing fair and balanced coverage of this ongoing debate.Princesslaurel (talk) 17:51, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note - I will admit that despite preliminary research, did not realize that there are apparently 'dueling' definitions, to a certain extent, or that there was an article for the IAU definition. I really thought this was just definition page. Based upon what I have been told, the page should be kept and moved to Geophysical planet definition and otherwise I have no prejudice against keeping this article. I'm essentially withdrawing but since there is discussion I'll let someone uninvolved close. Plus, I always break things when I close AfDs. Thanks ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 13:42, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FRINGE. Basically someone is campaigning. Admittedly, there are many people unhappy about the IAU (change of) definition, but the "geophysical" one is worse (how many planets, did you say?). You were right to question the article and I hope that if it stays that it is appropriately caveated and not presented as some sort of equally-valid-alternative to the eight-planet version. Lithopsian (talk) 14:49, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with having many objects qualifying as planets just as there is nothing wrong with having many objects that are stars (100s of billions) or galaxies (also 100s of billions). Because professional planetary scientists use this definition, it is more valid than the IAU definition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:146:300:1A80:91A6:2719:59EC:2325 (talk) 13:10, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I suggested merging this article into a section of planet (and rewriting planet to be less focused on the IAU definition). Having looked at IAU planet definition, it is more about the controversy and process by which the IAU arrived at a definition for planets than about planets as defined by the IAU. We could possibly build a similar article to the one on the IAU definition, but I don't think that the geophysicists have had nearly as much controversy as the astronomers. Rockphed (talk) 15:19, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Princesslaurel and WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Discussions of merging and/or balanced coverage should not be had here at AFD but on the article's talk page.4meter4 (talk) 03:26, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move or Merge While many planetary scientists do use this definition, the article is simply a talking point of Alan Stern's inability to let go of his ego and grasp that his mission did not go to a planet by IAU's 2006 definition. He has been battling the definition ever since, trying various propaganda. The information in this article is useful in that it is a definition geophysicists use when studying planets (including calling moons planets, as they are identical in many cases; e.g.some Jovian and Saturnian moons are larger than Mercury), but can be instead added to the articles planet and Clearing_the_neighbourhood. 73.15.7.104 (talk) 15:23, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 21:06, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Geographical index of Toril[edit]

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

List of places in a fictional world. Substantially no sourcing. The world is perhaps notable, but this list fails WP:N, MOS:REALWORLD. Sandstein 18:39, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Nom. This is entirely just poorly-sourced plot information. The Forgotten Realms are certainly notable, however this level of detail on every fictional region within it is not. Rorshacma (talk) 19:23, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Completely non-notable, slightly game guide list. Might be worth putting up List of Forgotten Realms nations and List of regions in Faerûn. There's also Abeir-Toril, which would likely be the best article for the topic if there is potential to build a non-plot article based on the setting. TTN (talk) 19:58, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:22, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above. Aoba47 (talk) 02:13, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nom.4meter4 (talk) 03:26, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:34, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Honeymooners (2003)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and does not cite a single source Andrew Base (talk) 17:20, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Andrew Base (talk) 17:20, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's no doubt that this article needs work - the plot summary is far too long, and there's very little else - but a lack of sources in the article isn't a valid reason for deletion, the sources need not to exist. A quick check on Google found, in addition to the usual IMDB/Rotten Tomato-type UGC coverage, this and this and this, all reviews of decent length by named staff reviewers at significant publications; I also came across a mention here, in what appears to be a scholarly work about Irish cinema. I think this film passes WP:NFILM quite easily; the article needs fixing, not deleting. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:02, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Girth Summit. The article definitely needs some substantial rewrites and some inline references added, however the reviews provided above show that it passed WP:NFILM. Rorshacma (talk) 19:30, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reviews provide necessary notability; condition of the article is beside the point of this discussion. Re: that I've gone and fixed it up a bit anyhow. Daß Wölf 20:29, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as reliable sources coverage has been identified and added to the article as extra content and references so that WP:GNG is passed, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 19:36, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Close per WP:SNOW.4meter4 (talk) 03:30, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Decepticons. RL0919 (talk) 21:08, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Onslaught (Transformers)[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional character TTN (talk) 16:34, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 16:34, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 16:34, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 16:34, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - another character with no real world notability. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:01, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Decepticons per WP:CHEAP. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:29, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Decepticons.4meter4 (talk) 03:33, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A disambiguation can be added at editorial discretion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:17, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cy-Kill[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional character TTN (talk) 16:27, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 16:27, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 16:27, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 16:27, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: there might be a justification for splitting this article in three since there were characters with this name in the three competing properties of gobots, robo machine, and transformers, but the three characters are not together notable so none of them would be notable individually. A redirect is completely inappropriate since there are 3 places for it to go. Rockphed (talk) 18:26, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This character is shared in 3 different areas, I feel that a redirect wont work here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:27, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. @Rockphed:, what about a disambiguate page that could go to the three competing articles?4meter4 (talk) 19:19, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per current guidelines. Any other discussion regarding inherent notability can be done at other venues. (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 19:43, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Chiarelli[edit]

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

It is my understanding that being a local councilor is not, by itself, sufficient to warrant an article. Until very recently, there seems to be no substantial coverage of him, beyond a standard brief profile related to an election. There's obviously a bunch of recent coverage, but this is more of a single local news story. It's worthy of inclusion if we keep the article,but I don't think an article consisting of just this is worthy. Rob (talk) 15:12, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:32, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:32, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- For Canada at least, major city councillors all have articles. Category:Ottawa_city_councillors, Category:Toronto_city_councillors, Category:Vancouver_city_councillors etc. - SimonP (talk) 17:46, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We've had this debate before, and Ottawa city councillors have passed the notability test. -- Earl Andrew - talk 20:38, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per Earl Andrew, a city councillor of a major city meets notability requirements. Jiffles1 (talk) 21:21, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article does need improvement, but city councillors in global cities are accepted as being inherently more notable than usual for most city councillors because of their city's more globalized level of importance, and consensus has always accepted Ottawa as one of the cities that practice applies to. (See also: Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal, New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, Washington DC, London, etc.) If you'd like to shoot for a new consensus that Ottawa should be removed from that list, then you're certainly allowed to try — there have been other cities where we used to accept city councillors as notable, and then withdrew that status later on — but you would need to do that by proposing a centralized discussion on a Wikipedia discussion board about whether Ottawa should retain its "city councillors are notable" status, not by proposing that one city councillor be treated differently than others while the existing consensus otherwise still stands. And until such time as a new consensus is established to deprecate Ottawa's status as a "city councillors are notable" city, the existing consensus still applies in the interim. Bearcat (talk) 21:36, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per the above, a city Councillor meets notability. --SalmanZ (talk) 22:24, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not appropriate to delete this entry. Subject is currently making national news headlines as a politician in a sex scandal (requiring female staff to wear sexy clothing). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.83.166.251 (talk • contribs)
Comment - Ok, obviously I was mistaken, and didn't realize the current rules. Hopefully an admin can close this early, since it's pretty overwhelming keep. --Rob (talk) 13:07, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am leery about saying that councilmembers in any city would be "inherently notable." However, I like how Bearcat phrased it, that in certain cities, a councilmember is being "inherently more notable" than usual. I do think that for any councilmember WP:GNG applies and the sourcing should be more than "they exist." I have no problem or concern with the article being questioned about whether the subject should be deleted according to our existing policies and guidelines. --Enos733 (talk) 00:24, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per everyone above.4meter4 (talk) 03:35, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Neon Genesis Evangelion (franchise)#Transformers. RL0919 (talk) 14:27, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Transformers x Evangelion[edit]

