Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 January 10

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 9 January	11 January >

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. RL0919 (talk) 03:20, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Georgi Buliskeriya[edit]

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

Article about footballer who made a single 10-minute substitute's appearance in the Belarussian Premier League, and otherwise has only played in amateur or semi-pro football leagues. The only match report I found in Belarussian sources simply identifies him as a 80' substitute. There is no significant coverage in online English-, Russian-, or Belarussian-language sources (just database entries and a few transfer announcements). There is long-standing consensus that a nominal amount of play in a fully-pro league doesn't justify the presumption of notability in WP:NFOOTBALL when there is a comprehensive WP:GNG failure - as there is here. Note that the article was nominated for speedy deletion many years ago, which was properly declined, but there is no evidence that this article actually meets our notability guidelines. Jogurney (talk) 23:35, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:14, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:14, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:14, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:56, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:56, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:57, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - GNG failure is far more important than scraping by on NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:02, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete total failure of the GNG. It is high time we chanrge the football notability guidelines into something more reasonable. 10 minutes of play in one game does not make someone notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:24, 13 January 2020 (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. Missvain (talk) 18:13, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Miller (Literary Manager)[edit]

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

NOTE The page "Peter Miller (Literary Manager)" (links | edit) has been moved to "Peter Miller (literary manager)"

I can only find a few passing mentions and quotes of the subject (e.g. NY Magazine, Mental Floss Magazine) and two more detailed mentions (NYTimes and WRMEA) that mention him a few times regarding a plagiarism lawsuit against him.

The NYT article mentions his name in passing three times, quotes him once, and has quotes one sentence from a lawsuit's allegations against him. The WRMEA article probably is significant coverage from a notable source (probably reliable). Overall, there's simply not enough for WP:GNG. — MarkH₂₁^talk 23:07, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — MarkH₂₁^talk 23:07, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — MarkH₂₁^talk 23:07, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:02, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:58, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE The page "Peter Miller (Literary Manager)" (links | edit) has been moved to "Peter Miller (literary manager)"

Delete per nom. Loksmythe (talk) 21:33, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looking at the other notable agents mentioned, he is not at that level. And in any case this was added by a COI editor, and could be deleted on that reason alone, because nothing in itcan be assummed to be NPOV. DGG ( talk ) 10:23, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the above, and unless some expert source can be found to help establish his notability in the field, he would no doubt fail the GNG. PK650 (talk) 22:46, 16 January 2020 (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. Missvain (talk) 18:14, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amor Artificial[edit]

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

1. There is no evidence of this band existing, the name is too common and returns no results relating to bands 2. Website no longer exists including a link to the band's album (Waybackmachine returns 0 results 3. Likely would have failed WP:Notability Theprussian (talk) 22:18, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:27, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I just did a WP:BEFORE on the band itself, and only found one example of significant coverage. No reason to think this album is notable, and even if it was, WP:NALBUM recommends merging album articles with the artist page in instances where the article is unlikely to expand beyond a stub. This one is only a track listing, with no apparent sources for expanding it. If the band's article is kept at its AfD discussion, this should be redirected there. Skeletor3000 (talk) 23:11, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:02, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Skeletor3000. I would normally go with a redirect for something like this, but since the article on the bad is up AfD as well, I think a deletion would be a better option. Aoba47 (talk) 18:25, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't believe this is a WP:HOAX, but if there is such little sourcing that this was ever a realistic possibility, delete is the only rational conclusion. BIG BURLEY 23:07, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - See the band's AfD as well. They really did exist but their article is probably on its way to deletion. If it survives this album article could possibly be redirected to the band, but the album achieved no pro reviews or other reliable media notice, and all sources found are the typical streaming and retail services. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:58, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yeah it can be redirected if more work is not done on it but eventually it should head on for deletion if it isn't a hoax. LeungChow (talk) 13:12, 16 January 2020 (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 Al-Bahri SC. Sandstein 06:32, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Zubair Stadium[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBUILD Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 22:12, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 22:12, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:15, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:03, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:03, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this is a stadium which has hosted Iraqi top flight matches and gets brief mentions in English language match reports as a result. I googled the Arabic name and received significantly more results, but I don't understand Arabic, so I can't be much help in determining notability. But my gut says it will pass WP:GNG in Arabic. SportingFlyer T·C 14:38, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Redirect. Per Giant's "possible search term". I didn't find anything significant on a search. I would concede the larger stadiums should have plenty of coverage I am not so sure about these smaller ones. I might have suggested merging with List of football stadiums in Iraq but that is an unsourced article and many of the links are under-sourced or unsourced (like Amanat Baghdad Stadium), sometimes offering no more than an unsourced dictionary listing like Al Naft Stadium. -- Otr500 (talk) 12:38, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Al-Bahri SC. No evidence of independent notability but possible search term. Giant Snowman 12:44, 12 January 2020 (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. I'm going to WP:BEBOLD and close this early. Missvain (talk) 20:55, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Soup's On[edit]

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

It may be fitting to mention this short in a list page or similar, but does it really need it's own page? It's been unsourced and almost entirely plot summary since its creation. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 20:53, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:09, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:04, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I added more content to the page -- information about the production, television syndication and home video releases. The Encyclopedia of Walt Disney's Animated Characters specifically calls out Soup's On as "one of the truly classic contests between the Duck and the kids," and I added the book's commentary to the lede. I also added references from the Internet Animation Database, the book Disney's Voice Actors: A Biographical Dictionary, a review blog and a couple other sources. -- Toughpigs (talk) 19:40, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:HEY as the article has been significantly improved since nomination and has significant real world content, and extra rs books referencing so deletion is no longer necessary imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:12, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep: Per WP:HEY and that it no longer qualifies under deletion criteria. Otr500 (talk) 04:17, 13 January 2020 (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 Battle of Edgecote Moor. This is clearly something for which we need experts. But among the people here who sound like they know what they are talking about, all agree that this is an alternate name for the 1469 Battle of Edgecote Moor, so the redirect makes sense. And among these editors, only one person believes that we have enough sourcing to write an article about a much earlier battle of the same name. Sandstein 22:18, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Danes Moor[edit]

