Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 September 3

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 2 September	4 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 delete. There appears to be a rough consensus against retaining this page which becomes more pronounced if we underweight the keep from a SPA account. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:03, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Addis[edit]

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

This individual is not notable except for one event - an act of vandalism - and the article itself has survived simply through procedure. In its first AFD discussion, the result was delete; in the second it was procedurally closed because it was moved from Draft to main space. That did not make the article any better.

I started cutting away at fawning language and undue content but eventually came to the conclusion that the only thing that should be there is the Burning Man vandalism, so the question then becomes "why should this even be here?" Jorm (talk) 23:28, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as proposer.--Jorm (talk) 23:29, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough coverage to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:24, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Addis is notable for burning Burning Man early, for getting arrested for allegedly threatening to burn down Grace Cathedral, San Francisco and finally for committing suicide. In addition, he was a playwright. There was quite a bit of coverage in the mainstream press about Addis' burning of Burning Man early. Wired had a short Q&A with him, Wikileaks has an email about his plea. Wikipedia has a number of vanity bio pages, and I've tried to have a few deleted. However, I believe that Paul Addis is notable. Cxbrx (talk) 02:53, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Where is this coverage, and how does it support this person having their own article, and not support a single event?--Jorm (talk) 02:55, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Via Wikipedia, I have access to newspaperarchive.com. Searching newspaperarchive.com for "Paul Addis Burning Man" "2007-2019", I get 730 hits. Yes, not all of them apply, but 23 of the first 25 do apply, I stopped counting after that. An example is at https://www.newspapers.com/clip/35625824/paul_addis_arrested_for_attempted_arson/. There a three main events, the early burning of Burning Man, the arrest at Grace Cathedral and the suicide. In general, I see the point of WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E. I believe that the initial event (the early burning of Burning Man) was notable because of the amount of coverage. Yes, Addis was no John Hinckley Jr., but Addis' role was substantial and well documented. However, if enough editors feel this article should go, then I'll yield and not take up any more time. Maybe we can apply the same standards to Joseph Matheny's article, which appears to be a self-edited vanity page? Or Hui-Hai Liu, which is appears to be another self-edited vanity page? Cxbrx (talk) 03:50, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is my point: it's 1 event. As far as the other articles, I have no opinions about them as I have no knowledge of their context.--Jorm (talk) 04:07, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:23, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:23, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable individual. Made the news for the one event of vandalism at Burning Man. That's not enough to warrant an encyclopedia article. Netherzone (talk) 16:00, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I will admit this is not entirely on policy. There is some marginal notability here, but I find the enshrinement of someone with obvious mental illness (as alluded to in the article, in the sources and in the resulting suicide) to be a bit macabre. If it is a keep it is very weak, and it relies on the Burning man event and the potential cathedral attack and their sources. The article, while more or less factual and neutrally voiced, ends up being a bit of a hatchet job on someone's troubles in life. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:47, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Addis was an artist also known for hanging testicles on the Burning Man man in 1997 and for his production about writer Hunter S. Thompson, "Gonzo, a Brutal Chrysalis," which starred him and played in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Seattle. ^[1] ^[2] Mystikfae (talk) 02:21, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Mystikfae's only edit in contrib history is to this AfDThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:55, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How does this not fall into the "one event" criteria? --Jorm (talk) 02:28, 6 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:04, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Harry John Toe[edit]

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

This page seems fishy to me as there are no hits on Transfermarkt and the only thing that has appeared when searching up this name is the Wikipedia article. HawkAussie (talk) 23:24, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 23:24, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 23:24, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 23:24, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – does not appear to meet WP:N or WP:V. – Levivich 01:39, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:54, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:57, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article about semi-pro footballer which doesn't satisfy NFOOTBALL or GNG. Jogurney (talk) 16:52, 4 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:05, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hope Runs High Films[edit]

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

Non notable distribution company, fails WP:GNG, no WP:RS. Meeanaya (talk) 04:14, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 04:14, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 04:14, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Additional support articles should be forthcoming in the coming weeks. Company was reconfigured out of the Karmic Release Ltd library, hence the Karmic Release citations in references. -HauntedMill

Ref to "fails WP:GNG" I feel that the cultural value of the film's represented by the company, and that dedication to filmmakers with minority voices certainly constitute notability. Ref to WP:RS Icon Magazine, Variety and The New York Times are certainly reliable sources. - Lwottring

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 23:17, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is not a film production company, but a film distribution company with no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources - all the references are to films they distribute, none are about the company itself - notability can't be inherited from the films they distribute - Epinoia (talk) 02:56, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Haukur (talk) 23:15, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Takeshi Ishizuka[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NHOCKEY. The Asia League ultimately does not qualify for any of NHOCKEY's criteria points, or in the very least it isn't listed. Crucially though, perhaps the main reason he fails is, while he did play for Japan, he did not do so in the top pool of the IIHF World Championship, the Asian Games nor the Olympics, therefore he fails #6. Tay87 (talk) 23:13, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 23:13, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 23:13, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 23:13, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:31, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete Fails to meet either WP:NHOCKEY or the GNG.Sandals1 (talk) 16:35, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable hockey player. Barca (talk) 21:24, 5 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:07, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Holdovers from previous administrations in the Trump administration[edit]

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

Cabinet secretaries and certain top leadership roles are political appointees who are generally expected to resign at the start of a new administration – it is not typical for them to be held over, like when Obama retained Robert Gates from the Bush administration. Under Secretaries, deputies, and heads of smaller agencies, however, are typically career bureaucrats who do not routinely change with each president, or only leave following a transition period. It is not noteworthy here that the Deputy Director of the Office of Business Liaison of the Department of Commerce has served in the administrations of the last four presidents or that Trump has not replaced the Director of the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

Furthermore, many of these positions are for fixed terms: of course the Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, who is appointed to a five-year term, would be a holdover! The United States Postmaster General isn't even appointed by the president at all.

I see no point to having a list of non-political public servants who, entirely expectedly, did not leave their jobs or fixed-term seats with the new administration. Reywas92^Talk 22:11, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 22:11, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 22:11, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Including non-political appointees and fixed term appointees among others makes this list less than informative, it makes it downright deceptive.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:30, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An encyclopedia should not contain info on everything Trump does. Ktrimi991 (talk) 10:33, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Listing things that Trump hasn't (yet) besmirched with his lazy orange tentacles is a fruitless undertaking. The press has enough on its hands documenting the outrageous stuff he does; it usually doesn't have time for the things he hasn't done, though List of government positions the Trump administration has failed to fill might be a viable list. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:19, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. --SalmanZ (talk) 17:05, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Universal Classic Monsters#Dark Universe. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:08, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Universe (film studio)[edit]

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

Not a notable film studio. A discussion was held about the correlation between The Invisible Man (2020 film) and this attempted shared universe at the discussion The Invisible Man (2020 film) and the Dark Universe, with the evidence provided there pretty compelling to illustrate that there was no correlation between the two now. This Variety quote very clearly articulated that the Dark Universe is no longer moving forward: The move is part of a fresh strategy for Universal’s monsters properties, bringing creative directors with distinctive visions to the classic characters and moving on from the interconnected Dark Universe concept.

There is also the fact the studio Dark Universe has only produced one film, that being 2017’s The Mummy. The inclusion of Dracula Untold is incorrect seeing as the Dark Universe didn’t materialize until 2017. So it’s a combination of non notability (so fails WP:GNG), The information within the article being inaccurate, and the article not really being so much about a film studio anyway. All information in this article can easily be accessed at the Remake era section of the Universal Classic Monsters article. Rusted AutoParts 21:44, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am seeing this article was repurposed from being initially about the entire universe of the Monster Movies going back to the 30s. Rusted AutoParts 21:48, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:50, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:50, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:50, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, though I'm undecided where the most appropriate target would be. It could be to Universal Pictures (its parent company), The Mummy (2017 film) (the only movie this subsidiary produced), or Universal_Classic_Monsters#Dark_Universe (where the information on the aborted attempt at the shared universe is located). Regardless of the target, I agree with the nomination that it should not be a standalone article. It only existed long enough to produce one movie, and the sources are all talking about the "Dark Universe" in terms of the planned cinematic universe, and not about the studio subsidiary that this article is supposed to be about. Rorshacma (talk) 22:28, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Universal Classic Monsters#Dark Universe where the studio is adequately covered - Epinoia (talk) 17:00, 10 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:09, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Navarro[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a politician notable only for serving at the county and school board levels of government. As always, these are not offices that automatically entitle a person to have a Wikipedia article -- the lowest level of office that confers guaranteed inclusion rights on all officeholders is the state legislature, while politicians at the local level of office are included only if they can be demonstrated as having received nationalized coverage that makes them special notability cases of much greater notability than the norm. But that's not what the references here are showing -- rather, this is heavily reference bombed to a pile of primary sources that aren't support for notability at all (e.g. routine verification of vote totals on the county government's own self-published website), glancing namechecks of her existence as a giver of soundbite in local media coverage of other things or people, and sources which don't even namecheck her existence at all, but are here solely to verify stray facts that are completely tangential to her notability as a person. Once all of those are discounted, there are fewer than 10 sources left which are actually about Navarro in any non-trivial way, which is not enough coverage to make a county councillor special. Bearcat (talk) 21:15, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:15, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:15, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 22:12, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment article needs work and better sourcing.--evrik ^(talk) 04:14, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable county level politician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:23, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable politician who has received a lot of news coverage. --evrik ^(talk) 03:20, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's bringing up a lot of hits which mention her name in the process of being fundamentally about other things or people besides her, and is not bringing up a lot of hits about her. Also, one newspaper in a county councillor's own local media market is not the magic ticket to notability all by itself regardless of how often it's covered her: the notability test for a county councillor requires nationalizing coverage that expands well beyond just her own local media market. Bearcat (talk) 20:41, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the articles talk about things she is working on. Besides, it's the Washington Post. --evrik ^(talk) 21:23, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Washington Post doesn't magically make county councillors within Metropolitan Washington more notable than everywhere else's county councillors just because the Washington Post happens to be the provider of the person's routinely expected local coverage. Even The New York Times doesn't do that for county councillors within the NYC metro — the councillor's coverage still has to expand beyond just their own local media market before they're plausibly notable, regardless of how prestigious their local newspaper may be. Bearcat (talk) 15:23, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sufficient news coverage to establish notability. Agree that article needs work and better sourcing. ~ Quacks Like a Duck (talk)
Delete A local politician who has not received any press coverage outside of the region she represents. Of the sources, her name only appears in the headline of approximately five of those, and they're all routine campaign coverage, or articles she authored herself, and many of the articles cited simply appear to be routine coverage of the council she sits on. SportingFlyer T·C 07:52, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A ton of "sources", but none of them provide any WP:SIGCOV, as far as I can see, mostly routine electioneering news. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:09, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable county level politician and the sources not provide any WP:SIGCOV. --SalmanZ (talk) 22:15, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As president of the Montgomery County Council she gets lots of passing mentions, all of it local, but I'm not seeing significant independent coverage about her (at least nothing that's atypical for thousands of local politicians). Her position does not meet WP:NPOL. Papaursa (talk) 03:21, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Majority government. Consensus here is to merge to Majority government. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:54, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Working majority[edit]