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

Not notable. Only one ANN article; otherwise, this is nothing but a fancruft dump. Sk8erPrince (talk) 16:22, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:04, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Neon Genesis Evangelion (franchise) crossovers section and summarize there. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:26, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:27, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 14:10, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect, fails GNG. TTN (talk)
Redirect to Neon_Genesis_Evangelion_(franchise)#Transformers, where it is already included. Merge any relevant information, if needed, though the poor sourcing makes this seem unlikely. Rorshacma (talk) 19:34, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Rorshacma recommendation and WP:CHEAP if it already exists. -2pou (talk) 23:07, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Neon Genesis Evangelion (franchise) per WP:CHEAP. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:21, 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 no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 11:14, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Net settlement[edit]

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

Dictionary article Rathfelder (talk) 22:02, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 22:02, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is a stub but the process of net settlement is not a dictionary definition. As WP:NOTDIC says, “[o]ne perennial source of confusion is that a stub encyclopedia article looks very much like a dictionary entry, and stubs are often poorly written”. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fiachra10003 (talk • contribs) 23:56, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:11, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTDICTIONARY - it seems to be covered in sources in the wider context of banking and accounting terms, there are no indepth sources on Net settlement itself - no significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources per WP:GNG - Epinoia (talk) 01:53, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not even wrong, this is an obscure, ordinary glossary term in banking. Bearian (talk) 01:06, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Payment system. The topic is covered in more depth in books on payment systems and/or Settlement theory (article lacking; there are whole books on settlement theory for bankers). See these google books: [9], [10], [11], etc.4meter4 (talk) 17:11, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 14:06, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Seems correct. Hyperbolick (talk) 14:09, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not a dictionary article as there's no focus upon grammar, particular words or other linguistic aspects. This is instead a stub about a notable matter of finance which covered in detail in numerous sources. There's perhaps a case for merger with a related topic such as set-off (law) but that's not done by deletion; it's done by ordinary editing per WP:MAD and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 20:04, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Widely discussed in books on banking payment systems, such as Transforming Payment Systems: Meeting the Needs of Emerging Market Economies, Payment Systems: Principles, Practice, and Improvements, and The Payment System: Design, Management, and Supervision. Easily meets GNG. SpinningSpark 22:31, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Some of the arguments for delete being put forward here are baffling;

The idea that because this is a payment system, and is always discussed as a payment system, it should therefore be merged to payment system really does not hold any water. Everything is a part of something else. If we followed that principle we would merge all articles to Big Bang which would then read something like "there was a Big Bang which eventually led to things like the Roman Empire, uranium, and chickens."
Interestingly, the payment system that net settlement is invariably compared to is real-time gross settlement. That article shows what this one could become with a bit of work.
The criticism "not even wrong" implies that it can't be falsifiable, which is clearly false, and in any case, is not a valid deletion rationale. We have plenty of articles on things that are not falsifiable – Occam's razor for instance.
"obscure, ordinary glossary term". Andrew has already adequately answered the glossary part of that (this article is not just a definition of a term). "Obscure" and "ordinary" are not policy-based reasons for deletion, and I'm pretty sure that the term is far from obscure in banking circles. In any case, Wikipedia is not just for articles on stuff everybody already knows.

SpinningSpark 23:00, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This seems like a reasonable stub, except for the fact that the in-article sourcing sucks, but SpinningSpark has found some good sources. Policy only requires that sources exist, not that they actually be in the article; I hope, however, that Spark actually does put in the effort to improve the article based on the research he's done. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:13, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:18, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamad Damush[edit]

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

Promotional article with no indication of notability. None of the sources are significant discussions of him in independent reliable sources, they just mention him (and some don't even mention him). Google search does not provide any other sign of notability (about 50 results). ... discospinster _talk 13:33, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 13:33, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 13:33, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Essentially PR. DGG ( talk ) 08:38, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 01:47, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Point Break. If somebody wants to mine the history for mergible material, they can do that. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:15, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Utah (character)[edit]

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

Not notable enough for an article and reads like a fan page on wikia.

This character was an original creation for the 1991 film so not spanning multiple media, and the character was completely remade with a different backstory for the 2015 remake, so there's not even consistent characterization between the two, just the name and the role of protagonist in the film called Point Break.

The article is not written to a Wikipedia standard and half of it is just the plot of the 1991 film. The rest of the content, while cited, are just as much about the pop culture legacy of the 1991 film (or Reeves himself) than they are about the character and all of this content could just as easily be expected to be found on those two pages. JesseRafe (talk) 13:05, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. JesseRafe (talk) 13:05, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. JesseRafe (talk) 13:05, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. JesseRafe (talk) 13:05, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to first film. Cultural references to character are really to film. Hyperbolick (talk) 14:11, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Point Break per reasons stated in the nomination and by Hyperbolick. Its a valid search term, and merging can be performed in necessary. Rorshacma (talk) 16:08, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, funny enough Johnny Utah does already redirect to the film, and has since 2009, which the page creator maybe didn't notice but also didn't ask for a deletion of that name space for this article. Given the much more likely search term without the (character) disambiguation, I don't think this search would be as frequent. JesseRafe (talk) 16:24, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's a good point on this being the less likely search term, but since WP:REDIRECTSARECHEAP, and, as I mentioned, preserving the history would allow any potential mergers that people find appropriate, I don't see the harm of leaving this one as a redirect as well. I won't be overly torn up if the consensus decides on Deletion, though. Rorshacma (talk) 17:13, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Point Break per the above. Aoba47 (talk) 19:36, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Move back to Draft (maybe even move on top of Johhy Utah, and then move to Draftspace--(character) is an unnecessary disambiguation at this point. I'm curious as to why the redirect wasn't just converted...) Anyway, on top of the move, the aformentioned redirect would be good in the meantime with the Rcat with possibilities used to point to the Draft. This article is actually less than a month old, so I'm inclined to give time for proper adjustments in the draftspace, if they can be made... Although that was already done once here. Is there a way to lock it from Moves until a review is done?
@JesseRafe: Thank you SO much for actually taking time to put a coherent argument when proposing this as opposed to just throwing out "not notable" with no additional explanation. It helps others to have context and places less unnecessary burden on reviewers. THANK YOU! -2pou (talk) 19:27, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect per Hyperbolick. No need to draftify. It's unlikely that WP:SIGCOV can be achieved at a stand alone article for this character.4meter4 (talk) 16:45, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:18, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Giorgio Rondelli[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG Andrew Base (talk) 11:51, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Andrew Base (talk) 11:51, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:55, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is an important athletics coach, who has coached and coached great long-distance running champions, like Alberto Cova who won both the Olympic Games and the World Championships in Athletics. There are also several interwiki and the article in two other Wikipedia. --Kasper2006 (talk) 15:48, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Kasper2006: Rondelli is a guru in the Italian athletic panorama for long distance running. --Yiyi (Dimmi!) 19:15, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per Kasper2006: Rondelli is very important in the Italian athletics.-Arorae (talk) 12:08, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has coached multiple global champions in a major sport and is among the foremost coaches in his field. SFB 00:48, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kasper2006. WP:SNOW close.4meter4 (talk) 01:49, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of ships attacked by Somali pirates in 2009#April. There is a consensus that this doesn't merit a standalone article, but merging/redirecting is preferable per WP:PRESERVE. – Joe (talk) 14:21, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MV Irene[edit]