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

There was no such battle. It would have taken place in the territory of Æthelflæd, Lady of the Mercians but it is not mentioned in her biography or in histories of Mercia, or in biographies of Edward the Elder, or histories of the Vikings, or histories of Anglo-Saxon England, or the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. It is not found on a search of Google Scholar and a Google search finds no reliable sources. The only source I know of (apart from Google ones which may be based on the Wikipedia article) is the one cited in the article and this is a bare mention in a book which is not written by an Anglo-Saxon specialist and which cites no sources. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:40, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:08, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:08, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:04, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Battle of Edgecote Moor, for which it serves as an alternate name in some works. As for the supposed pre-conquest battle, I found this: "South of the village is a valley called Danesmoor, or Dunsmore, as it is commonly called, where, according to the tradition of the neighbourhood, a battle was fought between the Saxons and Danes, but history is silent on the subject." Whellan, Francis (1874). History, Topography, and Directory of Northamptonshire. London: Whitaker and Co. p. 453. Retrieved 2020-01-11. Mangoe (talk) 04:57, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, whether's its a fake, hoax, or an alternate name, per WP:CHEAP. Bearian (talk) 22:39, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We don't seem to be short of references to the battle. "by tradition, recorded by Morton (p.542) and by Beesley (p.56) in the 18th and 19th centuries the moor gained its name as the place of a battle between Saxons and Danes in the 9th century."[1] [2], but the stub article contains all there is about it. Usually we know of a battle but not its exact location; here we have a location, but few other details; we don't even know who won. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:39, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible that there was a battle in the ninth century which is only remembered in local tradition, but the article is about a battle in 914, which is in the tenth century. It is also possible that the tradition was invented to explain the place name. The preceding sentence to the quote above says: "According to Gover the derivation of the name is obscure but certainly does not refer to Danes". A vague tradition of a battle which is not mentioned by historians of Anglo-Saxon England does not provide the basis for a Wikipedia article. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:05, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you trace the source for Gover, who was (or is) a place-name specialist? Peterkingiron (talk) 16:05, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gover is not available online, but there is a copy in the library here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:24, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- The problem is not with whether there was a battle but where it was. A. Beesley, The History of Banbury (1841), pp.53-7 summarises the evidence for a conflict between the local Saxons and the Danes in the area. I would suggest that locating it at Danesmoor depends solely on the place-name, which could be a back-formation, the conversion of a name to what someone thought it ought to be. Beesley also associates events with Hook Norton and with certain camps, which are probably Iron Age hillforts, but in the state of knowledge of the period such a mistake is understandable. Bessley quotes his sources, which are ASC and Florence of Worcester. Merging should not be an option as the merge target is the Civil War battle of Edgecote, over 700 years later. Even if the battle is fake news, it is an old enough error to need a WP article explaining it. The difficulty is that this is taking us rather close to primary research, which WP does not like. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:05, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have amended the article to reflect what Beesley and ASC say. The 1874 directory will not be an independent source. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:56, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Beesley quotes ASC and Florence of Worcester only for the attack on Hook Norton. His only source for Danes Moor is Morton's 18C book. There must have been many unrecorded battles in the area, but a Wikipedia article requires reliable sources, and in this case they do not exist. Dudley Miles (talk) 00:37, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 17:21, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yaw Ofori Debrah[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:36, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:09, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:09, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: was poorly sourced and untouched for years, but I added a few that show his roles with various disabled advocacy groups. Not ready to vote one way or another yet. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:30, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clear Keep head of nationally mandated government body with high quality national news sources, this should never have been nominated. Sadads (talk) 01:07, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As per Sadads. Lunar Clock (talk) 12:11, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:05, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Poor sourcing and untouched doesn't make for a AfD! Thanks for adding to it! There are plenty more sources to be added. Missvain (talk) 02:54, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No sources = no article. "Verifiable" means: "Readers must be able to check that any of the information within Wikipedia articles is not just made up. This means all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources." It does not mean "sources may perhaps exist somewhere". Sandstein 22:11, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sensphal Khan[edit]

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

A completely unsourced biography on a supposed historical figure. I was unable to find anything in reliable sources discussing him, and even our article on the town he is said to have established has no mention of him. I am bringing it to AFD, rather than simply PRODing it, though, since I realize that sources regarding historical figures may exist and simply cannot be found online, or may be found under various other English spellings, so other people may have more luck during the course of the AFD discussion at finding them. Otherwise, unsourced content should not be retained. Rorshacma (talk) 20:25, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 20:25, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 20:25, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on the basis of no sources provided. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:42, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:23, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- This is a credible account. We have articles on British peers, so that I do not see why we should not have ones on Indian rajas, provided they had a status rather greater than gentry. This does not raise BLP issues, so that the question is whether the content is verifable (as opposed to verified). Peterkingiron (talk) 16:15, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 21:40, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Debra (singer)[edit]

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

Not seeing anything that satisfies WP:MUSICIAN. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:24, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:29, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:29, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Most of the sources provided go to either search pages, and one goes to either a bombed PHP based site or a domain that was registered and left to die. The one remaining is unclear to me, but appears to be little more than tabloid coverage if my presumptions based on the domain name are an indication. If there's notability here, somebody gotta bring it. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:45, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Don't even know her surname. Apparently "famous" for being in Australian Idol 2008 according to Indonesian sources (Google:Australian Idol debra Indonesian) but Australian Idol (season 6) doesn't mention her. The sources seem like promo for some music see released back home. Can't find anything that satisfies WP:MUSICBIO. Mattg82 (talk) 23:56, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Her name is Debra Gandeng. However, I can't find anything except something that makes it sound like she tried out for American Idol in Australia and was a "drop out" - meaning she didn't make the cut. All the links to sources on her external links page were broken or messed up in some capacity. Missvain (talk) 03:05, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As stated above, it doesn't seem like she makes the cut. MusickMann (talk) 22:55, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see no notability as of yet LeungChow (talk) 13:04, 16 January 2020 (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. Speedying this one up based on the clear evidence that she's super notable. Missvain (talk) 03:06, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Albert[edit]

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

Subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources hence falls short of WP:GNG standards. Per WP:AUTHOR she also does not qualify as she & her works are yet to receive significant coverage. Per WP:ANYBIO also, subject does not qualify as she is yet to win any notable award. A before does show hits that look like PR related materials advertising her books & needless to say, no in-depth coverage none whatsoever. Celestina007 (talk) 19:01, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:01, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:01, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:01, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:01, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I wrote the article. She is the author of one of the bestselling young adult books in recent years. Starred reviews (a rare thing) in the biggest book review publications in the United States--Publishers Weekly, School Library Journal, and Kirkus--*are* significant coverage. The fact that she received starred reviews not only from multiple publications, but for two books in a row (one released just this month) is a lot. Did you read the sources in the article? Several interviews, including one with PW. I will add more to try to spell it out. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 19:17, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Long write-up in Publishers Weekly, first novel was 36 weeks on New York Times Bestsellers List^[1], on Salon's list of 15 best YA books in 2018, reviewed in The Guardian and The Washington Post in addition to the reviews already mentioned in article. Meets WP:NAUTHOR. Schazjmd (talk) 19:31, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Canfield, David. "The Night Country: Melissa Albert previews her next Hazel Wood novel". Entertainment Weekly. Retrieved 10 January 2020.

Comment. also featured in the following when search at Gale Literary Index:

Contemporary Authors, volume(s) 417
Something about the Author, volume(s) 333DiamondRemley39 (talk) 20:30, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 36 weeks on best seller list. This one is obvious.Twopower332.1938 (talk) 22:07, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Definitely passes WP:NAUTHOR. I found some additional sources from Entertainment Weekly and Bustle and added them as well. Lunar Clock (talk) 12:19, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of programmes broadcast by Mediacorp Channel 8. Sandstein 22:09, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of variety and infotainment programmes broadcast by Mediacorp Channel 8[edit]

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

Fails WP:LISTN. We are not a TV directory. Almost none of the shows listed have articles, and I could find no sources that discussed these as a /group/ and not just as individual shows. See also List of Mediacorp Channel 8 Chinese drama series (2010s), which has COI and PAID problems that may also exist on this page and might warrant a WP:TNT. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:53, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:53, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:54, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:54, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A list of completely non notable television shows, also per nom Wikipedia is not a TV directory. Variety and infotainment is also a bizarre criteria to use to single out programming lists. Ajf773 (talk) 09:57, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to List of programmes broadcast by Mediacorp Channel 8 and de-cruft There is no godforsaken reason a television network/channel needs more than one list of page for all their programming, nor do they need division by decade. Also Ajf773, assume good faith; we may never care about Home Decor Survivor in North America, but likewise a Singaporean probably cares just as little about Maury over there. Nate • (chatter) 00:30, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all: Per user's Nate, Gonnym, and Matt91486. Something needs to be done as List of Mediacorp Channel 8 Chinese drama series (2000s) shows to be an hourly listing with "9pm drama series" and "7pm drama series" sections that indicates theoretically there could be 22 more hours added. If we are not becoming a TV guide then there needs to be some "de-crufting", reorganizing, or general fixing. I agree that List of programmes broadcast by Mediacorp Channel 8 would be a good target. Otr500 (talk) 05:15, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of programmes broadcast by Mediacorp Channel 8. Sandstein 22:07, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mediacorp Channel 8 Chinese drama series (2000s)[edit]