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

Seems to be a dictionary definition. Bangalamania (talk) 19:49, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Bangalamania (talk) 19:49, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Majority government; shouldn't be something you couldn't have done as a WP:BOLD addition to the main article. Reywas92^Talk 20:10, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect Agree with above. Pretty self explanatory Earnsthearthrob (talk) 20:33, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested. Neither article is decent, but perhaps a good one can be created. Bearian (talk) 20:35, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect in(to) majority government. Currently only appears to be a slight reword of the Wiktionary definition. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 21:23, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect either to majority government or to confidence and supply; the latter being more appropriate in recent usage of the term working majority to describe the British government's arrangement following the 2017 United Kingdom general election, though a redirect to majority government would admittedly be more all-encompassing and thus preferable. Benjitheijneb (talk) 21:55, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Majority government. Ktrimi991 (talk) 10:30, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect Per above. --SalmanZ (talk) 20:00, 5 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:55, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Rivard[edit]

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

Advertorialized WP:BLP of a musician and actress, not reliably sourced as clearing either WP:NMUSIC or WP:NACTOR. Her primary notability claims as a musician are touring as a supporting chorus vocalist with a musical group whose article fails to mention her name at all because she was never an actual primary member of it, and releasing albums "which can be found on iTunes and Amazon" -- and her notability claim as an actress is that she's been in stuff. And for sourcing, this is referenced entirely to primary sources and IMDb, with zero evidence shown of any reliable source coverage about her in media. As always, the notability test is not the things the article says, but the depth and quality of the sources that can be shown to support the things it says -- but none of these sources are cutting it at all, and nothing stated in the article body is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the sources from having to cut it. Bearcat (talk) 19:44, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:44, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:44, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now until properly sourced material published. Searches of "Amy Rivard music" result in only own links and social media pages. Earnsthearthrob (talk) 20:36, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. The article reads like press release, and the claims for notability are rather weak. -- Whpq (talk) 22:20, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete by User:RHaworth as a WP:G11. RL0919 (talk) 14:42, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chidi Ajaere[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV. No coverage at all outside two sources. Additional source added in promotional content may be worth examining. scope_creep^Talk 18:40, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 19:57, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:07, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is against retaining this page. If Rimon Law P.C. survives its own AfD I have no objections to the creation of a redirect to that page. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:11, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Moradzadeh[edit]

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

Non-notable businessperson. Page created by WP:SPA with only 25 total edits [1] who also created page for the law firm this subject founded: Rimon Law P.C. Loksmythe (talk) 18:27, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Loksmythe (talk) 18:27, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Loksmythe (talk) 18:27, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly a promotional article with scant independent sourcing. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ^Talk 13:44, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Delete - Moradzadeh is not notable enough for his own page, his notability comes from the firm. At the very least the article should be redirected to the Rimon Law P.C. page, but if that article is deleted then this one should also be deleted. Bookscale (talk) 11:28, 9 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) 15:46, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte Leeming[edit]

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

Non-notable local TV presenter. - Funky Snack (Talk) 14:53, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:23, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:23, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:23, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - run of the mill presenter. Bearian (talk) 20:37, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable TV presenter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:19, 4 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) 15:17, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Harper[edit]

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

Non-notable local TV presenter. - Funky Snack (Talk) 14:52, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - run of the mill substitute, local presenter. Bearian (talk) 20:38, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable TV presenter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:19, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:18, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:18, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:18, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just BBC reference is supporting article and that's not enough for establishing notability صدیق صبري (talk) 09:20, 7 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) 18:44, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Bodmer[edit]

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

Non-notable local TV presenter. - Funky Snack (Talk) 14:51, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - poorly sourced (the BBC article is about their own employee). Local presenter, but long-time, so he has a claim to notability. Bearian (talk) 20:45, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete total failure of GNG. No indepdent reliable sources at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:27, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:26, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:26, 5 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 03:59, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kaddy Lee-Preston[edit]

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

Non-notable local weather presenter with very little reliable sources. This is one of a number of regional (BBC) weather forecasters who have a relatively plain article with nothing to go by. - Funky Snack (Talk) 14:36, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable weather presenter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:22, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:17, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:17, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:17, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Einstein family. Strong consensus against keeping this page, which after having a look I concur with. Some difference of opinion on whether to merge or simply delete. I am splitting the difference. The man's name is mentioned in the family article, but absent some further claim to notability he seems unlikely to warrant further coverage. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:29, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Martin Einstein[edit]

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

Notability is not inherited. Doesn't appear to pass GNG. Bledwith (talk) 13:46, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being a descendant of a notable person does not make one notable, and that is all the real claim here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:19, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Einstein family - the family has produced at least four scientists. See Darwin–Wedgwood_family for a similar precedent. Bearian (talk) 20:54, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentWP:OTHER why merge? this guy is not notable in any respect other then bring descended from Einstein.Bledwith (talk) 09:01, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge WP:NOTINHERITED Wm335td (talk) 19:21, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentAgain, why merge? this guy is not notable in any respect other then bring descended from Einstein. there's no reason to include him in he family article (which is a complete mess in and of itself)Bledwith (talk) 08:26, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:44, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Was speedily deleted as a sockpuppet creation Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:35, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Videovaganza 1990-1993[edit]

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

I cannot find significant coverage of this videotape in reliable sources. Google search for Videovaganza "army of lovers" results in about 77 hits, mainly places it can be purchased. Information can be merged into another one of the band's articles, but there's no indication that there should be a standalone article for it. ... discospinster _talk 13:34, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:41, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:41, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Army of Lovers discography#Home videos and DVDs (and that sub-heading ought to be changed as well). Created by a new editor who is obviously a completist and wants to create a set of articles for everything the group put out, but clearly isn't aware of Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The group is very definitely notable, having scored a handful of top ten singles across Europe in the early 1990s, but unfortunately the creator has added a whole load of unsourced information to existing articles and created non-notable articles, of which this is one. Richard3120 (talk) 19:32, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find a reason why this page should be deleted. On the Russian Wikipedia, it has it's own page, why not the English Wikipedia? Whoever the creator is, probably a big fan, I feel like they deserve to be on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.77.44.193 (talk) 03:09, 4 September 2019 (UTC) — 72.77.44.193 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Existence on another language Wikipedia has no bearing on whether the article should be kept on the English Wikipedia. The article doesn't stay because you "feel" it "deserves" to stay, it's based on arguments of whether it meets Wikipedia's guidelines for notability, and at the moment the article still has no references at all, apart from a link to a YouTube download of the entire video album, which isn't a claim of notability at all. Richard3120 (talk) 11:23, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: the above IP account is currently blocked, following a CheckUser report. The article creator has also been blocked for sockpuppetry. Richard3120 (talk) 11:28, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Army of Lovers discography#Home videos and DVDs as it is not notable enough for its own article, but it could be a viable search term for someone interested in the group. Aoba47 (talk) 17:50, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the article has been deleted. Aoba47 (talk) 02:13, 9 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:40, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy Gang (comics)[edit]

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

One reference on one page in a book is not enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 12:33, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 12:33, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 12:33, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Why am I not surprised that Andrew D. is short-circuiting the PROD process for all fictional characters and forcing them to clog up AfD for no reason? In any case, an obvious GNG fail with only WP:PRIMARY and no WP:SECONDARY sources to speak of. The single-sentence citation added by Andrew D. is not nearly enough to prove the article is notable._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:57, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think it is appropriate to include commentary about a fellow editor in an AfD discussion. Ford MF (talk) 20:20, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not independently notable, nor notable within the fiction. It's namedropped by a few of its bluelinked members, but they all provide enough information inline, so no vital information is being lost. I considered a redirect to Mad Jim Jaspers, but that character is equally non-notable and should be deleted as well. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:34, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Following up given the new sources added today. Considering they only verify the creator credits and the painfully obvious reference to Alice in Wonderland, I don't think there's any in-depth coverage to be had. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:32, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on sources added to the article today; failing that, merge to List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations. BOZ (talk) 18:50, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Zxcvbnm and Argento Surfer. I agree with Argento Surfer that the additional sources do not prove in-depth coverage so notability has not been established/proven. Aoba47 (talk) 17:57, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep.

Speedy Kept for three reasons:

WP:Deletion is not cleanup - this is quite obviously notable

There is no evidence in talk page of mentioned consensus

The AFD was nominated by a blocked user

(non-admin closure) ~~ OxonAlex - talk 11:44, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Irish backstop (2nd nomination)[edit]

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

Per consensus that it doesn't require a separate article, and campaigning by Shantel VanSanten to remove Brexit fake news from the wiki! Godinogn2 (talk) 11:35, 3 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) Nnadigoodluck (talk) 20:41, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Silk Test[edit]

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

Likely Fails WP:Notability Theprussian (talk) 11:18, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:21, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are at least some reviews of the previous incarnation of this software (QA Partner) - eg. InfoWorld, vol. 15, issue 36, 6 September 1993, pp. 72-73, 76, 78-79, 82-84 (product comparison of three automated tools); InfoWorld, vol. 17, number 30, 24 July 1995, p. 100 (half page first looks on QA Partner 3). However, the article needs serious work as it looks like a product catalog right now. Pavlor (talk) 13:32, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a short article. Addressing WP:PROMO is usually a matter of deleting stuff. Your assessment of this as serious work is an overstatement. ~Kvng (talk) 13:19, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to rewrite the article... Nothing in this article is sourced by RS, so you should at least add some of the sources listed here. Then you could delete all advert-like content and rewrite the article in well sourced stub. Only then I will admit no serious work was needed. (note I´m not serious here) Pavlor (talk) 16:43, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Stickyminds, a software testing website that is run by American Society for Quality and has contributions from many well-known testing professionals, has three articles in its own listing on a search for the term, a Google search of the site shows two more. That in addition to the sources Pavlor found make it an easy run to do WP:BEFORE when you know where to look. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:54, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found by Pavlor. ~Kvng (talk) 13:19, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The keep votes are all "meets NFOOTY" and "there must be sources". there's no doubt he meets NFOOTY, but this is merely a presumption of GNG and a presumption that has been challenged. Whilst sources have been added to the article during the discussion, there is clear indication that these are not sufficient for significant coverage. At best one brief article specifically on the player has been found, whic is just not enough. If sources can be found to satisfy GNG in the future then there is no reason why this cannot be recreated, but we're not even close at this stage. Fenix down (talk) 10:35, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Branislav Tošić[edit]