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

Pretty classic WP:NOTNEWS breach. A lot of ships were seized around this time and most, including Irene, received a brief flutter of attention before that dried up. Madness ^Darkness 11:43, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:44, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As above, per WP:NOTNEWS. No recent mentions as far as I can tell. Nwlaw63 (talk) 14:49, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to re-creation - A ship of this size should be notable enough to sustain an article, subject to WP:V by WP:RS. Not enough information available in article to enable expansion at the moment. Mjroots (talk) 14:26, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The vessel may be Irene EM, IMO number: 7433593, per this source. Mjroots (talk) 14:32, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:53, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to List of ships attacked by Somali pirates per WP:NOTNEWS.4meter4 (talk) 01:51, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 21:13, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cop-Tur[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional character TTN (talk) 11:31, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:31, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:31, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:31, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to a suitable list article. Zero real world notability. Fails WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:15, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If consensus is to delete, retarget to List of Gobots characters as originating section. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:22, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I normally would be okay with that, except the section is blank on that page. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:25, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No notability established outside of its fictional universe. Red Phoenix ^talk 16:11, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Too broad of a subject to redirect anywhere. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:24, 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 keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:18, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Over the Edge (book)[edit]

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

Appears to lack notability. Madness ^Darkness 11:25, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:42, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Reviewed by Publishers Weekly, Booklist and The Washington Post. This is enough for us to have an article, WP:NBOOK only requires two reviews. Haukur (talk) 14:37, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The other two links you posted, don't work. Sadly, I was only able to find the first one in my searches. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:17, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Haukurth. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:17, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They work but they require ProQuest access to read. I can send you the files if you'd like. Haukur (talk) 15:33, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if they could be archived at archive.org as weblinks? Anyways, I found one of the 2 in the question, which makes this matter irrelevant now (Booklist found as well, but it is paywalled even on their official website so nothing there). Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:43, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Found The Washington Post review at [12], thought it took me ages to find with narrowed search. It and the Publisher Weekly one are non-trivial, so the subject meets WP:NBOOK. There is also a paragraph on Isthmus (newspaper) [13]. Booklist one is locked behind, sadly. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:41, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Booklist review can be found here, Sports Illustrated - has an article about other climbers critical of what happened (can be used to expand article), and it was shortlisted for Boardman Tasker Prize for Mountain Literature (here), so with PW, and WP this is a keep as meeting WP:NBOOK. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:08, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the sources found by Haukurth (which I verified) and further found by Coolabhapple demonstrate notability. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:20, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Haukurth. Passes WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Close per WP:SNOW.4meter4 (talk) 01:53, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Meher Baba. Looking at the sources, none of them count for notability. (non-admin closure) ミラ P 16:35, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Meherazad[edit]

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

WP:GEOLAND (1), (3) and (4) does not apply, for a starter. (2) is the one to look at, which basically asks us to go by WP:GNG. We can also go by WP:GEOFEAT (2) which says the same stuff.

Of the current sources, the first one is a self-published book, which was later republished by a followers'-trustee of Meher Baba. Not a RS. The second one is yet another booklet published by a foreign wing of a followers'-trustee of Meher Baba. Not a RS. The third one is a glossary from a website of the trustee. Not a RS. (Somehow, the de-prod-er felt all of these to be reliable sources, which lend to the notability of the subject.*Sigh*)

Doing a news-search in English leads to about 5 hits, all of which are trivial mentions except this; regrettably AsianTribune has a highly chequered history including being successfully sued for partisan journalism in lieu of money. No book, produced out of a independent and respected publication house, has covered it any significantly either.

Doing a Google search as to the Hindi/Marathi word:- मेहेराझाद returns nothing significant and dispels the potential existence of good sources in vernacular media.

National Digital Library of India (which's a great tool to exploit againt systemic bias) has no hit, either. Archive.org has a lone hit from an in-house journal, devoted to Meher Baba!

Thus, it may be concluded with enough rigor, that the subject comfortable fails WP:GNG and hence, ought be deleted. It may be (then) redirected to Meher Baba, at editorial discretion. ∯WBG^converse 11:15, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 11:15, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 11:15, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:Winged Blades of Godric transliterates to "मेहेराजाद" and not मेहेराझाद as you are claiming above. No comments on the notability or lack thereof.--DBig Xrayᗙ 11:52, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DBigXray: - Nope; the few hits across a couple or three of reliable sources are all for मेहेराझाद. Your मेहेराजाद brings just 4 hits; all of them across non-reliable sources. FWIW, the official version is मेहेराझ़ाद (which gives zero hits). ∯WBG^converse 11:56, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, a line perhaps, to Ahmednagar. Hyperbolick (talk) 14:15, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Meher Baba as proposed by nom and as preferred WP:ATD. Thanks for your conscientious analysis of sources and searching in foreign language. ~Kvng (talk) 12:35, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Meher Baba.4meter4 (talk) 16:46, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Decepticons. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:22, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shrapnel (Transformers)[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional character TTN (talk) 11:15, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:15, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:15, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:15, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing found in my WP:BEFORE, not notable, no plausible redirect. FOARP (talk) 15:32, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per FOARP - basically sums up my conclusions as well. Not notable outside of its fictional universe. Red Phoenix ^talk 16:14, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Decepticons. Three of the four incarnations are this. ミラ P 19:44, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Decepticons per WP:CHEAP. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:23, 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 redirect to List of Transformers: Animated characters#Decepticons. RL0919 (talk) 21:16, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lugnut (Transformers)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable fictional character TTN (talk) 11:14, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:14, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:14, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Transformers: Animated characters#Decepticons which already covers this character FOARP (talk) 15:28, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per FOARP. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:19, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:27, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Raza de Traidores[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 09:30, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 09:30, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Willbb234.Andrew Base (talk) 15:31, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:18, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vinod Thomas[edit]

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

Likely failing notability. Lacking independent sources to verify notability. Most coverage appears to be primary, such as profiles published by institutions he is connected with (e.g. university or NGO profiles), contributor profiles for various newspapers or blogs. The Books appear to be publications by his place of work (such as World Bank reviews) where he was a contributing author for section(s) as part of his role. Divisional organisational leadership roles are not inherently notable. There is a lack of coverage about Thomas. His output seems largely verifiable in primary sources, but that does not pass the threshold test for NAUTHOR, NPROF or GNG. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 08:22, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He is not the primary subject of WP:RS.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:03, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 08:22, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 08:22, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 08:22, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 08:22, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 08:22, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 01:55, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 14:23, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Peter B. Sunderland[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Peter B. Sunderland