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

Fails WP:LISTN. We are not a TV directory. The only sources here are from the Channel itself. A WP:BEFORE found sources that discussed only individual shows, not the shows in context of channel 8. Furthermore, the article has a COI which I'm not sure could be easily resolved. Another article in the series, List of Mediacorp Channel 8 Chinese drama series (2010s) may have undisclosed paid editing, which may also be present at this page. If so that, that warrants a WP:TNT. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:50, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:50, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:54, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:54, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a useful index page, there is no promotionalism so upe/coi is not an issue Atlantic306 (talk) 19:10, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all 3 Mediacorp Channel 8 pages and remove unnecessary fields. Category:Lists of television series by network shows that lists of series broadcast by network/channel is something that is allowed on en.wiki, however if List of programs broadcast by American Broadcasting Company can do this in one page, then there is no reason why Mediacorp Channel 8 needs 3 and it definitely does not need to list number of episodes or cast. --Gonnym (talk) 11:44, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to List of programmes broadcast by Mediacorp Channel 8 and de-cruft There is no godforsaken reason a television network/channel needs more than one list of page for all their programming, nor do they need division by decade. Nate • (chatter) 00:28, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all: Per user's Nate, Gonnym, and Matt91486. Something needs to be done as List of Mediacorp Channel 8 Chinese drama series (2000s) shows to be an hourly listing with "9pm drama series" and "7pm drama series" sections that indicates theoretically there could be 22 more hours added. If we are not becoming a TV guide then there needs to be some "de-crufting", reorganizing, or general fixing. I agree that List of programmes broadcast by Mediacorp Channel 8 would be a good target. Otr500 (talk) 05:18, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all. We do tend to allow "lists of television programs broadcast by network", not to serve as a programming guide but to serve as a navigational index to help people find Wikipedia articles — but there's no need to create or maintain multiple separate lists for each individual type of programming broadcast by the same television network. The pie does not need to be sliced that narrowly — one master list is sufficient in this case. Bearcat (talk) 18:20, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of programmes broadcast by Mediacorp Channel 8. Sandstein 22:06, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mediacorp Channel 8 Chinese drama series before 1982[edit]

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

Fails WP:LISTN. We are not a TV directory. Almost none of the shows listed have articles, and I could find no sources that discussed these as a /group/ and not just as individual shows. The chosen date range also confuddles me. See also List of Mediacorp Channel 8 Chinese drama series (2010s), which has COI and PAID problems that may also exist on this page and might warrant a WP:TNT. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:46, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:46, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:46, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:46, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a useful index page, there is no promotionalism so upe/coi is not an issue, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:12, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is a defined list of notable subjects with a common theme. matt91486 (talk) 09:37, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A list of completely non notable television shows, also per nom Wikipedia is not a TV directory. Ajf773 (talk) 09:55, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do you say these shows are unnotable? Just because articles haven't been written yet, that doesn't indicate whether or not the subjects are notable. matt91486 (talk) 19:31, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you able to demonstrate how they are notable?? Ajf773 (talk) 02:09, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Generally, an individual radio or television program is likely to be notable if it airs on a network of radio or television stations (either national or regional in scope), or on a cable television channel with a broad regional or national audience." WP:TVSERIES. matt91486 (talk) 06:13, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make them automatically notable. Especially with the lack of sourcing in this article. Ajf773 (talk) 08:05, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, we aren't creating articles for them all at the moment. But it certainly suggests that the default position of keeping things that are more likely than not to be notable in a list is prudent. matt91486 (talk) 19:11, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I said in another string of this nom, what you consider non-notable is plenty notable in Singapore; they care not one whit about the Go-Bots there, but in North America, mentioning The Unfilial Son will get only confused stares outside of a few Singaporean expatriates; that doesn't kill WP:N right there. Nate • (chatter) 00:13, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all 3 Mediacorp Channel 8 pages and remove unnecessary fields. Category:Lists of television series by network shows that lists of series broadcast by network/channel is something that is allowed on en.wiki, however if List of programs broadcast by American Broadcasting Company can do this in one page, then there is no reason why Mediacorp Channel 8 needs 3 and it definitely does not need to list number of episodes or cast. --Gonnym (talk) 11:44, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to List of programmes broadcast by Mediacorp Channel 8 and de-cruft There is no godforsaken reason a television network/channel needs more than one list of page for all their programming, nor do they need division by decade. Nate • (chatter) 00:30, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all: Per user's Nate, Gonnym, and Matt91486. Something needs to be done as List of Mediacorp Channel 8 Chinese drama series (2000s) shows to be an hourly listing with "9pm drama series" and "7pm drama series" sections that indicates theoretically there could be 22 more hours added. If we are not becoming a TV guide then there needs to be some "de-crufting", reorganizing, or general fixing. I agree that List of programmes broadcast by Mediacorp Channel 8 would be a good target. Otr500 (talk) 05:22, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all. We do tend to allow "lists of television programs broadcast by network", not to serve as a programming guide but to serve as a navigational index to help people find Wikipedia articles — but there's no need to create or maintain multiple separate lists for each individual type of programming broadcast by the same television network. The pie does not need to be sliced that narrowly — one master list is sufficient in this case. Bearcat (talk) 18:22, 13 January 2020 (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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 22:23, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Lewis (minister)[edit]

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

~~Fails WP: Notability as it is a one line article which fails to convey the importance of this person. Does this person need a wikipedia article?~~ Theprussian (talk) 18:45, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep There is a long-standing agreement that people with a bio in the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography are notable (with the exception of representative entries as explained in that article). @Theprussian: You might as well withdraw your AfD. Schwede 66 19:17, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I've withdrawn my nomination, as I am happy with the changes and improvements that have made, and your arguments are reasonable.Theprussian (talk) 21:49, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable in New Zealand history, probably also in Australian. I've fleshed out the article a little bit and added a second source.-gadfium 19:59, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:ANYBIO - "The person has an entry in the Dictionary of National Biography or similar publication." Narky Blert (talk) 21:07, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of programmes broadcast by Mediacorp Channel 8. Also List of MediaCorp Channel 8 Chinese drama series before 1982 and List of MediaCorp Channel 8 Chinese drama series (2000s). Sandstein 22:06, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mediacorp Channel 8 Chinese drama series (2010s)[edit]

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

Fails WP:LISTN. We are not a TV directory. Furthermore, the article has both COI and undisclosed paid tags which I'm not sure could be easily resolved, which warrants a WP:TNT. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:43, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:43, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep plenty of blue linked entries so useful as a navigation guide, no promotionalism so upe/coi is not an issue, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:07, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is a defined list of notable topics with a common theme. matt91486 (talk) 09:35, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all 3 Mediacorp Channel 8 pages and remove unnecessary fields. Category:Lists of television series by network shows that lists of series broadcast by network/channel is something that is allowed on en.wiki, however if List of programs broadcast by American Broadcasting Company can do this in one page, then there is no reason why Mediacorp Channel 8 needs 3 and it definitely does not need to list number of episodes or cast. --Gonnym (talk) 11:44, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Perfectly happy with such a merge. matt91486 (talk) 19:32, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to List of programmes broadcast by Mediacorp Channel 8 and de-cruft There is no godforsaken reason a television network/channel needs more than one list of page for all their programming, nor do they need division by decade. Nate • (chatter) 00:30, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all (4): Per user's Nate, Gonnym, and Matt91486. Something needs to be done as List of Mediacorp Channel 8 Chinese drama series (2000s) shows to be an hourly listing with "9pm drama series" and "7pm drama series" sections that indicates theoretically there could be 22 more hours added. If we are not becoming a TV guide then there needs to be some "de-crufting", reorganizing, or general fixing. I agree that List of programmes broadcast by Mediacorp Channel 8 would be a good target. Otr500 (talk) 05:33, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all. We do tend to allow "lists of television programs broadcast by network", not to serve as a programming guide but to serve as a navigational index to help people find Wikipedia articles — but there's no need to create or maintain multiple separate lists for each individual type of programming broadcast by the same television network. The pie does not need to be sliced that narrowly — one master list is sufficient in this case. Bearcat (talk) 18:23, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 22:04, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Southgate Tower[edit]

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

Non-notable building. Only (unverified) claim to fame is being "the tallest building between Detroit and Toledo, Ohio." Building does not have any noteworthy history, architecture, historic designations, tenants, or sources to even hint upon notability. —Notorious4life (talk) 18:01, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:19, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:20, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I searched for sources for a long time, but alas, nothing turned up, at most brief mentions of the building in stories focusing on the companies that owned it. Maybe there will be more coverage when it's future is determined. 💴Money💶💵emoji💷^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 17:26, 15 January 2020 (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. Nomination withdrawn. Missvain (talk) 21:00, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Base (hate group)[edit]