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

May not meet Notability guidelines and unreferenced. Theprussian (talk) 11:05, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:13, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:13, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:13, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - ~~54apps 7gls~~23apps 1gl in WP:FPL-listed leagues (Serbian SuperLiga, ~~Serbian First League~~) - per Soccerway. Pretty clear pass of WP:NFOOTY. R96Skinner (talk) 12:01, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not that it makes a huge difference, but I think only the 23 SuperLiga games count, because per WP:FPL, Serbian First League was only fully-pro since 2016, and this player played there in 2011–2012. – Levivich 02:41, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, good spot! Amended. R96Skinner (talk) 10:26, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete R96Skinner WP:NFOOTY doesn't override WP:GNG per WP:ATH FAQ Q1: "The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline". So the fact he meets them is irrelevant. As someone who is from Serbia, I was unable to find reference that is covering him indepth. Fails WP:BASIC. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:23, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NFOOTY and is currently playing.SNGs including WP:FOOTY exist to provide for the inclusion of certain defined subjects that cannot immediately be shown to pass GNG. An SNG provides for a presumption of notability, not a presumption of non-notability An SNG cannot be used to exclude/delete an article when the subject passes GNG, but the reverse is patently absurd because that would negate the entire reason for the existence of SNGs.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:18, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – does not meet GNG, despite meeting NFOOTBALL. Per soccerway, the player's 23 games in Serbian SuperLiga in the 2012–2013 season break down into 12 games with Donji Srem (which had just been promoted to SuperLiga, never had a winning season in the league, and would be relegated two years later), and 11 with Hajduk Kula (which resigned from the league and dissolved in July 2013). Since then, the player has apparently been playing in the third-tier non-FPL-listed Serbian League Vojvodina. I cannot find GNG coverage, and I don't think this is a matter of lack of access to sources. For example, I found coverage in the same time period of Branislav Tošić, the last shoemaker in Pirot [2], and Branislav Tošić, an officeholder in Vladičin Han [3] [4] [5] [6] [7], and a third person with that name [8], but as for the footballer, just a brief mention in a game report [9]. Seems like a total GNG fail; without sources, we can't write an article about this player, so despite meeting NFOOTBALL, delete. – Levivich 02:41, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:54, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - long (and ongoing) career including many appearances in FPL - meets WP:NFOOTBALL. I refuse to believe there aren't more sources out there, especially given age and language issues which are likely hindering online searches. Giant Snowman 09:56, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. Sorry, but your argument is completely invalid (saying this as a guy from Serbia who conducted the search as well). Maybe he will be notable in the future, but he isn't now. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:15, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed... The 8 articles from the 2010s written in 5 different Serbian publications, which I posted above, suggest to me that there are no "age and language issues which are likely hindering online searches". GS, which publications do you think might have significant coverage of this player, but are not online? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Levivich (talk • contribs)
Comment I feel like too many users are starting to ignore WP:ATH's relation to WP:GNG, and all should be discounted by the closing admin as not based in policy/guideline. If someone is not happy with that, they can start looking for consensus on WP:ATH's talk page to remove "The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline" part instead of flooding most of these football AfDs with generic WP:JUSTAVOTE throwing of "meets WP:FOOTY". That needs to stop. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:16, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails to have any verifiable sources. I would also suggest tightening WP:NFOOTBALL to be a better predictor of passing WP:GNG since so many footballer articles end up here at AfD. Rockphed (talk) 16:28, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - Article about footballer who played two seasons in the fully-pro Superliga, but for whom there is only routine online coverage. Similar to Levivch, I found more coverage of the Vladičin Han councilman with the same name. The footballer is mentioned in dozens of match reports, but typically these reports just indicate he was in the squad and maybe provide a rating for his play. I did find a more detailed match report here, on Page 47 in an offline newspaper (Reč naroda) but it appears to just praise his play in a single game (from before Donji Srem was playing the Superliga). It is difficult to believe there isn't more coverage (particularly offline), but I can't find it and don't believe this article can satisfy the GNG. Jogurney (talk) 16:41, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Spent some time on this one. Initially thought this was one of the "greyest" AfDs I had come across - Tošić had passed the WP:NFOOTY guideline by leaps and bounds, and yet I kept running into the same problems some of the other !voters have with the sources. I've now gone ahead and added prose and referenced the article and have written a stub about the player's career. What's especially difficult is the differing levels of coverage from country to country, and I've been thinking a lot about how this plays into athlete notability guidelines, especially with the oppose on Barkeep49's admin request, and a cricket DRV. Going off of Tošić for a second, I like the test: has the player done something notable (WP:NFOOTY, but not always)? and can we write a properly sourced stub about the player (WP:GNG, WP:BLP1E)? As noted, Tošić clearly passes WP:NFOOTY, and the article is now a properly sourced stub. The article's sourcing isn't the greatest (only one article directly on him, from his time in the third division, one of the four non-Soccerway cites is primary, and it took a fair amount of searching to get enough hits due to the common name/Latin and Cyrillic issues) but there's lots of routine coverage of him as well. I found another offline newspaper apart from Jogurney which claims to discuss him (though I couldn't find the citation as it did not allow me to search in Cyrillic) which also gives me hope other offline sources exist and this can be expanded further, especially from the area around Srem, but I think we're now at a point where the encyclopedia would get worse if we delete this article. SportingFlyer T·C 20:07, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yeah, no. Sadly, none of the added sources meet WP:SIGCOV.

1. Soccerway listing.

2. Not in-depth (Po opštim ocenama, trenutno najbolji fudbaler lidera Srpske lige - Vojvodina, Donjeg Srema iz Pećinaca, je brzonogi Branislav Tošić. Kontinuitet odličnih igara iz prvog dela sezone nije prekidao ni u dva prolećna kola: u Temerinu je svojim golom „načeo“ Slogu, dok je protiv Palića bio jedini strelac.), the rest being what Tošić has said about his game (WP:PRIMARY).

3. A name drop.

4. A passing mention (Branislav Tošić pošto je istekao ugovor o ustupanju i on se vratio u matični klub Donji Srem.)

5/6. Same as 3.

Sadly, still a failure of WP:GNG. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:34, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree fervently - I think #2 is in depth, and is similar to the type of coverage you see of players in the exYug areas. There's a lot of other routine sources you can scrape together, so it's not as if this is the entirety of the coverage. I do a lot of my editing in Balkans/African football precisely because I use Wikipedia as a starting point for a lot of things I end up researching, and have become involved because the encyclopaedia is deficient in a lot of areas - while I'm not sure I would ever research Tošić specifically, the article is now at a point where it's adequately referenced, can be expanded, and would be of general use to anyone researching players in the SuperLiga, especially by someone with access to offline sources. SportingFlyer T·C 22:47, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I respect you and your editing work a ton, but two sentences + quotation of what the subject said is in no way WP:SIGCOV. Also WP:MUSTBESOURCES shuts down your offline argument. We can't assume there are offline sources when we don't have evidence for it. Fails WP:GNG, which overwhelms WP:ATH. "general use to anyone researching players in the SuperLiga", well....Wikipedia isn't a football directory (Soccerway exists). Jovanmilic97 (talk) 23:02, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let's try this for WP:MUSTBESOURCES: Tošić scored in the 62nd minute of this game and started against Crvena Zvezda at Rajko Mitić stadium here, both in 2013, the second game of which is on YouTube. I'm drawing a line in the sand here since I'd be shocked if neither of these games were written about in periodicals and would be shocked if no one wrote about him while he was in the SuperLiga, but I can't find any Serbian periodicals which would have a match report apart from mondo.rs, where he does get a couple passing mentions. [10] [11]. SportingFlyer T·C 00:12, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – This article, post-HEY, is very good given the available sourcing, showcasing SF's talents as an editor and writer. I agree it meets WP:V and is well-written. I'd love to change my !vote to "Keep because SF put time into this and did a good job." But, alas, for me to do so would be WP:ILIKEIT. Notability of a subject is independent from quality of an article; just like a poorly-written article should be kept if the subject is notable, a well-written article should still be deleted if the subject is not notable. And it's not just a matter of taking the notability guideline and imposing it like a strict rule; I think there is a very good reason to delete this article:
This article gets less than one page view per day: 190 page views from Jan–Aug 2019; Sep 1 is the 244th day of the year [12]. It is not of interest to readers of enwiki. (Also, it's further evidence that "#-of-apps-in-an-FPL" is not a good way to predict notability.) Every page requires editor-hours to build and maintain, and our limited editor-hours are better spent on article subjects that are of interest to readers. There are, no doubt, many other Serbian football players who readers are interested in, and we should free up our resources to focus on those articles, instead of this one. – Levivich 00:19, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Levivich: please be careful - you removed my comment discussing WP:MUSTBESOURCES (I've added it back into its proper place and am WP:AGF.) Also, page views have no relevance to notability, and it has interest to me as an English-speaker: I spent a couple hours performing the WP:HEY, and genuinely want to know which Serbian sources I should be searching the archives for given I would know exactly where to look if he had played in the Croatian league. SportingFlyer T·C 00:56, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the ec. – Levivich 01:16, 7 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. Doesn't appear to satisfy either WP:GNG or subject-specific guidance for notability. RL0919 (talk) 12:27, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Abdulla (cricketer)[edit]