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

The professor in this category doesn't fit the requirements for Wikipedia's professor test. At best, the person has 2000 citations and has nominal achievements that other professors in the community has had in the past (See: Dr. Chung K Law, Dr. Jay Gore, Dr. Gerry Faeth, DMatthias Ihme, Dr. Kenneth Yu (from the same school has more citations). Awards are nominal and not anywhere close to the aforementioned research scientists in the field. For these reasons, I would like to have Peter B. Sunderland's page removed. LumosFlame (talk) 08:07, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 September 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:21, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:22, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Being "Keystone Professor" is not an endowed professorship of the type that passes WP:PROF#C5; it is merely a perk given to those faculty willing to teach intro courses [14]. But I think his citation record, with three papers into the triple digits on Google Scholar [15], is above threshold for #C1. The nomination argument is based on WP:WAX and is not good; we should be evaluating the subject on his own merits, not arguing on the basis of missing articles for more-notable people. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:25, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Above threshold for WP:PROF#C1. XOR'easter (talk) 19:39, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 21:47, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:PROF#C1. Wm335td (talk) 19:50, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Fails WP:PROF#C1.I agree with user David Eppstein on the fact that the absence of other professors' wiki pages isn't a valid reason to remove this one. However, I disagree with the threshold for WP:PROF#C1 as mentioned by User David Eppstien. This metric of only over 100 citations, as mentioned by you, is satisfied by a myriad number of professors in the field of combustion, esp. fire protection. The significance of the highly cited work lies in the co-author GM Faeth, whose articles are sought after. Combining the fact that Wikipedia pages give credible information about the professor and having merely triple digit citations doesn't provide the reader with any salient talking points about having this page. Pages like Google Scholar are used for that purpose, not a Wikipedia page. Hence I propose to have this page removed at the earlierst. LumosFlame (talk) 05:42, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Struck the "delete" because the nomination already counts as your !vote. XOR'easter (talk) 16:00, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per David Eppstein.4meter4 (talk) 16:48, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. While the article has seen considerable improvement it over the course of this AfD there remains no consensus that the sourcing demonstrates notability after considerable discussion. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:29, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

South Florida Council[edit]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 03:23, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 03:23, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scouting-related deletion discussions. --evrik ^(talk) 04:40, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We are not a directory, and all this is is a substitute for the group's website. There are no secondary sources, nor should we expect any. Let's be clear: there is no inherent notability for such organizational units, and subjects need to pass the GNG. Drmies (talk) 02:04, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I hate to admit, but it looks all the sources we used were just from the group's website. It doesn't even look like they were any passing references to it even in local media. I'd recommend deleting this or redirecting it to a main Boy Scouts page if there is one that covers BSA regional councils at a high level (i haven't checked yet). Michepman (talk) 02:37, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The protocol wold be to merge it to: Scouting_in_Florida#South_Florida_Council. However, I just removed all the redundant citations to the council's own website. --evrik ^(talk) 04:22, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michepman, I appreciate your note. It's just very unlikely that any of the councils at this level will pass the GNG. As for merging--there are no secondary sources that cover the council as such; recently added source only address one person and the camps, and that does not help the notability of the council. Drmies (talk) 18:03, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You should note that it is "IMHO." Clearly, the number of references, the size of the article, it's subpages and the links to the article establish it's notability. --evrik ^(talk) 18:13, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I could write ten-thousand words of flowery prose about the liechtenstein rose society, populate it with references to a website run by same, and make a nice little walled garden full of sub societies, important members, and annual events, and it wouldn't change that I literally just made the group up. Article quality is orthogonal to article includeability. No matter how good an article, it should not be kept if it is about a non-notable subject. Any article whose subject we can determine whose subject is notable should be kept (unless it is a copyvio or just so cluttered with cruft as to deserve WP:TNT).Rockphed (talk) 15:01, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, I looked at World Federation of Rose Societies, and there is no Liechtenstein Rose Society. It would have been funny had there been one. ;-) --evrik ^(talk) 20:14, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia should not have articles that are sourced only to an organization's own web page.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:23, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- There are now ten different sources, and only one of them are from the organization. --evrik ^(talk) 04:22, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article can be salvaged. More sources can be found. --evrik ^(talk) 04:01, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I hope they're better sources than this Angelfire website. The Wilma and Irma material isn't about the council. It is possible that this, which was supposed to be a link to "Jose Dante Parra Herrera (1997-09-14). "Thomas Tatham, 86, longtime Boy Scouting Booster". Miami Herald." contains a lengthy in-depth discussion of the council--no, that's not possible. Drmies (talk) 18:01, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - ~~The angelfire site is where a copy of the published book is available online.~~ The findagrave reference has the text of the Hearld article listed on it, if you don't want to pay to read it. So, that is four of the twelve. Want to try and take down the other eight? --evrik ^(talk) 18:19, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, it's a site where you can order one. You didn't give a page number, by the way. So, at best, you will have verified, maybe, that the council number is 84? Bravo. Drmies (talk) 20:20, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - I stand corrected. I’ll see if I can find the correct link. Until then, this link offers some of the same data : http://thecouncilguide.com --evrik ^(talk) 21:16, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:MUSTBESOURCES --110.165.185.203 (talk) 09:06, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article has been recently updated and is well sourced. This is a speedy keep. --sweet68camaro 17:28, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- No. Please see Wikipedia:Speedy keep. Drmies (talk) 18:01, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Everyone is allowed their opinion. Maybe sweet68camaro thinks you haven't read the article. --evrik ^(talk) 18:19, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Maybe sweetcamaro needs to read WP:AGF, then. Drmies (talk) 20:20, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - That doesn't seem fair. Sweet68camaro did not say or imply that you didn't read the article; they just stated their opinion and there was no assumption of bad faith. Michepman (talk) 01:04, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am assuming that the sources added by evrik are the best the internet has to offer. They are, to be blunt, horrible. I think the sources might establish notability for the scout camp run by the South Florida Council, but everything about the South Florida Council is either passing mention or WP:routine.Rockphed (talk) 14:54, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- There are these as well, I just havern't had time to go through them all:

- ‎O'MATZ, MEGAN (2001-12-18). "GAY BAN GARNERS SCOUTS $200,000". Sun Sentinel.
- DOZIER, MARIAN (2001-01-27). "JCCS BREAK RANKS WITH BAN ON BOY SCOUTS". Sun Sentinel.
- Sanchez, Danny (2005-07-26). "SCOUTING OPTIONS". Sun Sentinel.
- O'MATZ, MEGAN (2000-09-17). "SCOUTS FEAR CUTS TO RUN DEEPER". Sun Sentinel.
- O'MATZ, MEGAN (2000-09-12). "TAX FUNDS FOR SCOUTS PULLS EMOTIONS". Sun Sentinel.
- Fishman, Scott (2009-04-05). "Scouts break ground on site". Sun Sentinel.
- Mayo, Michael (2010-07-24). "South Florida parents sue after Boy Scout hiking death". Sun Sentinel.