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

An article about this organization was recently deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Base (platform). There is no disputing that this group exists, but neo-Nazi groups are not exactly rare, especially these days. Seems to be your run-of-the-mill small group with nothing to make it notable. Bitter Oil (talk) 18:01, 10 January 2020 (UTC) Bitter Oil (talk) 18:01, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Bitter Oil (talk) 18:01, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Bitter Oil (talk) 18:01, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Coverage of this level suggests, some even say proves, notability. I’m not sure I see any actual argument for deletion in OP’s post, do you think you can be more specific as to what wikipedia policies you are nominating the page for deletion under? If I’m reading it right this entry is for the group itself and the previously deleted entry was for a social media platform created by the group, I don’t think the arguments from the previous AfD apply here. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:17, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the deleted text it appears to be the same group and "concept". It wasn't really a platform, just an extremist group. tedder (talk) 20:48, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. I just did a quick expansion of major stories with a zillion sources, I just searched for '"neo-nazi" "the base"' and didn't even get through the first page to source several paragraphs. tedder (talk) 20:46, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily meets WP:SIGCOV. -- Rrburke (talk) 13:39, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.NotButtigieg (talk) 13:06, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I withdraw the nomination based on a new article in the Washington Post. These arrests will likely lead to more coverage in national newspapers. Bitter Oil (talk) 17:50, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 22:03, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Harold Phillips[edit]

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

This is a procedural nomination

Hello, I wonder if a user with the necessary credentials could complete the other two steps on this article? Nicholas Harold Phillips is notable only for two things- his ownership of the Luton Hoo estate, and his descent from several notable people. His ownership of Luton Hoo is a bald fact with little else to mention; per notability guidelines, 'Being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person'. The article itself makes clear its lack of purpose with its opening line: 'he was a British landowner in Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire with royal connections. As a descendant of Sophia, Electress of Hanover, he was in the line of succession to the British throne.' The article consists of two sections, 'Life' and 'Ancestry', and the 'Ancestry' section is longer than the 'Life' section, which itself consists mainly of details of and links to Wikipedia articles about his aristocratic mother, his sisters' aristocratic marriages, and his own Austrian aristocrat wife. Phillips's ownership of Luton Hoo ended due to what were widely reported in reliable sources (see the article) to be severe financial problems, and his consequent suicide. The manner in which his financial problems, death, and the family's loss of Luton Hoo interrelate makes it pointless to attempt to obfuscate the facts reported, but a user (see the article talk page; apparently a family member) is repeatedly excising the reliable sources because they don't want the article to mention suicide, and claim to 'know' it wasn't. Despite explanations of the nature of Wikipedia sourcing being given to this family member on the talk page, they silently return and remove the information, having previously made a vague threat and been slapped on the wrist for it. The family's views of the matter are understandable, but at his death was more-or-less the only time Phillips was ever of sufficient note to appear in the media, and lacking any detail (along the lines of 'Phillips died in 1991', which is at least preferable to the unencyclopaedic tone of their previous statement on the subject- "Contrary to some fabricated and slanderous allegations, Nicholas died in 1991. He is remembered for being a kind, hardworking and thoughtful Gentleman") leaves the article a self-indulgent list of notable people from whom he descended. With this trivial edit-warring and his evident lack of notability in mind, Phillips would surely suffice as a subsection of the Luton Hoo article? He himself did nothing notable, nor was he in any way apart from the genealogical links so extensively delineated in his article. Many thanks for your assistance

Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:00, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:31, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:08, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:08, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Just doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG; no real "significant coverage" of him or anything he did- not every minor landowner is notable. I've had a look, and aside from references to his death, which appears to be currently being ferociously argued over on the Talk page, the only mentions of him are as the owner of Luton Hoo, and appearances in Burke's and Debrett's. Nothing else in Google Books, nor general internet searches, to indicate notability... he's already covered on the Luton Hoo article anyway, so the only purpose being served by the article is to present his ancestry, which while not uninteresting, doesn't make him notable (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Family). Just being "a landowner in Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire", "a descendant of Sophia, Electress of Hanover" and "in the line of succession to the British throne" is insufficient.RBWhitney12 (talk) 18:36, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing in the article indicates he is particularly noteworthy, a mention in the Luton Hoo article would be sufficient. MilborneOne (talk) 16:58, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with the rationale for deletion and that he could simply be covered with a mention in the Luton Hoo article. A redirect to that might be a possibility, but I am not convinced that it is needed. Dunarc (talk) 20:20, 17 January 2020 (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) 18:57, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The LilsBoys[edit]

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

Promotionally-toned article. No evidence of notability outside the pages of WP:THESUN, which is deprecated and so cannot be used as evidence of notability itself. WP:BEFORE shows no evidence of third-party coverage in WP:RSes. The article has barely been touched since its creation. First AFD in 2007 was "no consensus", but I don't see how this passes 2020 WP:BLP standards. Happy to be proven wrong, with evidence of good WP:RS coverage and not just in a single deprecated source ... David Gerard (talk) 17:53, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:55, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:55, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 17:56, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'll be neutral here. I understand that BLP has raised the bars but do we have to filter every old article through this. And yes, as per now, they don't pass WP:GNG. Lunar Clock (talk) 12:28, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think we do have to filter as many old articles as we can through improved BLP standards if we are going to be a reliable encyclopaedia. And indeed the subject of this article is certainly not meaningfully notable. RobinCarmody (talk) 22:20, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The Sun isn’t a reliable source and so unless there’s anything elsewhere, fails WP:GNG Cardiffbear88 (talk) 00:05, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not supposed to be a platform for promotion. We have been far too lax in enforcing this rule for me to say with a straight face we are not currently a platform for promotionalism. We really need to pare back on junk articles in a big way.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:49, 12 January 2020 (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) 21:32, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Fold (brand)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. The references provided are mere mentions. Appears to claim notability by association, contrary to WP:NOTINHERITED. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:42, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:42, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:42, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:42, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In addition to the poor (and lack of) sourcing, this article relies heavily on it's coatrack. Praxidicae (talk) 17:49, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is clearly WP:PROMO.TH1980 (talk) 03:06, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'd G11 it if it hadn't an AFD - David Gerard (talk) 21:37, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agreed that the original article appeared too promotional in tone. I have largely rewritten it. However, the Daily Telegraph article certainly amounts to significant coverage, as do those in Drapers and The Financial Times that I have just added. Edwardx (talk) 11:22, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, that's vastly improved. Keep now. Nice one! - David Gerard (talk) 14:47, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's been improved sufficiently to pass the GNG. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:23, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Passes general notability guidelines. Good job at improving! Missvain (talk) 21:01, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As nominator, I would happily withdraw the nomination given the excellent rescue work done by Edwardx. Given that some editors have supported the deletion and not since changed their !vote I don't think I can withdraw it, so the AfD will have to run its course. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 22:56, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- You can strike your text and add a "keep" ;-) - David Gerard (talk) 23:44, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 22:00, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ottoman Slavic[edit]