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

It doesn't meet with WikiProject Cricket guidelines. Abishe (talk) 09:36, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:47, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:47, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:07, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I also doubt the photo is fair use either. StickyWicket (talk) 14:19, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Only one ref, and also concerned about the photo use, but should ICC Twenty20 participation count as achieving cricket guidelines? David notMD (talk) 14:20, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There was much discussion about the inclusion criteria, I'm assuming Malawian cricketers from 2018 onwards meet inclusion criteria..? Although as I pointed out below, CA turns up no results for international T20 matches involving Malawi as yet. Bobo . 19:16, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: An editor pointed out that the one ref for the article does not confirm ICC play, so more refs needed. David notMD (talk) 17:05, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: He fails this part of CRIN: "has appeared as a player for an Associate team in a Twenty20 International match after 1 July 2018 in either a World T20 (men or women), Global Qualifier (men or women) or Regional Final (men only)". He hasn't played in a global qualifier or regional final. StickyWicket (talk) 18:16, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There don't appear to be any scorecard results on CA for Malawi as yet. I assume I'm looking at the right section - International 20/20 matches only - as the new criteria are confusing to me. As I pointed out on WT:CRIC not so long ago, it tickled me that there were, for certain international teams, Malawi included, women's international matches before men's international matches. Bobo . 19:15, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has not played in a T20I match. Cricinfo lists lots of "other T20" matches, which are not full internationals. And as an Associate player for Malawi, would fail WP:NCRIC, unless Malawi qualified for a Regional Final. Also, where does the article's creator get the date of birth and birth place from? WP:BLP concerns here. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:59, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The nearest I can find is Abdulla's apparent Twitter page, which merely claims 1983. I don't know if subscribing to Twitter gives more information regarding birthdates, etc, and I'm frankly too frightened of the existence of Piers Morgan and Katie Hopkins to find out the answer... Bobo . 20:12, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I also note the article claims he made his T2OI debut in 2002 – which is astonishing, seeing as T20 cricket wasn't a thing until 2003!!! StickyWicket (talk) 20:46, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, Abdulla's first entry on CA dates from 2011 - only one other player, Gift Kansonkho, is still playing cricket alongside him in 2018-19. Bobo . 20:51, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting, Lugnuts, AA, Abdulla's Twitter page has seemingly been updated within the last three days to add this information. Bobo . 01:22, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He hasn't played in a match that would make him suitable for the WP:NCRIC guidelines. If Malawi do qualify, then I might say keep but for now. HawkAussie (talk) 00:25, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, the only coverage of him that I can find anywhere are profiles in places like Cricinfo (which don't even have his stats because he hasn't played a game of high enough status yet) and match reports which don't shed any light on him. He may become more significant in future because of the changes to T20I status, but Malawi didn't even make it to the regional finals for the World Twenty20 so it's unlikely. TheBigBadBird (talk) 01:39, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Will playing in the upcoming 2019 ACA Africa Cup Finals would make him suitable for the WP:NCRIC guidelines? Murad400 (talk) 06:46, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Nope, it isn't a regional final for the World T20. StickyWicket (talk) 11:19, 9 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. Inadequate sourcing and possibly a hoax. RL0919 (talk) 12:29, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shoshongo Dum[edit]

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

I wouldn't go as far as calling it a hoax but we have essentially only one sentence here, and this sentence cannot possibly be true: That it connects the Okavango River (which discharges into the Okavango Delta) with the Omuramba Omatako (which discharges into Etosha Pan, source).

The only source given (link) mentions "near Shoshongo Dum" in one footnote. Could be a place, could be a river, we don't know. A genealogy website mentions it, too, and links to a blog where the word does not occur.

So it is not established what it is, not where it is, and it is not on any map. Too little for an article, I think. --Pgallert (talk) 09:02, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Pgallert (talk) 09:02, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - interestingly, one of the only mentions I can find of the river is this blog post which I strongly suspect is by the creator of the page (going off the username). If so, it seems as if even they are admitting they can't be certain if the river even existed, but thought it should have a Wikipedia stub due to the lack of other sources, which is rather backward logic. Either way, there's an almost total lack of any sources so, whether this is a hoax, or a kind of 'historic legend', or a genuine fact that we simply can't confirm, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Hug^syrup 10:28, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:37, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

’’’Delete’’’ Fails WP:V.--Pontificalibus 11:29, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus herein is for the article to be deleted. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:09, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Taarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah characters[edit]

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

Non neutral language, Article is mostly written in Fan's point of view with original research. There are very few reliable sources to establish the notability for a separate page for cast and characters. Sid95Q (talk) 05:51, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Sid95Q (talk) 05:51, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:33, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:33, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The sourcing is, frankly, abysmal, but I've come to expect that for most Indian TV show articles. MOS:TVCAST mentions list articles and explicitly notes "Remember to follow the notability guidelines when creating a cast list: not every fictional character ever created deserves to be listed and even fewer will deserve an individual article." This article doesn't appear to have any concern for that need. I think the subject itself is notable, but the current state is just so bad, WP:TNT may be the only option here. Some guidance to the recent main editor of the article about MOS:TVCAST around the notability requirements and ordering could help. Ravensfire (talk) 16:12, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:23, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above arguments by ravensfireTheprussian (talk) 11:22, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Character lists are not inherently necessary. The main article is capable of handling the subject. There is nothing that should be retained for merger. TTN (talk) 13:40, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Edit as per you wish: It's foolish to delete the entire page, just because an easy to remove section is bothering some people. This page is for over 2 years now, and is viewed over 750,000 times (yes much more than 90% of the rest of the articles). So.... KINDLY leave it be, and PLEASE do not declare old and stable articles like this for deletion. If it was meant to be, it should have been done back when the article was published, not now since people have put their best knowledge and efforts in it for over 28 months.I am aman goyal (talk) 11:15, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in some capacity to prevent electronic book burning. --24.101.156.239 (talk) 18:58, 8 September 2019 (UTC) Sockpuppet of permabanned troll A Nobody. Reyk _YO! 07:02, 9 September 2019 (UTC) [reply]
Delete per above. Aoba47 (talk) 17:37, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Kalihi#Education. RL0919 (talk) 12:33, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dole Middle School[edit]

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

Non-notable middle school. Mcampany (talk) 07:15, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. Mcampany (talk) 07:15, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because a) a middle school, b) no independent sources, and c)all the sources I can find are trivial mentions that prove it exists as a landmark (including one story about somebody being shot near the school). Rockphed (talk) 16:12, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Rockphed makes a great argument for deletion. Not notable with only primary sources. AmericanAir88^(talk) 18:22, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete middle schools need lots of coverage for us to keep articles on them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:35, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect . To Kalihi#Education, per WP:ATD and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Surprisingly, this is the only Dole Middle School in the country. John from Idegon (talk) 09:23, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There appears to be a rough consensus to delete with only a week keep on the other side. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:50, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Chapell[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to be notable. I can't find more than trivial mentions in reliable sources; this is about as close as it seems to get. Benny White (talk) 03:03, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Benny White (talk) 03:03, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Benny White (talk) 03:03, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable local church pastor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:57, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The google search above generates a lot of results at [13], which seems to be an WP:RS. See [14] and [15].-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:11, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyTheTiger: True, there are a lot of Christianity Today mentions. CT doesn't appear on WP:RSP (positively or negatively), and I'm not sure it's quite neutral enough to be the main source that establishes Chapell as notable. This article implies he's a religious leader, but the author says "I know Bryan best [out of PCA leaders]", which adds to my neutrality questions.

Thoughts, anyone? Benny White (talk) 01:51, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have never seen WP:RSP. I just went to the about on the CT website. They have an editorial process. Until it is determined otherwise, I will assume that these professional editors are sufficient to confer WP:RS status.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:41, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:08, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Still, I'm seeing mainly primary sources (like theology articles written by Chapell, or the aforementioned interview) in these results, while WP:GNG calls for secondary sources for notability. [16] is a bit more secondary but doesn't have much encyclopedic info either. Not yet seeing "significant coverage" from CT. Benny White (talk) 01:50, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't see anything here to establish notability - no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources - no book reviews - Epinoia (talk) 02:39, 10 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:51, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

City Spice[edit]

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

Unclear that this curry house is any more significant than any other on Brick Lane: the "Masterchef curry award 2017 for best restaurant in London" Metro source sounds superficially impressive, but the Independent source points out that this is "Coventry-based agency MasterChef Promotions, not its unrelated TV namesake" and riffs at length about the number of awards that Brick Lane curry houses promote themselves with, apparently seeing this one as no different. Lord Belbury (talk) 08:40, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:53, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:53, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I’m guessing its purely promotional with a WP:COI. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 10:25, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no evidence at all that the article creator has a conflict of interest, looking at their contributions they have edited on a wide range of topics Atlantic306 (talk) 17:16, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Some places have long documented histories, and the current business located there is secondary to the real subject. So I looked for this. I could not find any history for 138 Brick Lane other than it having been used as a location in The Crying Game, in a book of film locations. Uncle G (talk) 16:41, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article needs expansion but the subject passes WP:GNG with significant coverage in reliable sources such as The Independent, Reuters and The Evening Standard already in the article, so there is no basis for deletion imv Atlantic306 (talk) 17:24, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:07, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia isn't a Yellow pages nor a platform for promotion. Also "significant coverage in reliable sources" is only half of the criteria - the coverage must also contain "Independent Content" (as defined in WP:ORGIND) and the coverage must be about the company. As the nom pointed out, the "awards" are not significant for the purposes of notability. The Independent review of the food contains independent content (independent opinion) but does not meet the definition of in-depth coverage (of the company). The rest of the references all rely entirely on quotations/interviews with people affiliated with the restaurant. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:47, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - run of the mill restaurant coverage and and routine announcements, nothing to establish notability - no deep or significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources - Epinoia (talk) 02:33, 10 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:51, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Minerva Bunkering[edit]

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

no evidence of notability -- routine listings only DGG ( talk ) 09:46, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:51, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:51, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Aegean Marine Petroleum Network Inc. was restructured as Minerva Bunkering. It is all over the news. Maybe the name of the original page should be changed? Csgir (talk) 10:06, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:06, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete References fail the criteria for notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 22:03, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom: fails WP:ORGCRIT ☆ Bri (talk) 03:15, 10 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) 12:34, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gabe Vincent Nnamdi[edit]

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

Declined PROD. Fails WP:NBASKETBALL as he hasn’t competed in the NBA yet. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 12:01, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 12:01, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 12:01, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 12:01, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 12:01, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He will most likely pass the basic criteria by participating "in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level" on 31 July when Nigeria faces Russia in the FIBA World Cup. -- Dammit_steve (talk) 20:09, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - first, I moved the page to “Gabe Vincent,” which is his WP:COMMONNAME. Member of the Nigerian senior national team and has received coverage as a college player at UCSB, meets WP:GNG in my opinion. Also, I would agree with Dammit steve that he’s about to meet WP:SPORTCRIT (which WP:NBASKETBALL assumes so doesn’t spell out) by competing in the World Cup. Seems silly to delete when he’s made the team and it’s three days away. That flunks WP:COMMONSENSE to me. Rikster2 (talk) 13:40, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Vincent has now appeared in the 2019 FIBA World Cup (see here) Rikster2 (talk) 16:44, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:05, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Rikster2. Rlendog (talk) 17:19, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rikster2's reasoning and arguments. Ejgreen77 (talk) 02:29, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Hilton Als. No WP:PAG based argument for retention was presented. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:53, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hilton Als bibliography[edit]