--evrik ^(talk) 15:49, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: While this page needs to be pruned to remove items not directly related to the operation or background of the Council, folks need to keep in mind that many local BSA Councils like this one has limited, trained or coached people to maintain and observe their site. Instead of deleting the site, recommend that people contact the Council and ask them to provide more information than what is found by viewing the website. Stray comments from people in opposition of the BSA or their policies should be removed to maintain the neutrality of the site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Settummanque (talk • contribs) 16:43, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A brief analysis of sources[edit]

"A press release". 13 August 2018. on the Scouting website about the appointment of a person to the Council.
"A report on the Council". from GuideStar, which publishes numbers on NGOs (this is a website that reports primary information).
"Order your book on patches here".--that's all this can do.
"Well this link goes nowhere and should be removed". but ostensibly this is an obit on a member--no reason at all to believe it offers proper information that establishes notability.
"Here is another BSA web page"., this one the real directory.
"An obit on a person". on the website of the Rotary Club, which offers "He helped finance the rebuilding of the Boy Scout Camp in the Florida Keys"--and that is all it is.
"Boy Scout camp after Irma". (to state the obvious: this isn't about the Council).
"God only knows what this is". --it's not a secondary source, it doesn't discuss the Council. "Camp Everglades is in the Pine Rocklands of Everglades National Park" is not contended, and it is irrelevant.
"Wilma Ravages Boy Scout Camp"--a newspaper article about a camp after a storm; it has 413 words, according to the Miami Herald, and I doubt that much of that is devoted to the Council.
"Another camp after a storm". 25 June 2012. ; if we're generous we can see content about the Council: "Since then, the South Florida Council, Boy Scouts of America, have cleared away fallen Australian Pines and ripped out a decades-old water system." If we are really generous.
"Another camp after a storm". New York Daily News., and if we're generous, "It is expected to reopen by January, according to Jeff Hunt, executive director of the South Florida Council of Boys Scouts of America."
"What this is, is unclear". Archived from the original on 2012-03-10., but a web page archived from the O-Shot-Caw Lodge is not an independent secondary source.

In other words: mentions in secondary sources about the Council: two. Discussion of the actual Council in secondary sources: zero. Drmies (talk) 20:39, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

user:Drmies - I think that this article may have inadvertently fallen victim to reference bombing as part of some users' good faith attempts at repairing it. Of the links provided, most don't really mention the subject at all. The few who do fall squarely into the examples provided at WP:REFBOMB -- (1) citations which briefly namecheck the fact that the subject exists, but are not actually about the subject to any non-trivial degree and (2) citations which don't even namecheck the subject at all, but are present solely to verify a fact that's entirely tangential to the topic's own notability or lack thereof. For example, a statement of where the person was born might be "referenced" to a source which verifies that the named town exists, but completely fails to support the claim that the person was actually born there..

I respect the work that editors have put into this article, and I think there's some value in folding some of the information into the main page referenced above by user:evrik. I hate deleting articles, especially ones that contain a lot of useful information, but even with the expanded sourcing I just can't see this as passing the GNG. Michepman (talk) 01:04, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

user:Drmies - Thank you for the analysis. That was a fair amount of work. Looking at what you have posted I have two thoughts, first many of these citations are about specific facts and not on the broader council. Second, the sheer number of mentions of the council show its notability. --evrik ^(talk) 13:05, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

user:Michepman - WP:REFBOMB? Hardly. First, refbomb is not policy, it is an essay. Second, I stripped most of the cruft from the page, and then started to find references relating to each of the different sections. The subject is notable. Can you imagine where the article would be now if user:DrMies had spent the same effort improving the article as trying to get it deleted? --evrik ^(talk) 15:53, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looking things over, I found 3 sources that are more than name checks, though they do not look like they are very much more.

Johnson, Scott F.; Redfield, Sarah E. (2015). Education Law: A Problem-Based Approach. LexisNexis. ISBN 9781632833167.
Johnson, Scott F.; Redfield, Sarah E. (2015). Education Law: A Problem-Based Approach. LexisNexis. ISBN 9781632833167.
Dyck Price (November–December 1993). The Way it Was. LexisNexis. ISBN 9781632833167. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)

Sorry for the incredibly convoluted links. Two are to a scouting magazine, and the third is to an analysis of scouting's response to homosexuality. Rockphed (talk) 16:50, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Looking at them, it appears one is listed twice. --evrik ^(talk) 17:55, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the last cite Pryce, Dick (March–April 1993). The Day Andrew Came to Town. Scouting. pp. 36–37, 62–63. Retrieved 20 September 2019.

As I said, I don't think they are much more than passing mentions. Rockphed (talk) 18:58, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --evrik ^(talk) 19:01, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I am not saying that WP:REFBOMB is a policy or that the article should be deleted for that reason. My point, as I said earlier, is that the article’s sources are mostly about other stuff that are only incidentally related to South Florida Council. No one is disputing that the Council exists, or that it does good work in the community. But the sourcing present in the article and the sources linked in this page are (for the most part) not **about** the South Florida Council. They mention it in the context of other topics — a natural disaster in south Florida, or a story about the Boy Scouts in general, etc. they are useful for corroborating / verifying information about the Council, and again I commend the work spent here, but they don’t establish that it is notable.

One thing that might be helpful is if you described why the article passes the General Notability Guideline. The length of the article and the number of sources included are not relevant to the analysis. I’ve gone through it, and the WP:Notability (organizations and companies myself and tried to make a case that it is notable but I haven’t been able to justify it with the information I’ve found so far. If you can do that, then I will support keeping the article. Michepman (talk) 19:20, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notability? I think all the articles above show a lot of coverage. The sources are reliable. The sources are independent of the council. Many of the sources are primary, but may also be classed as secondary. A 100 year old non-profit that has had a significant impact on a large region of a state, surely qualifies as notable. --evrik ^(talk) 13:14, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- You're missing the point. No, primary sources may NOT be classed as secondary. That the non-profit has had an impact should be measurable. And no, this is not a lot of coverage. Moreover, NONE of the sources discuss the organization. If you don't understand the difference between cover and discuss--well, I think I said this before and I am tired of repeating myself: these are very basic concepts and your refusal to accept them means I'm wasting my time. Drmies (talk) 16:46, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not missing the point. There is some subjectiveness in what is primary and what is secondary. I do think that the sources discuss the subject, especially the ones listed above not integrated into the article. I agree that this is a waste of time. We should close the discussion, keep the article and work to improve it. --evrik ^(talk) 17:30, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs work and a {{refimprove}} tag is warranted, but not outright deletion. With all due respect to my esteemed fellow admin user:Drmies, Wikipedia custom needs to be taken into consideration, too. The Scouting WikiProject has had a long-standing interest in improving Council articles. Each Council is its own 501c(3) non-profit corporate entity, having a board of directors, budget, and camp properties. Typically, a council spans many counties and has several thousand members. The South Florida Council has 40,000 members serving a region having a population of almost 5 million, for example.

Examining some of the refs cited here by evrik (but not yet integrated into the article) since the AfD was first listed do support GNG. Whilst individually the refs are not highly persuasive, taken in the aggregate the article barely meets GNG. The camps owned and operated by a council are part of the council's article, rather than having separate standalone articles. News media coverage of Hurricane Irma's destruction of the South Florida Council's camp on Scout Key is therefore specifically relevant to this article and indeed demonstrates the Council's notability.