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

This seems to be an invention by the article creator. A Google search for "Ottoman Slavic language" gives 2 hits, one to this article and one to a Revolvy mirror. A Google search for the alternate name "Raška language" gives an astonishing 15 hits, most of which Wikipedia hits created by the article creator or Wikipedia mirror hits. None of the hits look remotely like a realiable scholarly source. Google Books and Google Scholar give 0 hits outside Wikipedia. T*U (talk) 16:58, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:04, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:10, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:11, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Many Ghits are false friends - mistaken hits that have nothing to do with this topic. Of those, the scholarly articles deal with "Slavic-Albanian Language Contact", or word borrowings. This seems to be made up in a day or at best, original research. Bearian (talk) 22:45, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, that is Curtis' paper, I can confirm when he says "Ottoman Slavic" it does not refer to this topic. --Calthinus (talk) 19:01, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not sure what this article's intended topic actually is. The terminology is particularly confusing. "Ottoman Slavic" usually refers to varieties of Slavic spoken during Ottoman rule -- i.e. primarily to Serbo-Croatian varieties, and Bulgarian~Macedonian~Aegean~Torlakian~aghfuckit ones. This seems to refer to a specific idiom in official use, some sort of Ottoman equivalent to Old Church Slavonic. That said, most of the sourcing for the page does not look RS (one is from 1938, for starters). At face value, this looks written from a very Bulgarian POV, but that might not be in bad faith. That an administrative lect of Slavic could disproportionately resemble the South East Slavic branch wouldn't really be surprising as that is exactly the case with OCS. If not, a good idea might be for the author to take this back into his/her sandbox, and improve it with reliable sources, then give me or anyone else who is willing to check a ping after they do so. --Calthinus (talk) 19:01, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- As you suggest, the intended topic of this article seems not to be the "varieties of Slavic spoken during Ottoman rule", but an elusive "specific idiom in official use". This is underlined by other edits by the article creator. They have also created the redirect Raška language and attempted to make links to this article by linking the redirect. In this edit they also defined it as a "literary norm". (That edit was made by an IP, but the edit histories makes it obviously clear that it is the same editor.) Similar links were made in other articles, like here and here. --T*U (talk) 08:50, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - TU-nor, you're right, those edits seem misguided at best to me. I am pinging Angel Angel 2 -- perhaps they can clear up some of the confusion? --Calthinus (talk) 16:03, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - They will not be able to clear up anything, since they are now indeffed... --T*U (talk) 13:23, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - My bad, this all should have been a bit more obvious to me.--Calthinus (talk) 21:55, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I do not know. The Sublime Porte would have needed to be able to use a Slavic language to communicate with its Slavic subjects. I suspect this of being a translation of an article in another WP; and I do not read Cyrillic script, let alone understand the language. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:11, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the whole text seems to be a more or less word-by-word Google-translated version of the Serbian article, created last July by an IP editor. The Bulgarian version is a completely different story, where the Ottoman porte is not even mentioned. --T*U (talk) 13:23, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsalvagably confused. To the extent its intended content can be ascertained at all, it's almost certainly a POV fork of something, either Old Serbian language or Middle Bulgarian. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:46, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TNT at best.--Calthinus (talk) 14:05, 16 January 2020 (UTC)1Ὡ[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Roskin[edit]

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

Subject appears non-notable. I found several news blurbs announcing his appointment to leading the ICA, but all appear to be derivative of a press release appearing here: [3]. The ICA is a non-notable trade organization for promoting the business of colored gemstones. His other shot at notability would be his awards. The Liddicoat Journalism Award also appears non-notable, and I can find no coverage of the 2004 awards. The sole source mentioning his award is on a bio page from an organization he works for. Other media mentions generally stem from outlets quoting a sentence or two about gem-related news posted to his blog. I can find no evidence that he is important enough to his field to warrant an article, and it seems that his most notable contributions have been as a trade promoter. Skeletor3000 (talk) 16:45, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 16:45, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 16:45, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 16:45, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 16:45, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is a lack of indepth secondary coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:30, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I did my due diligence and found a few articles that talk to him as a subject matter expert, but, everything else is a mere mention. Nothing significant. Missvain (talk) 21:29, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:58, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great Plains Communications[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP; written like an advertisement Mvcg66b3r (talk) 16:10, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 16:10, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 16:10, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:13, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Originally a WP:SPA article on a company. I have updated the article to include the company's acquisition by Grain Management and this company is mentioned in industry coverage of Grain Management's overall strategy and a subsequent acquisition. However I don't see these or prior coverage such as that referenced in the article, or found in searches in previous company names, as rising above the trivial coverage provision to demonstrate WP:NCORP notability. AllyD (talk) 09:37, 17 January 2020 (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. Opinions are divided about whether there are enough good sources for this topic, and this isn't something I can decide as the closer. Sandstein 06:34, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dalit History Month[edit]

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

Fails WP:EVENT and WP:GNG.

Coverage is trivial and made by partisan sources for promoting an agenda. Nothing significant or notable has been proven. Unreliable blog sources at best only talk about "why we need Dalit History month"[4], which means that there is no such month and Wikipedia should not be used for advocacy per WP:ADVOCACY and WP:PROMOTION. WalkingDisks (talk) 15:12, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WalkingDisks (talk) 15:21, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG e.g. 1, 2, 3.----Pontificalibus 17:15, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These sources are unreliable and they frequently publish the articles they have received from their readers. The News Minute makes it clear on the source that "It is for these reasons that, through the month of April, The News Minute brings its readers a series of special reports and articles focused on caste, with the objective of keeping the conversation going."[5] It fails WP:RS. Shouldn't be hard to identify that these sources reads like typical press-releases. Bharatiya29 19:16, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Apparently this "history month" is going on for 5 years but lacks any significant coverage from independent reliable sources such as WP:HISTRS and WP:SCHOLARSHIP sources. Bharatiya29 19:16, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG and WP:LASTING.There is significant coverage in reliable sources , clearly independent leading Indian newspapers ,magazines ,newsites including Deccan Herald ,First Post ,Business Standard,LiveMint,The Indian Express ,The Hindu ,Huffington Post ,ThePrint ,The Asian Age ,The Week ,Outlook and Hindustan Times amongst others and also Academic journals like Television & New Media published by SAGE Publications and CrossCurrents this is without going through the Indian regional language media.Please note we are not comparing the sources of this article with Black History Month.Some newspapers are publishing a series of articles as part of Dalit history Month and there some other references in the article.As noted in the Washington Post ref below a news portal called The News Minute became the first mainstream English media outlet in India to run a Dalit History Month series on caste discrimination, Dalit poetry and art and this being followed by some other newspapers as well of publishing a series of articles not just one single article under Dalit history Month.
Please note the references below are from leading mainstream Indian newspapers and magazines and I strongly disagree that all of them are promoting an agenda and publishing press releases or advertising in the form of articles to promote this, the only major Indian English newspaper not below is The Times of India.Most of them have been considered reliable sources for years and see no major issue in the RSN board to be considered otherwise or to be considered partisan.

The Asian Age How Wikipedia cancels dalit icons
The Hindu Celebrating Dalit History Month
Huffington Post Dalit History Month Is A Love Letter To Our Ancestors
Deccan Herald A month to reminisce Dalit contribution to history
First Post Ambedkar Jayanti 2017: Here's a look at Dalit History Month to explore forgotten narratives
Feminism India Writing Our Own Histories – Why We Need Dalit History Month
LiveMint A brief history of the Dalit memoir
Spotted Goddesses: Dalit Women's Agency-Narratives on Caste and Gender Violence
Washington Post The new 140-character war on India’s caste system
Business Standard Revisiting stories to revive Dalit history Dalit History Month hopes to refocus the world's attention on the experiences of the community
Hindustan Times Why we must not do away with reservations for Dalits: Opinion by Sadhguru
ThePrint of Shekhar Gupta DALIT HISTORY MONTH Articles that are part of the Dalit History Month series
First Post Dalit history month: In UP's Chitrakoot upper-caste sanitation workers outsource cleaning to lower-castes, paying them paltry sums as wages
The News Minute The Dalit History Month Series.
The Wire Dalit History Month: Education Is a Distant Dream for Some Children
Himal Southasian Dalit History Month
India Abroad A call for Dalit Renaissance: Oppressed community confronts diaspora’s discrimination
Asia News Indian bishops invite the faithful to celebrate April as ‘Dalit history month'
Daily hunt A month to reminisce Dalit contribution to history
The Indian Express How Babasaheb helped me understand my identity as a Dalit-Christian
Scroll Resistance and resilience: Dalit History Month 2018 showcases neglected histories and untold stories
Deccan Herald Ambedkar Jayanti: A year of turbulence and some hope
The Week Unapologetically yours
Outlook These Arrows Don’t Miss Their Mark
ThePrint Dalit history threatens the powerful. That is why they want to erase, destroy and jail it
Scroll Resistance and resilience: Dalit History Month 2018 showcases neglected histories and untold stories
Television & New Media published by SAGE Publications New Media and the Dalit Counter-public Sphere Sage Journals
CrossCurrents "Resisting Injustice: Seeking New Ways to Speak!" Cross Currents

Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:51, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.asianage.com/opinion/columnists/151219/how-wikipedia-cancels-dalit-icons.html	Looks affiliated, the writer is a dalit activist.	Opinion pieces are not reliable source.	Fails it.	✘ No
https://www.thehindu.com/books/celebrating-the-dalit-history-month/article23527323.ece	Not really affiliated with the source.	Reliable, but it is mainly about a different subject.	Just a single sentence mention of actual "dalit history month", rest of the article is about just something else.	✘ No
https://www.huffingtonpost.in/thenmozhi-soundararajan/dalit-history-month-is-a-_b_9726120.html	Affiliated with the subject. Source itself calls the writer a "Dalit transmedia artist and activist".	It is just an opinion piece which is written like an advertisement since it promotes involved individuals, their facebooks, and their websites.	Since we are talking about what "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".	✘ No
https://www.deccanherald.com/content/669977/a-month-reminisce-dalit-contribution.html	Mainly cites the opinions of people like "Dr Karthik Navayan, a human rights activist".	It is a clear re-write of the opinion piece from Huffington Post, a total advertisement promoting involved individuals and their websites.	Absolutely fails GNG.	✘ No
https://www.firstpost.com/living/ambedkar-jayanti-2017-heres-a-look-at-dalit-history-month-to-explore-forgotten-narratives-3383696.html	Same as above. Repost of the opinion piece written on Huffington Post.	It is a clear re-write of the opinion piece from Huffington Post, a total advertisement.	Far from it.	✘ No
https://feminisminindia.com/2017/04/27/dalit-history-month/	Unreliable opinion blog.	I have already addressed this source on nomination that it talks about "Why We Need Dalit History Month" in the sense that we don't have one in reality.	Advertisements don't count.	✘ No
https://www.firstpost.com/living/ambedkar-jayanti-2017-heres-a-look-at-dalit-history-month-to-explore-forgotten-narratives-3383696.html	Not affiliated with the subject.	No question about the source.	Only a quote from "Christina Dhanaraj of the Dalit History Month Collective" who is obviously not independent neither the coverage is significant.	✘ No
a book	Not affiliated with the subject.	No question about the source.	Only a single word passing mention.	✘ No
Washington Post The new 140-character war on India’s caste system	Not affiliated with the subject.	No question about the source.	Only a single word hashtag passing mention.	✘ No
Business Standard Revisiting stories to revive Dalit history Dalit History Month hopes to refocus the world's attention on the experiences of the community	? The details about the author are scarce.	No question about the source.	Same interviews with the closely involved people and the article ultimately reads like an advertisement.	✘ No
Hindustan Times Why we must not do away with reservations for Dalits: Opinion by Sadhguru	Not the author's field.	Not the author's field.	Only a single word passing mention.	✘ No
ThePrint of DALIT HISTORY MONTH Articles that are part of the Dalit History Month series	Not an article, just a category or a keyword.	Not an article, just a category or a keyword.	Not an article, just a category or a keyword.	✘ No
First Post Dalit history month: In UP's Chitrakoot upper-caste sanitation workers outsource cleaning to lower-castes, paying them paltry sums as wages	Not affiliated with the subject.	No question about the source.	Only a single mention in a clickbait headline.	✘ No
News Minute The Dalit History Month Series.	Churnalism don't count.	Obviously unreliable.	Just a set of dialogues and interviews provided to the website by the involved individuals.	✘ No
The Wire Dalit History Month: Education Is a Distant Dream for Some Children	Churnalism don't count.	Obviously unreliable.	Only a single word passing mention in a clickbait headline.	✘ No
India Abroad A call for Dalit Renaissance: Oppressed community confronts diaspora’s discrimination	Churnalism don't count. It is just about an event hosted by the involved individuals.	Unreliable self-published blog.	Because unreliable sources are inclined to include more details about non-notable subject by posting their interviews and stuff.	✘ No
Himmal South Asian Dalit History Month	See no article.	Not an article, just a category or a keyword.	Not an article, just a category or a keyword.	✘ No
Asia News Indian bishops invite the faithful to celebrate April as ‘Dalit history month'	Asianews.it is a Christian missionary source.	unreliable	It nowhere describes the 'history month' either way.	✘ No
Daily hunt A month to reminisce Dalit contribution to history	Just a reposting of Deccan herald per the footnote: "Disclaimer: This story is auto-aggregated by a computer program and has not been created or edited by Dailyhunt. Publisher: Deccan Herald"	unreliable	reposting of a press release	✘ No
The Indian Express How Babasaheb helped me understand my identity as a Dalit-Christian	Opinion piece published by the co-founder of the subject and includes no details about this subject.	unreliable	Opinion piece with only a passing mention in footnote that the author is related to the subject.	✘ No
Scroll Resistance and resilience: Dalit History Month 2018 showcases neglected histories and untold stories	Churnalism don't count. Article is exactly same as the one pubished by dailyhunt.	unreliable	Churnalism that is yet another repost of a press-release	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Consider comparing these passing mentions, inferior, unreliable, and plain advertisements with the sources concerning Black History Month [6][7], a history month which this subject (Dalit history month) is admittedly attempting to imitate. You would realize that this subject has failed to attract "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". WalkingDisks (talk) 07:43, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I updated my table following this comment. I would repeat it again, that this is subject promotes historical revisionism and we need neutral reliable (preferably scholarly sources) to define this subject. The sources we have right now are far from that. WalkingDisks (talk) 11:55, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:11, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:11, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources brought by Pharaoh of the Wizards and visible in my own search.NotButtigieg (talk) 16:10, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have analyzed them right above. Can you show your sources too? WalkingDisks (talk) 07:44, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

courtesy ping to NotButtigieg. —usernamekiran(talk) 22:58, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that the Deccan Herald article A month to reminisce Dalit contribution to history [8] is focused on this month, and in in depth. And although it is only an opiniion essay, editors may see the relevance of the discussion of Dalit History Month in How Wikipedia cancels dalit icons [9]. My searchs bring up quite a lot of sources, including "transmedia artist and activist Thenmozhi Soundarajan along with other Dalit women in the US and in India helped lead the #DalitWomenFight campaign and started Dalit History Month in April to exemplify Dalit history and resistance." (p. 60, Spotted goddesses : Dalit women's agency-narratives on caste and gender violence, Roja Singh, Zürich : Lit Verlag GmbH & Co. KG Wien, [2018]). NotButtigieg (talk) 15:47, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The first example is obviously a non-neutral press release (as highlighted by the nominator). The second example is a mere passing mention. How do these sources fulfil the GNG requirements? --RaviC (talk) 01:03, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

V Ajmal is a Journalist writing in the Deccan Herald and writes on numerous topics clearly diverse topics as ‘Sumac’ offers authentic Turkish, Afghan dishes to Weight Loss to Kerala Election Victory as seen here and Deccan Herald is WP:RS and this is not a Press release or an interview A month to reminisce Dalit contribution to history.Please go through all the articles written by him here they are all indepedent disagree with the nom's assessment.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:26, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources found above. Bearian (talk) 20:12, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:42, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- If this is notable as the author of the table seems to imply, it requires a much more substantial article that says what the "month" has achieved. I am not disputing the reliability of the article, but am questioning whether it is notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:17, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I like this and think it is awesome, but the sum of all the parts of this come across as slightly promotional and possibly the case that this is perhaps a bit too new - which sort of feeds back into the promotional vibe I'm getting from this. Yes, I am aware that this has its roots from 2013 as an observance. I would rather see this return to Wikipedia after it has some solid footing on its own. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:26, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Bharatiya29. Similar press-releases, hashtag promotions and articles mainly involving interviews of closely involved people fails our requirement of significant coverage from independent sources. --RaviC (talk) 01:15, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found above. We need more authentic WP:RS verification rather than deletion nominator himself(WalkingDisks).Shankar2001 (talk) 02:04, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And which 'sources' are you talking about? You need to focus on content not editor. WalkingDisks (talk) 09:38, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Further reading: WP:MUSTBESOURCES, and Wikipedia:But there must be sources!. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:23, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please note disagree with the asseement of sources above and giving 3 clear examples as per WP:THREE Sorry to say I disagree with the assessment above by the nom while do not want comment on each and every one but will give you 3 clear examples. Went the list of all the articles written by V Ajmal in Deccan Herald here or Ankita Maneck in First Post here are clearly independent of all the topics they have written.