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

Als is a regular columnist in a weekly publication. Having a complete bibliography of his articles is pointless –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:10, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:18, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per my remarks at Talk:Hilton Als#Proposed merge with Hilton Als bibliography. Beginning a deletion discussion while the merge discussion remains open isn't particularly helpful. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 11:53, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:03, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The content of this article naturally belongs to the Hilton Als article. Ktrimi991 (talk) 10:28, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I have no particular objection to merging, I created this separate bibliography page in March 2014 because of the volume of his work. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Bibliographies#Author_bibliographies Sunwin1960 (talk) 11:19, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Sunwin1960: Thanks, I know what a bibliography is. Why do you believe it is necessary for Wikipedia to have a bibliography of all articles written by a journalist with a regular gig? This is not in fact normal. Even your linked page links to the notability guidelines for stand-alone lists, and I can't imagine this passes. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:13, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - My logic is: if an author is notable enought to have a Wikipedia entry, then their full bibliography should be listed. If that bibliography is quite lengthy, particularly with articles, reviews, interviews etc., then I consider moving the bulk of the material into a separate bibliography article, just to make the main page flow more easily. Sunwin1960 (talk) 02:41, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - It is lengthy because, again, he is a journalist who has a regular gig with a weekly publication. It is not reasonable for Wikipedia to list every article he has written. You seem to acknowledge yourself that a bibliography of this length is inappropriate! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:24, 6 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) 07:32, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The world browser[edit]

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

reads like an advert, questionable notability FASTILY 06:35, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:42, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - reads half like an advert and half like a technical manual. Current sources are totally inadequate (not reliable, independent or secondary) and I cannot find any better ones to add. Hug^syrup 11:29, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Browser engine is doornail-dead and just reads as a Google translate of the zh.wiki version. Nate • (chatter) 22:18, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per rationale given above. Ktrimi991 (talk) 10:26, 4 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) Nnadigoodluck (talk) 20:59, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

University of Washington Television[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG, specifically does not meet WP:AUD since coverage in reliable sources is exclusively local. Previous discussion resulted in no consensus due to lack of participation. Rusf10 (talk) 00:22, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 00:22, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 00:22, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I see no difference in this article when compared to the hundreds of small local TV stations that have entries. The coverage goes beyond the university campus and into the surrounding community, which is more than can be said for many student newspapers, and WP:AUD specifically allows for regional/statewide sources (aka The Seattle Times). Sounder Bruce 00:37, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:03, 27 August 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)} 03:30, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:ORG with the sources in the article and the sources mentioned at the previous AfD. The "greater Seattle area" is sufficiently regional to pass WP:AUD.----Pontificalibus 07:43, 3 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. Although some sources were brought up during the debate, these didn't appear to convince the other participants. Randykitty (talk) 18:10, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Olde Boston Bulldogge[edit]

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

Article fails GNG, none of the sources are close to being reliable. Cavalryman (talk) 15:48, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there are quite a few fake breeds being promoted on the internet so please exercise caution when checking the reliability of sources, especially when it's a purported "breed" registry for a dog that is not recognized by the many long-established and trusted official breed registries. If the registry claims to be an "alternative registry", or it is privately owned/operated for-profit with their own inspectors, or make claims to be a "rare breed registry" they are probably not a RS. We must closely adhere to WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:GNG and WP:RS when citing material about dog breeds or types. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:35, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adding - according to "About the author", the book The Bully Breeds was authored by ...a professional acoustical engineer specializing in architectural and environmental acoustics, product development, and building material research. The original book ~~was self-published, and~~ contains only 2 paragraphs about the Olde Boston Bulldogge, all of which is based on anecdotal information. Another cited source is a website called Bulldog information which is owned by an individual, and considered an unreliable source per WP:RS. There is not one source cited in the article that one could consider a RS to (1) verify the information about the Olde English Bulldogge, or (2) establish GNG. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 03:33, 18 August 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic seems reasonably well covered in sources such as The Bully Breeds. Andrew D. (talk) 22:42, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as outlined above by editors Cavalryman and Atsme. Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 07:07, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this !vote was solicited by Atme. The related activity at the Wikiproject by these three -- Cavalryman, Atme and Gareth -- does not seem neutral. Andrew D. (talk) 09:30, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I contacted all active WP:WikiProject Dog members & collaborators per WP:PAGs. GGJ is a collaborator, an interested party in this topic area, and it is an insult to his integrity to call him non-neutral. It is normal procedure to notify collaborators/project members and I am offended by the accusation made by Andrew, which should be stricken. Of further note, Andrew D. is citing a questionable source that makes a brief passing mention of this so-called “rare breed” and calls it “reasonably well covered”? Dogs do not get the same auto-inclusion benefit extended to officially/scientifically identified and documented species. Inclusion is based on GNG and this so-called rare breed fails the requirement. The sources being claimed as RS are not and should be researched further to verify context, rather than accepting Andrew D’s assumptions at face value - do the research as I and others have done and see if you can find multiple secondary and third party RS to meet GNG requirements. Rare breeds rarely have multiple RS and are born of anecdotal reports for profit centers. Until they are recognized by RS and/or long established breed registries they simply fail GNG. Stop the use of WP as a promotional/marketing arm for puppy mills, non-notable crossbreeds and unsubstantiated “original and rare” breeds. NOT:PROMOTION, NOT:SOAPBOX, NOT:INDISCRIMINATE COLLECTION. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:24, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

i see that this afd is listed at the dogs wikiproject alerts section so not sure why specific members of the project needed to be notified of this afd, assuming that as active members of this project they will have the project page watched (unless they have edited this article), contacting editors directly about a specific afd may not really help, editors may feel uncomfortable about contributing if contacted. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:40, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, Coolabahapple - and that is not what I was doing. Look at the diff provided by Andrew - it says nothing about this AfD. Now look at my proposal, which explains why I've been communicating with other project members and trying to encourage more participation. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 00:09, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for response. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:35, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (Warning, this may be deemed frivolous), anything that includes "olde" in the title and superfluous "e"s is suspect. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:49, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete largely per nom and Atsme. I am not satisfied this really exists. Sourcing is altogether inadequate. For now the article seriously fails WP:V and WP:RS. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:32, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Gingold, Alfred (2005). Dog World: And the Humans Who Live There. New York: Broadway Books. p. 174. ISBN 0-7679-1661-1. Retrieved 2019-08-25.
  The book notes:
  Most breeders, of course, are not trying to create something new. In some cases, in fact, they are trying to re-create something old, like the folks at Good Time Bostonettes, a kennel dedicated to the resurrection of the Olde Boston Bulldogge [sic], an antecedent of the Boston terrier but a little bigger, not necessarily black and white, and not much seen for the past century.
  I suppose it is a creative impulse to re-create a historic breed, like wanting to restore an Avanti, only with living tissue. But to the breeder, the Olde Boston Bulldogge rights a historic wrong wrought by none other than the fancy itself:
  [quote]
  The Olde Boston is only one of a raft of niche bulldogs currently in development, such as the Dorset Old Thyme Bulldogge, the Alphalfa Bluebood Bulldog, the Olde English Bulldogge, the Catahoula Bulldog, the Victorian Bulldog, the Mallorquin Bulldog (Ca de Bou in the original Catalan), and the Buldogue Campiero. Some of these are attempts to revive defunct breeds, others the creation of stylin' breeders.
2. Harris, David (2008). The Bully Breeds. Freehold, New Jersey: Kennel Club Books (BowTie Inc.). p. 76. ISBN 978-1-59378-664-9. Retrieved 2019-08-25.
  The book notes:
  The Olde Boston Bulldogge
  
  Olde Boston Bulldogges are the direct descendants of the dogs from which Boston Terriers were developed. Those early crosses produced numerous specimens that were heavier and lower stationed, closer to the Bulldog than to the terrier end of the spectrum. These became Olde Boston Bulldogges, and today they form a rare and distinct race. The late Neil Rutan and his family have done much to preserve these dogs and to re-establish them as a breed. As per the IEOBA standard for the breed, they "should be of small to medium height and size (not toy-sized) with a round compact head and a solid, muscular and athletic body. The disposition should be outgoing, loyal, lively and intelligent. The temperament is to be very stable and trustworthy. Olde Boston Bulldogges are healthy working dogs without serious health problems. Unlike their Boston Terrier cousins, males should be free breeders and females should be free whelpers. The Old Boston Bulldogge should be devoid of all breathing problems. Most importantly, the Olde Boston Bulldogge is still a working Bulldog, and as the Bulldogges of Olde, function should come before form."
  Today's Boston Terriers weigh under 25 lb; they possess a distinctly terrier frame and, of course, those batlike ears that we presume came from early crosses with French Bulldogs. In comparison, Olde Boston Bulldogges are bigger, at 25–45 lb, and stronger, and their short ears can be naturally erect, drop or rose. These Bulldogges come in all of the typical Bulldog colors, without the color and pattern restrictions of their terrier cousins, although naturally some of them do possess a Boston Terrier-like paint job. So here we have a small "working" Bulldog.
  The book includes a photo of an Olde Boston Bulldogge and notes, "Above: While some Olde Boston Bulldogges have coloration similar to that of a Boston Terrier, the range of Bulldog color and markings is acceptable. This is Good Times Terra."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Olde Boston Bulldogge to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 07:41, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am also reviewing results from Newspapers.com: https://go.newspapers.com/results.php?query=%22Olde+Boston+Bulldogge%22. Cunard (talk) 07:41, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Newspaper.com results are primarily newspaper advertisements. Cunard (talk) 08:59, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:39, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some passing mentions in The New York Times and a 2002 Simon & Schuster book:
1. Williams, Alex (2004-07-25). "The Fleeting Joy Of Being Top Dog". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2019-08-25. Retrieved 2019-08-25.
  The article notes:
  Those looking to score fashion points with dogs also learn that, as in the stock market, the biggest rewards often go to those who make bets on out-of-favor issues. Want a tip? Forget Boston terriers. Online, I find that breeders are already working to revive a behemoth alter ego of the breed that they're calling the Olde Boston Bulldogge, which can grow to 45 pounds.
2. Dodge, Ellin (2002). From Ace to Zummo: A Dictionary of Numerologically Based Names for Your Pet. London: Simon & Schuster. p. 12. ISBN 978-0-7432-1585-5. Retrieved 2019-08-25.
  The "Olde Boston Bulldogge" has a simple listing on page 12 of the book with no further details.
Cunard (talk) 08:59, 25 August 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)} 03:28, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cunard, “significant coverage” (mentions in several RS) does not automatically mean a topic has encyclopedic value - context matters. WP:GNG states: "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.. We should not use WP to further the promotion of breed fanciers promoting a non-notable breed as “rare” or as a “designer breed” which basically raises the price of the dog - it’s a marketing ploy. The 2004 NYTimes article comparing it to the stock market - “make bets on out of favor issues” - supports my position. We need to be far more discriminating about these types of things, especially considering that article was published 15 years ago and the Olde Boston Bulldogge is still not recognized by long established, reputable breed registries which are the axiom for purebred dogs. WP should not be used as a conduit for such promotion. When/if the breed is officially recognized, then we can include it as a breed in WP - editors should not have to conduct OR for verifiability or in an effort to establish notability. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 12:09, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:In my opinion, I do not accept anything printed by newspaper or magazine journalists as reliable. These either have no expertise on the subject or they can misinterpret what an expert has told them because they do not understand the basics of the subject. Regarding the two books, Gingold is a freelance writer, has no expertise in the subject, and the text quoted appears to be promoting a farm that breeds this dog for sale by marketing it as being special. However, Harris appears to be an expert, the book has 4 editors to maintain its quality, and of interest it refers to IOEBA. The subject currently has one potential reliable source; it is up to editors to decide if this source meets the "published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" criterion. If it is decided that this book does meet this criteria, then all that we have established is that this cross-breed exists; there still remains the issue of WP:RELIABLE material that could be used to create an encyclopedic article, as we do not have WP:SIGCOV. William Harristalk 22:32, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I provided links to The New York Times and the Simon & Schuster book to provide more context about Olde Boston Bulldogge. I consider the original two sources to provide enough coverage about Olde Boston Bulldogge to establish notability per Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Alfred Gingold has written about dogs during his career for publications like The New York Times (link) and for Slate (link) and the book is published in the reputable publisher Broadway Books so I consider his book to be a reputable source. Regarding the marketing ploy concerns, the article can be revised to point out people are trying to market the breed (from The New York Times, "breeders are already working to revive" the breed).
Cunard (talk) 05:29, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete Is UCA a reliable association? Moreover maybe this breed esists but two only books can't satisfy notability requirments--Pierpao (talk) 11:14, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or at best merge, to a related real breed, in summary form as a section. Aside from all the issues addressed above, this is a WP:NFT problem. WP is not for backyard-breeder experiments (especially unscientific "de-extinction" nonsense). To the extent there is any sourcing about this at all outside of WP:UGC junk, none of it is in-depth, and it's not consistent, treating the subject as an experimental crossbreed, a sub-breed, a breed re-creation (which is not actually genetically possible), a fake breed for marketing to suckers, etc. It's routine to either delete or summarize and merge when a subject cannot be clearly delineated, is dubious as to veracity, of no or uncertain lasting encyclopedic significance as a stand-alone topic, or simply redundant with existing better material. This seems to be all of those at once, and WP doesn't exist for promoting alleged breeds not recognized by any legitimate registry organization anyway. There's a lot of money in dog breeding, thus a lot of incentive to try to use WP for advertising. Not every cluster of domesticated animals or plants someone sticks a name on constitutes a breed in any sense WP and its readership will care about. — AReaderOutThataway ^t/_c 17:08, 7 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 defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:55, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New York Circus Arts Academy[edit]