Likewise, repeated news media mention in reliable sources about the South Florida Council, as it relates to news developments and controversies, also contribute to notability. That these reliable sources consider the Council Executive's statements worthy enough to quote as newsworthy, further demonstrates that keeping this article best serves Wikipedia's value to the reader. JGHowes ^talk 17:17, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:JGHowes, you are suggesting a kind of inherent notability for such organizational entities. I still do not see why a council gets that privilege. Is there a secondary sources that explains when and how if was founded? Who the most important people were on the board or in the organization? What its financials are? What all things it operates, and why, and how? These are the things we expect secondary sources to deliver in order for an organizational entity to pass the GNG--except for secondary schools. Councils are not like secondary schools. These articles you point at, not a single one of them says anything substantial about the council. One or two of them point at grants, requested or received. One has a few membership numbers. That's it. Drmies (talk) 17:26, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies you haven't made your case. The facts aren't with you. Why don't you work on revamping the article instead of spending so much time trying to refute what others have said. --evrik ^(talk)

Drmies I refute this as you simply bringing up the same arguments again and again. --evrik ^(talk) 14:55, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because there is nothing to write. Stop pinging me. Drmies (talk) 01:16, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a fresh look at the revised article, which now has much less reliance on self-pub and OR than before the AfD prompted the rewrite and search for RS refs to meet GNG. Some have now been incorporated into the article, especially as concerns the hurricane recovery at this Council's camps and are thus unquestionably relevant. Interestingly enough, I did contact the Council to see if they had old newspaper clippings in their archives from the 1910s-1930s regarding the Council's founding and merger history, but all those records were lost when Wilma destroyed the building housing the archives. JGHowes ^talk 16:34, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per the last comment. Based on my reading the concerns about the sourcing being too thin have not been adequately addressed - WP:SIGCOV demands that the sources provided have some substance so that notability can be established, and Drmies's last point on this has not been refuted - but it is possible (per JGHowes) the last edits did find such sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:53, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I thought Drmies had been consistently refuted. --evrik ^(talk) 14:55, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Insofar as Drmies has been refuted it is only because you are not engaging his points. His analysis of the sources provided, which largely matches my analysis, is that they are all trivial mentions in articles that are mostly about other things. I found several articles from local papers in Florida that were simply minutes of scout council meetings. They do no more to establish notability than do the other sources we have dug up. Rockphed (talk) 17:29, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - We have engaged all the point. However, since Drmies has refused to acknowledge that we have made any progress. it's hard to advance the discussion. The council is notable the citations are good, the page should not be deleted. --evrik ^(talk) 19:25, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: So, here are the new sources that have been added in the last 2 days.

Fishman, Scott (April 5, 2009). "Scouts break ground on site". Sun-Sentinel. Retrieved September 25, 2019.
"Boy Scouts of America, South Florida Council". Charity Navigator. 2017. Retrieved September 24, 2019.
‎Bethel, Rodman J. (1987). Flagler's Folly: The Railroad That Went to Sea and Was Blown Away. Slumbering Giant. p. 76. ISBN 0961470224.
Walker, Christine (September 21, 1997). "Thomas L. Tatham, Boy Scout Leader". Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel. Retrieved September 24, 2019.
Nikki Waller (2005-11-27). "Wilma Ravages Boy Scout Camp". Miami Herald. p. 1.

Of the three that are available on the internet, I am concerned about the independence of Charity Navigator's page. The other two are trivial mentions. Based on what the book is supporting, I think it is also a trivial mention. The last one looks like one of the sources already discussed. I saw a mention that this used to be the "Dade County Council", but searching for that in newspaper archives gets only routine, WP:MILL coverage. I applaud JGHowes and Evrik for their research, but, ultimately, I don't think we have found any sources that actually show notability. Rockphed (talk) 16:58, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some IP editor who only comments on deletion debates has chosen to comment here. I may ask for a sockpuppet check. --evrik ^(talk) 17:25, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- user:evrik, two things. a. I asked you to stop pinging me; you should respect that. b. Do not EVER remove an IP's comment for such specious reasons. You can ask for a check, but it will be denied immediately. If you're wondering how I can say this with such certainly, it's because I am a CheckUser and we don't honor requests for IP checks, esp. not if there is no evidence. (Like, seriously--who do you think this person is, and based on what evidence? Without that, it will always be denied, even if it's an account and not an IP.) Also, IPs are people too.
  Well, now that I am here, thank you Jo-Jo Eumerus. Rockphed, thank you also. Yes, I do believe my comments have not been properly addressed. Having said that, I have to say, User:JGHowes, holy moly, you did a fine, fine job. I still do not think (having just looked over the new version and some of the new sources) that this council passes the GNG, but if it gets through this AfD it will be because of your work, and I appreciate it. If you ever fly down to MGM or Maxwell, ping me and I'll buy you a cup of coffee or an ice cream. Drmies (talk) 22:31, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- - I haven't pinged you since you asked me not to. FYI I did reference the removal. I just went and stripped all of the pinging templates out of the discussion. My reason for removing the comments are found here. --evrik ^(talk) 15:56, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, there are some other refs added in the last couple of days, besides those enumerated above by Rockphed:

‎"City of Miami, Boy Scouts, USCG and Auxiliary Attain Bicentennial Goal". Navigator magazine. U.S. Coast Guard Auxiliary. June 1976. p. 35. Retrieved September 25, 2019.
"Hurricane Andrew". Scouting magazine. March–April 1993. pp. 37 and 63. Retrieved September 25, 2019. (arguably, since it's a magazine published by the National headquarters in Texas, "independent" may be a stretch)
Diaz, Madeline (May 14, 2003). "Charity to stop funding Boy Scouts". Sun-Sentinel. Retrieved September 26, 2019.
Piccardo, Rebeca (November 13, 2014). "Cub Scout gets a souped-up ride to school by NASCAR driver". Miami Herald. Retrieved September 26, 2019.
‎Adams, Carter; Self, Aaron (November 28, 2017). "Sawyer After Irma". The Burr Magazine. Retrieved September 24, 2019.

These new refs are, for the most part, independent secondary sources which, taken together, do respond to Drmies' concerns regarding what GNG rightly expects of an org's article, e.g., its most important leaders (and corporate sponsors, in the case of a non-profit), its budget, and especially what the org operates (i.e., the camps, in this instance). This is not to claim inherent notability or IAR applies, but rather that there has been more than mere passing mention that the news media has deemed newsworthy in a major metropolitan area, thereby meeting the notability requirements of GNG.

Drmies, I was at Gunter AFB as an ROTC cadet marching and doing PT under a blazing hot July sun, so I'll take you up on that kind offer anytime but summer!

JGHowes ^talk 00:44, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm really impressed by the additional sourcing on this. I still think it's very debatable that this organization is notable per the strict letter of the GNG (which admittedly is frustratingly vague) but I do think that, given the track record of specific citations to it over a long period of time over multiple independent resources, that it probably does merit enough verifiable independent coverage to meet the specific notability guidelines for the organizations.

As noted above, a lot -- nearly all, actually -- of the sources presented actually are about other topics (often articles that are really about the Boy Scouts and not specifically about the Council) but I think that there's enough meat on the bone to support the article. This is definitely a tough one though and I can still see both sides. Michepman (talk) 02:16, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see that at this point, the discussion has bent towards, keep, however, if whomever decides to close this goes the other way, I'm going to suggest that the content is merged and a redirect is left in place of this page. Merge it to: Scouting in Florida#South Florida Council. --evrik ^(talk) 14:59, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
More comment I've added more to the history section for the 1910s-1930s, with old newspaper clippings cited from Library of Congress archives. JGHowes ^talk 12:18, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I did get a good laugh from the see also for Labor Day as "the holiday the storms attack on". RL0919 (talk) 21:22, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Labor Day[edit]

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

Unclear scope, no significant sourcing suggesting this particular moniker is common. Jasper Deng (talk) 06:28, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:41, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This isn't really a primary topic in my opinion. I never heard anyone say that Dorian is the Labor Day Hurricane. INeedSupport ^:V 02:54, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The title isn't even grammatically correct if we're talking about "Labor Day hurricane". Building off INeedSupport, there isn't really evidence of calling any tropical cyclone as the "Labor Day hurricane" other than the storm in 1935 or a loose connection to Norma in 1970. I disagree with Dorian being on the list because I have not heard anyone call it that (I live in South Florida) and the storm barely impacted the United States on Labor Day anyway. So are we just going to check through a calendar and arbitrarily determine what's a "Labor Day" hurricane?--12george1 (talk) 22:55, 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:23, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mignon (Antonio de Almeida recording)[edit]