V Ajmal is a Journalist writing in the Deccan Herald and writes on numerous topics clearly diverse topics as ‘Sumac’ offers authentic Turkish, Afghan dishes to Weight Loss to Kerala Election Victory as seen here and Deccan Herald is WP:RS and this is not a Press release or an interview A month to reminisce Dalit contribution to history]
Ankita Maneck is a Journalist writing in the First Post and writes on numerous topics which are clearly diverse topics as seen here and this is a not a Press release or an interview Ambedkar Jayanti 2017: Here's a look at Dalit History Month to explore forgotten narratives
Geetanjali Krishna a journalist writing in the Business Standard and writes on numerous topics which as clearly diverse topics as seen here and this is a not a Press release or an interview Revisiting stories to revive Dalit history

Further as noted by Washington Post that that The News Minute became the first mainstream English media outlet in India to run a Dalit History Month series on caste discrimination, Dalit poetry and art this is being followed by others like The Wire , ThePrint of Shekhar Gupta ,Scroll.in, even the First Post has written under dalit History month here and this followed by other media outlets also.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:20, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"V Ajmal is a Journalist writing in the Deccan Herald", but the article is promotional citing people of the organization and written only to promote it.

"Ankita Maneck is a Journalist writing in the First Post", but the article is a clear re-write of the opinion piece from Huffington Post, a total advertisement.

"Geetanjali Krishna a journalist writing in the Business Standard"... still the article has same interviews with the closely involved people and the article ultimately reads like an advertisement.

Washington Post only mentions a hashtag.

If you really want to prove notability this essentially WP:FRINGE subject which promotes historical revisionism, then you would need quality scholarly sources like others have already noted. Not just advertisements. For a name, Black History Month [10][11] has enough independent coverage from the reliable sources to back up the subject's notability. WalkingDisks (talk) 09:36, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry to say I disagree with you Deccan Herald ,First Post and Business Standard are reliable sources and the Journalists V Ajmal ,Ankita Maneck and Geetanjali Krishna are clearly independent of the subject and not affilated with the subject they are not Press releases ,interview ,advertisement and these clearly pass WP:THREE.Please note there are references from academic journals like Television & New Media published by SAGE Publications and CrossCurrents.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:41, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
Deccan Herald:A month to reminisce Dalit contribution to history	Yes: V Ajmal is a Journalist writing in the Deccan Herald clearly independent of the subject and writes on numerous topics clearly diverse topics as ‘Sumac’ offers authentic Turkish, Afghan dishes to Weight Loss to Kerala Election Victory as seen here	Deccan Herald is a WP:RS	Yes	✔ Yes
First Post:Ambedkar Jayanti 2017: Here's a look at Dalit History Month to explore forgotten narratives	Yes. Ankita Maneck is a Journalist writing in the First Post clearly independent of the subject and writes on numerous topics clearly diverse topics as seen here	First Post is a WP:RS	Yes	✔ Yes
Business Standard:Revisiting stories to revive Dalit history Dalit History Month hopes to refocus the world's attention on the experiences of the community	Y Geetanjali Krishna a journalist writing in the Business Standard clearly independent of the subject and writes on numerous topics which as clearly diverse topics as seen here	Business Standard is a WP:RS	Yes	✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:27, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right in the beginning of WP:THREE, it says: This is an essay on notability. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. And this essay is in userspace, at User:RoySmith/Three best sources. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:18, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dennis. The references above are merely part of the subject's own activism to promote the subject than any coverage which would be totally independent from the subject. Orientls (talk) 15:50, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete the subject fails notability criteria for events, and general notability criteria as well. It has been going on for 4-5 years, and it doesnt have sustained significant coverage. What I could find is press releases, and interviews. Both of these things can not be used establish notability. Also, "per all the delete votes above". —usernamekiran(talk) 19:18, 17 January 2020 (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 Move to draft space. Opinion here is split between straight deletion and covering this topic in a broader-scoped article. The move to draft space allows those who are interested in it to try the latter. Sandstein 21:56, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alibi (language game)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, this article was created in 2010 by a user who only did this, never has had any references. Although this is not necessarily an issue a gsearch brings up nothing about this (excluding sites that mirror this wikiarticle), apart from the role playing game Alibi, that involves people taking on the role of criminals and police, and this entry from the Macquarie Dictionary which adds the letters 'ullab' after the 1st syllable of each word (which probably isn't notable either). Coolabahapple (talk) 10:44, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:46, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:46, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:46, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was surprised actually but I could not find anything to demonstate notability, or even that it existed other than the same one found by NOM, because I can remember "playing" this "game" when I was about 11/12/13 years old. We used a different replacement/insert syllable though I think, and I do not recall having a name for the "game". I was going to suggest a redirect to Cant (language), ie cryptolanguage, but I think the single almost nothing reference from Macquarie is not enough to support even one sentence there. Itaf atanyone catan fitand atany retaferences atat atall Ita wotauld beta intaterested. Aoziwe (talk) 12:58, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a real thing, eg Gibberish (language game), and see, eg, this. But I cannot find any "Australian" context reference. Aoziwe (talk) 13:09, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trivial content, not encylopdic. Teraplane (talk) 23:14, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:15, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, have just added this afd to the education afd list as editors with expertise/experience with pedagogy may have come across the game? Coolabahapple (talk) 07:17, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~delete~~ I'm unable to source this at all. Hobit (talk) 06:09, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, a catchall article on the topic (secret child languages of Australia?) appears to be where this belongs. At the moment, no such article exists, so perhaps the Language game is the right merge target. So merge but I don't know to where. Hobit (talk) 00:09, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Language game, which has a table of language games in different languages - 13 are listed for English, but not this one, yet. That article also needs additional sources, but the Macquarie Dictionary source which the nom found would be sufficient for including this game in the table (blogs are not usually reliable, but official blogs of museums, dictionaries, etc, can be). RebeccaGreen (talk) 05:00, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To comment on the merger proposal.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article contains no references at all. Topic is obscure and of little interest. Teraplane (talk) 00:22, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would not object to a merge but I do think the only reference available is extremely weak and still favour delete. Aoziwe (talk) 02:37, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have found another reference, an article in the Sydney Morning Herald by Richard Glover, 'Kids' secret language: how to craliback the code' (16 June 1990) [12]. I will clip it when I can. It also mentions Arp and Nash as other secret languages. A letter to the editor, in response to one from a kid who was disgusted that the SMH had given away the code, mentioned another one, called Tutney, in use in Armidale in the 1930s. Do any of those ring a bell, Aoziwe? RebeccaGreen (talk) 05:59, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No they don't. But good finds it seems. Perhaps we should be writing a new article Children's secret languages in Australia, in which Alibi is included and redirected to? I have now also found these:

"A Secret Language!". The Sun. New South Wales, Australia. 18 December 1938. p. 3 (SUNBEAMS SUPPLEMENT). Retrieved 11 January 2020 – via Trove.
"THE SECRET LANGUAGE OF CHILDHOOD". Leader. Victoria, Australia. 29 October 1898. p. 34. Retrieved 11 January 2020 – via Trove.
"CATCH-AS-CATCH-CAN". The Sun. New South Wales, Australia. 6 April 1930. p. 2 (SUPPLEMENT TO THE SUNBEAMS). Retrieved 11 January 2020 – via Trove.