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

Delete None of the references contain Independent Content, failing WP:ORGIND. A BEFORE search shows that the company exists but I am unable to locate any in-depth significant articles with independent content thereby failing WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:15, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The New York Times (and the other two newspapers) doesn't "contain Independent Content"? Clarityfiend (talk) 19:21, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Content The articles don't contain Independent Content *about the company* since they rely almost exclusively on interviews/quotations from the company or their founder. For example, the NYT article isn't even about the *company* (the topic of this article) and the company is only name-checked once in the text of the article (so fails WP:CORPDEPTH). The WP:ORGIND section of NCORP says: Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Clarityfiend, can you point out any Independent Content in the articles in question? There's no independent opinion/fact checking/analysis or investigation. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:08, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are mistaken. While there are quotes from the founder sprinkled in in all three newspaper articles, most of the information is presented by the reporter without attributing them to him as the source. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:15, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, I don't believe I'm mistaken. Also, ORGIND is very clear that it must be "clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject" and the fact that the entire article is based on a visit to the academy and interviewing both the founder and some clients, I'd say you're stretching it beyond credulity to say that the article contains any independent opinion/analysis/investigation/fact checking. More importantly, there is almost no information in this article about the company - here are the main pieces:

"Those students had been on the ground, but others at the New York Circus Arts Academy in Long Island City, Queens, twist high overhead"
"The academy, which was founded by Cypher Zero in 2002 and established a permanent home in Long Island City in September, teaches beginners how to perform basic aerial acrobatic tricks, like inversions, or hanging upside down. Advanced students learn how to spin in and out of the silks, hang by the back of one knee from a hoop and create their own acts. There are classes for children and adults."
"There are now 50 students, somewhat fewer than when the academy operated out of temporary quarters in Midtown Manhattan."

This fails WP:CORPDEPTH and as I said already, also fails WP:ORGIND. Please take another look with a focus on extracting what is being said about the academy that can be directly attributable to the journalist, and then ask if that is significant. I believe you'll then reach the same conclusion as I have. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:17, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:28, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:28, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - should probably be considered in concert with the AfD for New York Circus Arts. And I do not see enough to meet WP:NORG for either. John from Idegon (talk) 18:36, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with reservations. Let's get the simple part out of the way. I'm a pretty die-hard deletionist, so my metaphorical ears perked up when I read there was a NY Times article as a source. I read the article; it's clearly WP:SIGCOV in a WP:RS. Then I went and read the Daily News article, and came to the same conclusion. So, why the reservation? Because the dates on the two articles are a week apart. That makes me think they were both written in response to a press release. But, I'm also seeing enough other stuff, such as The Social Semiotics of Tattoos: Skin and Self and The Rest of Us: A Novel to push me over to the keep side. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:40, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Response It doesn't matter if it passes SIGCOV in an RS - it fails WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH. The Daily News article suffers the same problem as the NYT article in that it is based on a visit to the academy and an interview with the founder and some students, etc. Fails both ORGIND and CORPDEPTH. And neither of those book references meet the criteria for establishing notability either. One says "circus schools have existed for many years ..." and lists the academy along with others in a list. Fails CORPDEPTH. The other is a work of fiction and is also a mention in passing, failing CORPDEPTH and probably RS. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:17, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, like I said, with reservations. Call it Weak keep if you like. Yes, I had noticed that the second book was a novel. I think the title gave that away :-) But, I'm not convinced a mention in a novel doesn't imbue some degree of notability; the author had to at least be aware enough of them to want to include it in their dialog. I'm not saying that's a great thing, and by itself it wouldn't count for much, but it's non-zero. It's really the NYT piece that does it for me. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:41, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry RoySmith, I don't mean to bludgeon you into submission. Can you take a look at what I've said above about the NYT piece - that it fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND. Have you a different take based on some policy/guideline? I don't understand how, if you accept it fails CORPDEPTH/ORGIND, that you're still at a weak keep? HighKing⁺⁺ 16:28, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel bludgeoned. Two editors who disagree, and are discussing their disagreement, is healthy.
As for the NYT piece, I think it's clear that it meets WP:ORGIND. That requires that, unrelated people with no vested interest in the subject have actually considered the company, corporation, product or service notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial, non-routine works that focus upon it. Like I said earlier, I think it's likely this was triggered by the NYT receiving a press release, but they didn't just reprint it. They looked at it, decided it was worth their time to send a reporter and a photographer there, and devote an 850-ish word article to it. The article may include a lot of quotes, but it's not the usual fare of a CEO feeding a list of softball questions to a churnalist, who then parrots them back in the form of an "interview". Likewise, I think WP:CORPDEPTH is reasonably met. This is not Trivial or incidental coverage, and clearly goes beyond brief mentions and routine announcements. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:25, 2 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)} 03:26, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources given in article and others found by RoySmith, and I can see other mentions - [17][18][19][20], also given in the book [21]. Hzh (talk) 18:45, 9 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) 03:26, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Henry[edit]

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

Poorly sourced WP:BLP of a politician notable only for serving at the county level of government. As always, this is not a level of government that confers an automatic pass of our notability standards for politicians; people at the county level of government get into Wikipedia only if they can be reliably sourced as much more notable than the norm for this level of office, namely by having coverage that nationalizes far beyond just their local media. But with just two footnotes here, which are both primary sources that are not support for notability at all, that bar has not been cleared. This was also a WikEd project which escaped being prodded two months ago because the course instructor personally deprodded on the grounds that "this page provides basic biographical information about a local government official in a county where it is very difficult for citizens to learn about their elected officials. Wikipedia is one of the only ways to research", but this does not constitute an exemption from our normal notability standards for politicians either: Metro Chattanooga has real media and Catoosa County's government has a website, so I don't know why anybody would think their county councillors were otherwise unresearchable (or why they would think it was our job to rectify the matter by waiving our normal notability and sourcing requirements even if it were true.) Bearcat (talk) 01:43, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:43, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:43, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable county level politician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:03, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no claim to notability for WP:BLP, and the sources are inadequate at that. Do, however, keep in mind that the article survived a PROD. Utopes (talk) 05:02, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NOTE for WP:BLP . --SalmanZ (talk) 14:14, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Run of the mill local politician. Bearian (talk) 20:58, 3 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) 07:32, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Erskine Oglesby Jr.[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a politician, notable primarily as a city councillor. Chattanooga is not in the rarefied class of cities where the municipal councillors are automatically accepted as "inherently" notable -- city councillors get that status only in if they serve in a global city on the order of New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Toronto or London, while Chattanooga is in the tier of cities where the city councillors get Wikipedia articles only if the sourcing demonstrates them as much more special than most other city councillors (such as by having media coverage that nationalizes far beyond just their local media market.) But with just 14 footnotes, of which 11 are primary sources, just three are real media and two of those three are routine reportage of election results, this is not the kind of sourcing that gets a city councillor over the bar. Bearcat (talk) 01:32, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:32, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:32, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Chatanooga is not a major enough city that council members are default notable, and there is not enough sourcing to show notability otherwise.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:37, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - as a city council president, he could be considered notable, and will likely be in the news frequently. Bearian (talk) 21:01, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

City council president is not a notability claim in and of itself. The notability criteria for city councillors are as I explained above: either they serve in a global city on the New York City-Los Angeles-Chicago axis, or their coverage nationalizes to the point where they have a credible claim to being much more nationally notable than most other city councillors. Simply holding the title of "city council president" is not an instant notability freebie that exempts a city councillor from still having to show that his depth and range and volume of coverage has gone significantly above and beyond the ordinary and expected. Bearcat (talk) 21:26, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not pass WP:GNG based on the sourcing in the article - Facebook and campaign websites don't count, and there's scant coverage apart from routine election reporting. SportingFlyer T·C 07:54, 5 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. Based on my reading, it seems like there are a few arguments both pro and anti deletion. On the pro deletion side we have concerns that the list violates WP:NOTNEWS and is poorly written, that it is an indiscriminate collection of events in violation of WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE with unclear inclusion criteria ("what is a rally?") and a redundant fork of Timeline of the Donald Trump presidency (2019 Q1) and Donald Trump 2016 presidential campaign and not convered as a group by independent sources. In part because of the forking issue, some people are proposing mergers to the two Donald Trump articles, of varying selectivity. A similar list of Democratic rallies was deleted at AFD and is cited as a precedent by some participants.