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

Fails all of the criteria of WP:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Notability of recordings. -- Softlavender (talk) 20:46, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:48, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NALBUM The article's COPYVIO issue has now been addressed - brief quotes from reviews will be supplied in due course. As the first recording of the opera in the stereo era, the album is of fundamental importance in the opera's history. See Opera, December 1978, p. 1194 for further discussion.Niggle1892 (talk) 21:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then mention that, with citation, on the wiki article about the opera. Softlavender (talk) 23:52, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sourced entirely to catalogue entries. No evidence of notability. Guy (help!) 23:53, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. note that it also fails WP:NALBUM and WP:COPYVIO. The main bulk of the article consists of long paraphrases of critics reviews - these are certainly violations of copyright.Smerus (talk) 07:02, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The criteria in WP:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Notability of recordings is from an essay by a WikiProject and does not carry the broad support of wikipedia policy. Further, this guideline section is currently being considered for removal for WP:NPOV concerns, as well as its conflict with the policy at WP:NALBUM.4meter4 (talk) 01:18, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per it's inclusion in the reference work The Rough Guide to Opera by Matthew Boyden, Nick Kimberley, Joe Staines, 2002, page 89, and The American Radio History Archive, and it's 1978 review in Gramaphone. That's enough to establish notability per criteria one of WP:NALBUM.4meter4 (talk) 01:54, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG/WP:NALBUM#1. Kudos to 4meter4 for finding additional RS coverage in their comment above. Colin M (talk) 14:22, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets the criteria of WP:NALBUM. It has multiple reviews/articles. In addition to the two in Gramophone over the years and Stereo Review (all already cited in the article), there are the two sources found by 4meter4. It was broadcast in its entirety on WXQR [16], and excerpts on other NPR stations. e.g. [17] and on Radio Television Hong Kong [18]. The criteria from WikiProject Classical music cited in the nom is merely a WikiProject essay, unlike those at WP:NALBUM which is an official guideline. As for potential copyvio issues in the "Reviews" section, that can be truncated to simply listing the reviews and re-expanded later. The entire article doesn't need deletion, if the subject is notable. Voceditenore (talk) 15:12, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (actually this looks quite snowy) with plenty of reviews so meets WP:NALBUM. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:16, 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) 04:45, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For further coverage, see Terence Cave's Mignon's Afterlives, 2011, p. 109; Peter Gammond's The Illustrated Encyclopaedia of Recorded Opera, 1979, p. 202; Clyde T. McCants's American Opera Singers and their Recordings, 2004, p. 362; Matthew Rye's 1001 Classical Recordings You Must Hear Before You Die, 2017, p. 374; Ethan Mordden's A Guide to Opera Recordings, 1987, p. 106; The New Records, Vol. 46, Issue 10, 1978, p. 12; The Penguin Guide to Recorded Music, 2008, p. 1351; The Penguin Guide to Compact Discs, 2001, p. 1402; and Musikrevy, Vol. 34, 1979, p. 47.Niggle1892 (talk) 11:57, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, i can see why this afd may have been relisted, with a "delete" from a couple of experienced editors (hi Guy, and Smerus:)), it would be nice if they could revisit this and reconsider?. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:29, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NALBUM. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:27, 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 16:41, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rolf Steiner[edit]

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

This person does not seem to meet Wikipedia notability guidelines. From a quick googling, most of the hits (besides this article) were him promoting his book. There is also a lack of citations providing any evidence of notability. BeIsKr (talk) 03:19, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:11, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:11, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:11, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I clicked on the books link, above, and added ~~four~~ five additional references. That is just scratching the surface. Geo Swan (talk) 04:53, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep, Steiner is one of dozen most well known mercenaries of the 20th century. There are plentry of references to support his notability. Geo Swan (talk) 04:56, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Indeed. One of the best-known 20th century mercenaries. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:43, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- How does he satisfy WP:MILITARY? Assuming he doesn't (and I don't see him matching any of the 8 points there), why would being mentioned for a paragraph or two in a few books satisfy WP:GNG? If he had a chapter devoted to him in a book or two, fine, but the fact that he's mentioned in passing doesn't seem like notability. BeIsKr (talk) 23:41, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Quite easily satisfies WP:SOLDIER #4 and WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:39, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nominator BeIsKr, I left you a headsup, where I asked you if you were familiar with your obligations under WP:BEFORE. Your comment, above, very strongly suggests you are not aware of your obligations. Nominators are not supposed to evaluate the notability of topics merely by looking at the references already included in the article. They are supposed to look at ALL the available RS, or a reasonable seletion of the top RS. Your nomination says you did a "quick googling". Well, it was too quick. A more thorough web search will confirm what others here know. Steiner was one of the most active, well-known mercenaries of the 20th Century. Geo Swan (talk) 21:42, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Steiner is one of the most well known mercenaries in the 20th century.Andrew Base (talk) 15:34, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Call for closure.
Keep per WP:HEY - good work by Geo Swan. Bearian (talk) 19:54, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of programs broadcast by Animal Planet. RL0919 (talk) 01:45, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Safari Sisters[edit]

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

I found no notability. Non-notable television series. SL93 (talk) 01:12, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:46, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of programs broadcast by Animal Planet as a one season show. Nate • (chatter) 07:39, 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. JGHowes ^talk 02:35, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thoqqua[edit]

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

Completely non-notable fictional creature. Only primary sources exist for this creature. No secondary sources discuss this creature in any way that denotes notability. Rorshacma (talk) 00:58, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 00:58, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:55, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Andrew Base (talk) 15:29, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 14:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters is also being considered for deletion, so merge won't likely be possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Not a very active user (talk • contribs) 13:07, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 01:33, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 11:15, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gage Creed (character)[edit]

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

Again, deprodded without rationale or improvement. Apparently this editor doesn't understand what "Explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion, either in the edit summary or on the talk page" means. Zero real world notability. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:00, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:00, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew D. (talk) 10:17, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pet Sematary. Demonstrates little real-world notability, as the sources are generally either plot-only, or are not particularly in depth. Calling him the "primary antagonist" of the book is kind of a stretch, and several of the sources present in the article don't seem to even support the information that they are being linked to. That said, as a fairly important character in a well-known book, redirecting this to the book's main article, where a detailed plot summary fully covering Gage's role, is already present.Rorshacma (talk) 01:07, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:13, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination raises some procedural points so let's dispose of those first. The prod is one of several made using an automated tool and using the same cookie-cutter rationale, "Zero real world notability". This assertion was made without evidence and was false because the article stated, for example, "Hughes' portrayal of Gage was universally acclaimed" and that's not zero. The prod process "must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected" but opposition should always be expected in such cases because there are obvious alternatives to deletion, which are preferred per the policy WP:PRESERVE.

The nomination complains at the lack of explanation. It seems that they expect their rapid-fire, automated nominations to be responded to with elaborate explanations. Now, I did respond on the talk page and the most significant part of that was to post {{friendly search suggestions}}. These are not just there to look good; they are there to facilitate the searches which are required by WP:BEFORE, "The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects." I naturally made such searches myself, was content with what I found, and a list of suitable sources will follow. It appears from these that Stephen King's works attract lots of literary criticism and these naturally go into detail about the major characters such as this. There is therefore ample scope to improve the article per our editing policy and so deletion is quite inappropriate.