On the keep side, we have the points that the lists are not unduly large and that there have been no problems with the inclusion criteria, that the list topic is in fact covered by independent sources (unlike the Democratic rallies article), that NOTNEWS does not apply as they are historical lists and also covered by academic sources and that they are useful. There is a secondary argument against merging that the merged content would be unduly long on the merge targets. There are 7 delete arguments (some alternatively advocate a merge) and 5 keep arguments, by headcount.

Overall it seems like for each delete or merge argument there is an equally compelling keep argument (useless vs. useful, academic topic vs. NOTNEWS, indiscriminate list with vague inclusion criteria vs. topic that has been discussed with examples in an overarching manner, content fork vs. valid spinout, can be covered on other articles vs. would become unduly large), as well as an argument that the Democratic list cited as a precedent had no overarching coverage and is thus different. 7 delete vs. 5 keep is likewise closer to an even split than to a delete consensus. Reywas92's points could be worth a follow up as they were not discussed in depth, but for the delete (or merge)-or-not question this seems like a no consensus case. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:05, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of rallies for the 2016 Donald Trump presidential campaign[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not news. Growing consensus in a recent AfD was that these two lists of rallies—the only such articles—list events indiscriminately and should also be nominated. They're better suited for a wiki that isn't an encyclopedia.

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

czar 00:51, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. czar 00:51, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. czar 00:51, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. czar 00:51, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What is a rally? Exactly. The definition changes based on the person. The list is pretty useless anyway. Squeeps10 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 01:31, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The lists are not unmanagebly large, and there has been no dispute on the pages about what is a rally. This pages are actually quite popular, and is thus of benefit to our readers. Although news may cover the content, NOTNEWS is inapplicable as they are historical lists. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:47, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; while I don't want to delve into politics in this AfD discussion, the list is still useful. Seconding Graeme Barlett's point that WP:NOTNEWS cannot be applied. Utopes (talk) 04:58, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge Timeline of the Donald Trump presidency (2019 Q1), etc. already mention rallies held during the presidency. It's an excessive crufty compendium of routinely expected events that is an unnecessary content fork of that and Donald Trump 2016 presidential campaign. Reywas92^Talk 05:02, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and because no independent source considers them as a group. Election debates are much more significant than rallies, yet we don't have lists of those. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:30, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Cunard (talk) 09:34, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both per the significant coverage in reliable sources.

The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists, which says, "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." I will show below that "rallies for the 2016 Donald Trump presidential campaign" and "post-election Donald Trump rallies" have been treated as a "a group or set by independent reliable sources".

Sources

Morrison, Christopher N.; Ukert, Benjamin; Palumbo, Aimee; Dong, Beidi; Jacoby, Sara F.; Wiebe, Douglas J. (July 2018). "Assaults on Days of Campaign Rallies During the 2016 US Presidential Election". Epidemiology. 29 (4). Lippincott Williams & Wilkins: 490–493. doi:10.1097/EDE.0000000000000821. Retrieved 2019-09-03.
The article notes about the study methodology:
Rallies were defined as events that (i) occurred after Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton declared their candidacies on June 16, 20158 , and April 12, 20159 , (ii) occurred before the Presidential election on November 8, 2016, (iii) were open invitation, (iv) featured a speech by candidates Trump or Clinton, and (v) were not on the same day as a party primary election in the same state as the rally. We focused on cities that had populations greater than 200,000 based on United States Census Bureau estimates for 2015, because few smaller cities make assault data publicly available online.
The study's conclusion was: "Assaults increased on days when cities hosted Donald Trump's rallies during the 2016 Presidential election campaign." The article has a table of Trump and Clinton rallies considered in the study. The Trump rallies considered were:
1. Baton Rouge, LA: 2/11/2016
2. Cincinnati, OH: 7/6/2016, 10/13/2016
3. Colorado Springs, CO: 7/29/2016, 9/17/2016, 10/18/2016
4. Columbus, OH: 11/23/2015, 3/1/2016, 8/1/2016
5. Dallas, TX: 9/14/2015, 6/16/2016
6. Denver, CO: 7/29/2016, 11/5/2016
7. Fayetteville, NC: 8/9/2016
8. Fort Worth, TX: 2/26/2016
9. Kansas City, MO: 3/12/2016
10. Las Vegas, NV: 10/30/2016
11. Louisville, KY: 3/1/2016
12. Mesa, AZ: 12/16/2015
13. Milwaukee, WI: 4/4/2016
14. Minneapolis, MN: 11/6/2016
15. New Orleans, LA: 3/4/2016
16. Pittsburgh, PA: 4/13/2016
17. Raleigh, NC: 12/4/2015, 7/5/2016, 11/7/2016
18. Richmond, VA: 6/10/2016
19. Sacramento, CA: 6/1/2016
20. Spokane, WA: 5/7/2016
21. St. Louis, MO: 3/11/2016
22. Virginia Beach, VA: 10/22/2016
The journal article is the subject of a The New York Times article here.
Sharp, John (August 2016). "20 Memorable Donald Trump campaign rally moments". AL.com. Archived from the original on 2019-09-03. Retrieved 2019-09-03.
The article discusses memorable moments at these Trump rallies:
1. Bluffton, South Carolina
2. Mobile, Alabama
3. Birmingham, Alabama
4. Myrtle Beach, South Carolina
5. Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina
6. Reno, Nevada
7. Pensacola, Florida
8. Las Vegas, Nevada
9. Fort Worth, Texas
10. Huntsville, Alabama
11. Orlando, Florida
12. Fayetteville, North Carolina
13. Dayton, Ohio
14. Colorado Springs, Colorado
15. Wilmington, North Carolina
16. Sunrise, Florida
Sullivan, Sean; Johnson, Jenna (2016-10-29). "Yes, Donald Trump's crowds are big — but not quite as 'yuge' as he often claims". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 2019-09-03. Retrieved 2019-09-03.
The article discusses Trump's promotion and frequent exaggeration of his campaign rallies' crowd sizes regarding these rallies:
1. Springfield, Ohio
2. Toledo, Ohio
3. Phoenix, Arizona
4. Melbourne, Florida
5. Geneva, Ohio
6. Tampa, Florida
7. Tallahassee, Florida
8. Sanford, Florida
9. Charlotte, North Carolina
10. Mobile, Alabama
11. Madison, Alabama
Mathis-Lilley, Ben (2016-03-02). "A Continually Growing List of Violent Incidents at Trump Events". Slate. Archived from the original on 2019-09-03. Retrieved 2019-09-03.
The article discusses violent incidents at these Trump rallies:
1. Las Vegas, Nevada
2. Dallas, Texas
3. San Jose, California
4. San Diego, California
5. Costa Mesa, California
6. Bridgeport, Connecticut
7. Albany, New York
8. Tucson, Arizona
9. Fayetteville, North Carolina
10. Louisville, Kentucky
11. Radford, Virginia
This list is cited on page 62 of the 2017 book The Monstrous Discourse in the Donald Trump Campaign: Implications for National Discourse published by Lexington Books.

16 more sources

Sommers-Dawes, Kate (2016-03-11). "All the times Trump has called for violence at his rallies". Mashable. Archived from the original on 2019-09-03. Retrieved 2019-09-03.
The article discusses the rallies at which Trump has called for violence:
1. Kansas City, Missouri
2. St. Louis, Missouri
3. Fayetteville, North Carolina
4. Michigan
5. Las Vegas, Nevada
6. Cedar Rapids, Iowa
7. Birmingham, Alabama
Schreckinger, Ben (2015-11-24). "Trump rallies get rough". Politico. Archived from the original on 2019-09-03. Retrieved 2019-09-03.
The article discusses violence at these Trump rallies:
1. Virginia
2. Miami, Florida
3. Dallas, Texas
4. Worcester, Massachusetts
5. Alabama
Finnegan, Michael; Bierman, Noah (2016-03-13). "Trump's endorsement of violence reaches new level: He may pay legal fees for assault suspect". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2019-09-03. Retrieved 2019-09-03.
The article discusses rallies at which Trump has supported violence:
1. Bloomington, Illinois
2. Fayetteville, North Carolina
3. Cedar Rapids, Iowa
4. Florida
5. Las Vegas
6. central Illinois
7. Worcester, Ohio
Jacobson, Louis; Tobias, Manuela (2017-07-05). "Has Donald Trump never 'promoted or encouraged violence,' as Sarah Huckabee Sanders said?". PolitiFact. Archived from the original on 2019-09-03. Retrieved 2019-09-03.
The article discusses rallies at which Trump has encouraged violence:
1. Alabama
2. Las Vegas
3. Michigan
4. North Carolina
5. St Louis
6. Kansas City, Missouri
Schreckinger, Ben (2018-10-26). "Inside Trump's 2018 rallies: Cocky young men and few protesters". Politico. Archived from the original on 2019-09-03. Retrieved 2019-09-03.
The article discusses rallies at which there were cocky young men and few protesters:
1. Houston, Texas
2. Missoula, Arizona
3. Mesa, Arizona
Jackson, David (2016-11-04). "Trump tries to stay on message in the campaign's home stretch". USA Today. Archived from the original on 2019-09-03. Retrieved 2019-09-03.
The article discusses campaign rallies at which Trump is sticking to the script in the final days of the 2016 campaign:
1. Atkinson, New Hampshire
2. Hershey, Pennsylvania
3. Pensacola, Florida
Mackey, Robert (2016-03-11). "Trump Concerned His Rallies Are Not Violent Enough". The Intercept. Archived from the original on 2019-09-03. Retrieved 2019-09-03.
The article discusses Trump's encouragement of violence at these rallies:
1. St. Louis, Missouri
2. Fayetteville, North Carolina
3. Oklahoma
4. Las Vegas, Nevada
Pearl, Mike (2016-03-16). "How Scared Should I Be of Donald Trump's Campaign Rallies?". Vice. Archived from the original on 2019-09-03. Retrieved 2019-09-03.
The article discusses violence at these Trump rallies:
1. Miami, Florida
2. Birmingham, Alabama
3. Fayetteville, North Carolina
Parker, Ashley (2016-03-10). "Riskiest Political Act of 2016? Protesting at Rallies for Donald Trump". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2019-09-03. Retrieved 2019-09-03.
The article discusses protests and violence at these Trump rallies:
1. Louisville, Kentucky
2. Fayetteville, North Carolina
3. Orlando, Florida
4. Las Vegas, Nevada
5. Concord, North Carolina
Kragie, Andrew (2018-11-06). "Inside the Alternative Universe of the Trump Rallies". The Atlantic. Archived from the original on 2019-09-03. Retrieved 2019-09-03.
The article discusses The Atlantic journalists observations ("I can attest that Trump voters are not ready to concede a monopoly on outrage. They are stoked by Trump’s dystopian portrayal of a socialist America under radical far-left Democrats—a version of the country where jobs have been killed and Medicare destroyed to fund benefits for migrants pouring across open borders, where drug dealers and MS-13 killers take over sanctuary cities.") after traveling to or watching these rallies:
1. Fort Myers, Florida
2. Indianapolis
3. Chattanooga
4. Columbia, Missouri
5. Huntington, West Virginia
6. Belgrade, Montana
7. Pensacola, Florida
8. Macon, Georgia
9. Cleveland
10. Fort Wayne, Indiana
11. Cape Girardeau, Missouri
Lind, Dara (2016-03-13). "The problem with violence at Trump rallies starts with Trump himself". Vox. Archived from the original on 2019-09-03. Retrieved 2019-09-03.
The article discusses violence or Trump's encouragement of violence at these Trump rallies:
1. Cedar Rapids
2. Warren, Michigan
3. Fayetteville, North Carolina
4. Birmingham, Alabama
Bump, Philip (2018-10-10). "Trump has embraced campaign rallies (but golf remains his true love)". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 2019-09-03. Retrieved 2019-09-03.
The article discusses the large number of Trump rallies held within the last four months of October 2018:
1. Minnesota (twice)
2. Mississippi
3. Florida
4. Pennsylvania (twice, including Wednesday evening)
5. Tennessee
6. Nevada
7. Ohio
8. West Virginia (twice)
9. Kansas
10. Iowa
11. Montana (twice)
12. South Carolina
13. Indiana
14. North Dakota
Timmons, Heather; Yanofsky, David (2018-11-02). "Trump's frantic midterm MAGA rally schedule, mapped and explained". Quartz. Archived from the original on 2019-09-03. Retrieved 2019-09-03.
The article discusses the 2018 midterm Trump rallies:
1. October 24: Mosinee, Wisconsin
2. October 26: Charlotte, North Carolina
3. October 27: Murphysboro, Illinois
4. October 31: Fort Myers, Florida
5. November 1: Columbia, Missouri
6. November 2: Indianapolis, Indiana
7. November 2: Huntington, West Virginia
8. November 3: Belgrade, Montana
9. November 3: Pensacola, Florida
10. November 4: Chattanooga, Tennessee
11. November 4: Macon, Georgia
12. November 5: Cape Girardeau, Missouri
13. Fort Wayne, Indiana
14. Cleveland, Ohio
Watson, Kathryn (2018-11-01). "What Trump's final rally schedule says about the midterms". CBS News. Archived from the original on 2019-09-03. Retrieved 2019-09-03.
The article discusses the 2018 midterm Trump rallies:
1. Fort Meyers, Florida
2. Columbia, Missouri
3. Cape Girardeau, Missouri
4. Florida
"When, Where is the Next Donald Trump Rally? Trump MAGA Rallies Scheduled For Tennessee, West Virginia". Newsweek. 2018-09-25. Archived from the original on 2019-09-03. Retrieved 2019-09-03.
The article discusses the 2018 midterm Trump rallies:
1. Wheeling, West Virginia
2. Johnson City, Tennessee
Sebenius, Alyza; Pettypiece, Shannon (2018-10-29). "Trump to Skip House Races to Focus on Senate in Final Election Push". Bloomberg News. Archived from the original on 2019-05-10. Retrieved 2019-09-03.
The article discusses the 2018 midterm Trump rallies:
1. Fort Meyers, Florida
2. Pensacola, Florida
3. Indianapolis, Indiana
4. Fort Wayne, Indiana
5. Columbia, Missouri
6. Cape Girardeau, Missouri
7. Huntington, West Virginia
8. Bozeman, Montana
9. Chattanooga, Tennessee
10. Macon, Georgia
11. Cleveland, Ohio

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the subject to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

Cunard (talk) 09:34, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The 20 sources I provided above collectively cover both "rallies for the 2016 Donald Trump presidential campaign" and "post-election Donald Trump rallies".
The subject does not violate Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a newspaper because it has been the subject of academic study. A July 2018 article published in the journal Epidemiology titled "Assaults on Days of Campaign Rallies During the 2016 US Presidential Election" studied 31 Trump rallies and concluded "Assaults increased on days when cities hosted Donald Trump's rallies during the 2016 Presidential election campaign."
The subject does not violate Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information because it meets none of the four categories listed: It is not "Summary-only descriptions of works", "Lyrics databases", "Excessive listings of unexplained statistics" or "Exhaustive logs of software updates".
Regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020 Democratic Party presidential rallies: Whereas the list Trump rallies articles pass Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists, "2020 Democratic Party presidential rallies" does not since it has not been discussed as a set by reliable sources.
Cunard (talk) 09:34, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging editors with at least five edits to List of rallies for the 2016 Donald Trump presidential campaign: MB298 (talk · contribs), Graeme Bartlett (talk · contribs), Yoshiman6464 (talk · contribs), Swliv (talk · contribs), Quebec99 (talk · contribs), Neutrality (talk · contribs), ShadowDragon343 (talk · contribs), and Srich32977 (talk · contribs).
Cunard (talk) 09:34, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging editors with at least five edits to List of post-election Donald Trump rallies: Sbmeirow (talk · contribs), McAfee79 (talk · contribs), General Ization (talk · contribs), Walkermfarmer (talk · contribs), ThatRichDeng (talk · contribs), Rodw (talk · contribs), Count Awesome (talk · contribs), and Champion (talk · contribs).
Cunard (talk) 09:34, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Your sources make an argument that we could have a prose article discussing Donald Trump's calls for violence, or an overview deliberating various aspects of Donald Trump's rallies (see Donald_Trump_2016_presidential_campaign#Rallies_and_crowds), but not necessarily that a context-free chronological listing of venues and attendance estimates is an appropriate Wikipedia article. Reywas92^Talk 19:04, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists says, "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list."
    The sources provided above clearly demonstrate that Trump rallies "has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources" and thus is "appropriate for a stand-alone list". The sources talk about Trump rallies as a group in multiple situations: violence at a list of rallies, memorable moments at a list of rallies, crowd sizes at a list of rallies, and a list of 2018 midterm rallies. That prose articles can be created about different aspects of Trump's rallies does not negate the clear evidence that "rallies for the 2016 Donald Trump presidential campaign" and "post-election Donald Trump rallies" pass Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists.
    Cunard (talk) 20:02, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete selectively. All these “rallies” are not notable and y’all know it. This article is a mess. Some can stand to be merged into his 2016 campaign article. The rest—delete. Trillfendi (talk) 16:36, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Same as here. A summary of the content could be added to other relevant articles. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:36, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Selection criteria says:
Lists are commonly written to satisfy one of the following sets of criteria:
...
Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles: for example, List of Dilbert characters or List of paracetamol brand names. Such lists are almost always better placed within the context of an article on their "parent" topic. Before creating a stand-alone list consider carefully whether such lists would be better placed within a parent article.
That the individual rallies are not notable is not a valid reason to delete the list of rallies.
These lists are not better placed within a parent article like Donald Trump 2016 presidential campaign. They would be too long for the parent articles so they are valid spinouts into independent articles.
Cunard (talk) 20:02, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Perfectly good spin out about histrionic and historic events. Please don't make me vomit by making me argue any more. Bearian (talk) 20:34, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I posted a notification about this AfD here at Talk:Donald Trump. Cunard (talk) 05:31, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Cunard's rationale. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ^Talk 13:48, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – It looks more like a directory of news events suitable for an inclusion on Wikinews. The question is not whether the list is useful or just an indiscriminate collection of news. The question is whether there is any worthwhile encyclopedic content, and I agree with the others saying that this list could be merged with Donald Trump 2016 presidential campaign. For me, Mr. Trump's rallies are generally no different from and no more historic than any that I have seen, so unless anyone can demonstrate how this list is encyclopedic, why the rallies are particularly noteworthy, and ultimately why we should keep the list, I am not convinced that it should stay. I would not be surprised if it also suffers from content forking of some other article such as the one it could be merged with. ~~Gamingforfun~~³⁶⁵ 14:27, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Fox College Football. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:31, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Big Noon Saturday[edit]

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

Contested bold merge. Special branding given for a single network's early-afternoon college football telecasts beginning this season. Not enough notability to sustain a proper Wikipedia article at this time. Can be mentioned on Fox College Football in passing, but is otherwise a routine game. The accompanying pre-game show (Big Noon Kickoff) is a bit more notable in my opinion, and can be expanded into something a bit more complete.

Article creator attempted to compare this article to Saturday Night Football. I however disagree, as that is a major primetime game that almost always features a marquee matchup, and has been a historic part of ABC's schedule for at least 13 seasons now. This, however, is just an upstart and is not distinctly notable enough to deserve its own article. ViperSnake151 Talk 00:43, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ViperSnake151 Talk 00:43, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. ViperSnake151 Talk 00:43, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Fox College Football 97% of folks will refer to this casually as 'the noon game on Fox', no matter how well the branding is; same as it's always been with ESPN and ABC (and the press release stating Fox's biggest game would air at this time is just hyperbole; no broadcast network ever going to air Western Nebraska A&M vs. Southwest Virginia Tech in this timeslot). And no...we're not accepting another article which is just a bad intro with another schedule/score list nobody will care about 12 years down the line (that's been deleted). Nate • (chatter) 01:07, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This should probably have been a merge request and not an AfD, but merge as the telecast is not notable apart from its network. SportingFlyer T·C 04:41, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KeepVincelord (talk) 15:35, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Fox College Football. It is better than totally deleting the content. Ktrimi991 (talk) 10:20, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Fox College Football - Epinoia (talk) 02:09, 10 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. Sources added to indicate notability. RL0919 (talk) 03:17, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

James Bassett (missionary)[edit]

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

This article has no sources whatsoever. I tried to find some, and did find a few mewspaper clippings vaguely mentioning his articles and a picture of his tombstone but nothing that was significant sources. John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:06, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:19, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:19, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:21, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:21, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:23, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I’ve added six references. Mccapra (talk) 01:28, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mccapra. فرهنگ2016 (talk) 18:16, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY - he started the translation of the Bible into the Turkmen language. Bearian (talk) 21:04, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above. For the record, I created the article, but only by splitting another existing article! But clearly notable nonetheless. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:47, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Both being the compiler of a Persian hymn book and a bible translator are enough to make him notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:55, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above rationals and the fact that the subject's unique role in the history of Christianity in West Asia, translating the bible to native languages.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 16:52, 9 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.

^ [22]
^ [23]

[1] [22]

[2] [23]

[1]

[2]