Inherited Haunts: Stephen King's Terrible Children
Nightmare on Sesame Street: or, the self-possessed child
The monster never dies": An analysis of the Gothic double in Stephen King's oeuvre
Freaks: The Grotesque as Metaphor in the Works of Stephen King
The Ghost of the Counterfeit Child
Frankenstein's Monster: Hubris and Death in Stephen King's Oeuvre
Utterances Connected with Social Criticism in Stephen King's PET SEMATARY
Taking Stephen King Seriously
Evil Children in the Popular Imagination
Monsters and Mayhem: Physical and Moral Survival in Stephen King's Universe
Stephen King: A Literary Companion
Reading Stephen King: Issues of Censorship, Student Choice, and Popular Literature.

Andrew D. (talk) 10:10, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:ALLPLOT. Andrew Davidson's doing his typical "I Googled up these sources, and you can't prove I didn't read them; maybe I read them and just don't understand Wikipedia policy" schtick shouldn't really be allowed to affect this. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:05, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is clearly the case, just looking at a few of these. This one,for example, is a student thesis in which Gage is only mentioned in a footnote summarizing the plot of the book, this one is nothing but a brief plot summary as is this one, and this one mentions the character in exactly two sentences, and barely even talks about the character in those sentences. This seems to just be the typical strategy of flooding the AFD with supposed sources, without actually providing the authorship or a link to them, in the hopes that no one does the work to track them down and analyze them for the poor sources they are.Rorshacma (talk) 15:46, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"There are none so blind as those that will not see". Naming the character in two places is evidence of notability, not a lack of it. Appearing a footnote in a scholary thesis is evidence of notability, not the contrary. The coverage in the Literary Companion is a separate entry for the character which mainly focusses on its cameos in other works, rather than simply recapitulating the plot. These are all valid sources for various aspects of the article and their existence demonstrates that the character has been noticed and written about and so we are able to cover it without OR. There are lots more sources like this and, in providing a selection, I have gone way beyond what is required of me. The onus in this matter is on the nominator to make such searches as they are the person trying to make a case that no-one has noticed this subject. They have failed to provide any evidence; have misrepresented the facts of the matter and the deletionist claque isn't any better. Andrew D. (talk) 16:48, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Naming the character in two places is evidence of notability, not a lack of it." Really? Because our guideline on notability states that "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention", and I don't know how you can even pretend to claim that the two sentences present in the article in question is anything but the definition of trivial. As are the mentions in all of the other sources I actually bothered to look at. Does anyone really believe that mentioning two "cameos" of the character, one of which is not even of the character but of a shoe, and the other one is clearly stated in the same book to not even be the same character is "significant coverage"? Proving that the character's name comes up when you google it does nothing to indicate any notability of the character separate from their already-present coverage in the main article on the book, or why it needs to have a separate article from the already substantial coverage in the main article on the book. Rorshacma (talk) 17:08, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These details are significant coverage in my view. They corroborate specific facts and that's what we require of citations. To call this "trivial" is just opinionated prejudice; assuming the thing that you're trying to prove. Andrew D. (talk) 17:34, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not clearly the case. There's clearly some history here that I'm not privy to...
I did my own Google Scholar search, and I will vouch for at least two of the above articles. The fact that there are so many supports the fact that they WP:NEXIST regardless of the state of the article.
2. Nightmare on Sesame Street - Gage is covered extensively and believed to represent or fight against becoming brain-dead youth that watch too much TV.
6. Frankenstein's Monster: Hubris and Death in Stephen King's Oeuvre - Gage is compared throughout the article to Frankenstein's monster (as the title suggests)
I just don't want to do more than that, and two equates to multiple sources. -2pou (talk) 16:43, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect. Until actually proven, it can be assumed none of the above have any merit as sources, as it would be easy to show two or three have significant coverage. By throwing twelve items without any context, it shows no actual thought went into it. TTN (talk) 14:27, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I love your comment. Within less than two minutes you nominated four articles for deletion 1 2 3 4. If anything, it shows no actual thought went into it. MrCleanOut (talk) 19:36, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whether I spend 10 minutes on each article or no time at all, I don't think it would really matter to you. We seem to have completely contrary mindsets, so I doubt you'd much agree with me on anything regardless. TTN (talk)

I've supported a number of your nominations, but the sheer volume can be slightly frustrating when there is almost no context as to why something is failing GNG or what you did WP:BEFORE nominating it or coming to that conclusion. Seeing four nominations in less than two minutes doesn't build confidence that due diligence is being carried out is all I think MrCleanOut is saying. More context in nominations can help reduce workload on other reviewers and not alienate them into thinking, "Great. Here's another folder thrown on my desk that I need to do the legwork for since this two-word Post-it doesn't really tell me how it got here. How did I get stuck with this?" That's right, I wikilinked it -2pou (talk) 20:03, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Consider this "proven" otherwise. See comment above highlighting the merit of two of the sources. At least two sources are extremely GNG worthy (and available for free). -2pou (talk) 16:43, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable fictional character except within the context of the work, which can be explained on the work's page. A redirect isn't required since Gage Creed already is a redirect._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:06, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ALLPLOT. This isn't a fandom wiki like you get for in-unverse characters for the Stephen King books, Star Wars, etc. There's no justification for keep based in the article or this AfD so far due to lack of in-depth sources that would be more focused on the book article. I was originally going to say redirect, but as Zxcvbnm points out, Gage Creed can handle that, and there's no need to use this as a search term. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:51, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think All Plot should be a basis for improving the article, not deleting it. As I have stated below, this article is only a month old-2pou (talk) 16:43, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Andrew D. The article has 7 references. A GSearch for ["Gage Creed" Stephen King] turns up 30 hits. This completely invalidates the imprecise and false delete rationale: Zero real world notability. The article may be poorly written at present, but there is ample scope to improve it as per WP:ATD which is Wikipedia POLICY. Deletion is inappropriate. MrCleanOut (talk) 19:12, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or put in Draft Onel I understand you're acting in good faith, but all these character AFD seem misguided to me in this case, the fact that these character articles are in poor shape does not mean they are all non-notable. King's works have had an insane amount of coverage and other users have already demonstarated that they can find several related to this character.★Trekker (talk) 18:26, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Pet Sematary, zero notability independent of the plot of the book. Andrew's latest copying of the top Google hits certainly establishes notability of this work and its author, but not the need for a separate article for its characters. These passing mentions are such a pathetic argument that merely proves that there isn't substantive coverage of this character in particular. Reywas92^Talk 01:24, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draftspace. Updated to keep below Another one turned into a redirect on the same day it was created. I guess I could see it being stumbled upon and redirected, not knowing its age, and at least there was justifiable rationale provided.... There are just so many of these, that it looks like a witch hunt. ~~Move it to a draft, and maybe it'll meet GNG when it's ready for the article space.~~ -2pou (talk) 18:46, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Andrew D.4meter4 (talk) 00:58, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since multiple sources establish notability. Several pointed out by Andrew D, and I have verified some. The article should be improved not deleted. WP:NEXIST in the WP Notability test says that the sources only need to exist, not be present in the article. Incorporating them will strengthen the article, but that can be done over time. -2pou (talk) 16:43, 4 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.