Aoziwe (talk) 09:22, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (nom here), a big thankyou to Aoziwe and RebeccaGreen for all their work on this, i fully support a "catchall" article for these secret children's languages with Alibi being included. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:01, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coolabahapple - abah ==> "Coolapple" ? Aoziwe (talk) 10:34, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LOL Aoziwe, i do like my apples cool (and crunchy:)), balibiut thalibiats nalibit alibiit. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:04, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin. This looks like it is heading to keep the content but remove the article for the time being at least. Perhaps you might consider userfying to a sub page under User:Aoziwe/sandbox, or perhaps similar for RebeccaGreen if they are agreeable, and one of us can get to the new article soon? Aoziwe (talk) 10:31, 13 January 2020 (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 important (non-fictional) info is already in the parent article. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:47, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spinal Tap discography[edit]

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

This article is doing double duty, listing both actual, real-world Spinal Tap albums and the fictitious ones that exist solely within the film's universe (and supplementary material). The former is a valid thing to list, but with a mere three albums (and six singles) to their name, it can be included on the band's main page no problem— and indeed it is. The latter, though, is just a bunch of WP:CRUFT without any demonstrated or demonstrable notability outside of fan circles. It appears to be well-sourced (citing several supplementary materials), but is this really something for Wikipedia to chronicle? — Kawnhr (talk) 07:58, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Kawnhr (talk) 07:58, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Kawnhr (talk) 07:58, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Kawnhr (talk) 07:58, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There's no problem with keeping both the real and the fictional songs on Wikipedia even in the same article. We have tons of articles about fictional works which include information about things that don't exist side by side with real world information. It's fine as long as it is clearly marked and isn't so exhaustive that it turns into fancruft. However I agree that this doesn't need to be a standalone article; the main Spinal Tap article can cover both. Michepman (talk) 19:30, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the Spinal Tap discography article, keep the information in the Spinal Tap (band) article, per Michepman's reasoning. Cerebral726 (talk) 19:33, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge information about real albums to Spinal Tap (band) and the three real album articles, as appropriate. Merge information about fake songs/albums to This Is Spinal Tap (the movie). This is an unusual case -- a fictional band with fictional albums that became a real band with real albums -- so the relevant WP rules will have to be bent a bit, but the nominator is correct on how this discography article is doing double duty in an awkward and messy fashion. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:23, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While deletion absolutely makes sense, I find the above merge suggestion to be more appropriate. Accesscrawl (talk) 15:37, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:40, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge This article really doesn't need to exist. Not only is it confusing to those unfamiliar with the film and the band, it's all stuff that can be covered in the Spinal Tap (band) and This is Spinal Tap pages. The information is notable enough to be kept on Wikipedia, but I really don't understand why it needs its own standalone article. It's really basic information that doesn't need to be taped off.Ducktech89^(talk), 15:57, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As far as I can see, there is no information on this page regarding the real-life albums that is not already covered on the articles for those albums. And, the information regarding the fictional albums is only using a single source, which is a fansite. So, I don't see anything that actually needs to be merged anywhere. Rorshacma (talk) 16:20, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I give this page a two-word review: Shit sandwich. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:49, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Separate discography pages are usually only for listing chart positions from multiply countries and gold/platinum awards. So in this case it is best to leave this info to the relevant main pages. Mattg82 (talk) 22:36, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:52, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Village Ventures[edit]

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

No evidence of passing WP:GNG/WP:NCOMPANY ~ Chip 🐺 05:33, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ~ Chip 🐺 05:33, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:30, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:30, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, expand — this company and the article first came to my attention when it acquired the notable legal review firm, Chambers and Partners; as such, coupled by the notable founders, I'd say it's worth expanding. Deleting it would also de-centralize compiled information (its assorted holdings). It's on my tall pile, to expand, (though I'd hoped that someone else might do so before I get to it). Lindenfall (talk) 19:01, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, I agree with the above. Perhaps combining with an existing relevant article would also be an option. However, I’d this doesn’t happen soon, delete. ~ Chip 🐺 05:47, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per my prod: " No evidence of passing WP:GNG/WP:NCOMPANY." Not seeing what makes this not a spam (WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES, etc.). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:39, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:39, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: an unremarkable venture fund going about its business. Fails WP:NORG & WP:PROMO. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:02, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: I've been trying to find more substance for this entry, but the most prominent and substantial press is about its wind-down in 2012, and the articles I'm seeing were heavily contributed to by the founders. I find the topic remarkable as it's more of a network of partnerships than an individual fund, but I don't think we have enough independent press to establish notability now, and with the wind-down no press will be forthcoming. Pegnawl (talk) 16:33, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not inherited and while some of the founders have articles (and I'm not sure they both meet notability guidelines) and some of the peripherally connected organizations are notable, I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on *this* company and containing independent content. Topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:38, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:NCORP and reads like a press release, so WP:PROMO, as well. Not notable for stand alone article. Kierzek (talk) 14:52, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of educational institutions in Lahore. Content can be merged from history. The "keep" opinions are mostly about deletion process and other issues, but do not address the core problem here: does this topic have enough sources to support a standalone article? Nobody seems to be able to actually produce such sources. Sandstein 06:39, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Society Public School, Lahore[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NORG, WP:SIGCOV. Störm (talk) 19:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:23, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:23, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:23, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: There is a need for a List of schools in Lahore where these fledgling articles can be incubated. At the moment this remains a draft, but contains useful information and has potential. I don't accept that there is not significant coverage when the judgement is made by someone who cant read Urdu. The quality of article and lack of referencing is dismal but retrievable. ClemRutter (talk) 20:39, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:36, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: (or at least merge or as a minimum redirect with history): In the space of a couple of weeks the nom. will hav decimated Wikipedia's entries of schooling in Pakistan from some of set of mostly very poor articles to near nothing rather that organising a controlled transition at WikiProject level so those now falling foul of WP:WPSCH as a result of ~~RFC in 2017~~ RFC in 2017 could be transitioned in the spirit of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES.Bigdelboy (talk) 22:32, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Corrected link to RFC in 2017) Please note User:Bigdelboy=User:Djm-leighpark; further contributions on this thread will be as Djm-leighpark Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:31, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have looked at the nomination again. It says Fails WP:GNG, WP:NORG, WP:SIGCOV- which is a merely a WP:POV as no evidence is given of how it fails. How does it fail WP:GNG? How much effort was made to research this opinion? Was any attempt made to discover the school reference code, and use that to enter the Ministry of Education listings- either on- line or by visiting the government offices and view their archives. A respectable journalist would do so. Has any attempt been made to view the Urdu media, where press reports would be found.

With WP:SIGCOV- a school that is functioning well does not generate media attention; it has taken a years of serious misdemeanours for certain Catholic schools to gain SIGCOV.

It takes about 45 seconds to boilerplate a nomination, a couple of hours to disprove a negative. This process needs to be reviewed. ClemRutter (talk) 12:16, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:39, 10 January 2020 (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. After several relists, there is still disagreement as to whether the sources presented are sufficiently independent and detailed to write a comprehensive article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:07, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

125 Group[edit]

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

Non notable organization lacking WP:CORPDEPTH and falling short of WP:NCORP. Celestina007 (talk) 09:38, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:38, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:38, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:38, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:53, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, meets notability threshold, mentioned in four separate external cites. Cerenybid (talk) 09:43, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cerenybid is the creator of the article. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 19:28, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cerenybid please by all means do provide us with this WP:RS that shows evidence of notability of the aforementioned organization & I'd be more than happy to withdraw the nomination. Also note that a WP:BEFORE I conducted shows the organization has no notability whatsoever. Celestina007 (talk) 09:57, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Has 'no notability whatsoever' in your opinion, yet it has gained mentions in 5 articles in 4 separate publications. Is also mentioned in numerous other articles from similar sources, but won't bother adding until this AfD has run its course. Cerenybid (talk) 10:33, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Tagging a notability query might have been a better initial step rather than bringing this article to AfD twelve minutes after it was created? A number of sources are available; I have added a couple to the article, and further coverage can be seen, for example in this query though, now that an AfD has commenced, it remains to consider whether that mix of announcement-based industry coverage meets WP:ORGDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 14:08, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AllyD hey, I get the argument for “article was just created so should be left unbothered for a while” but aren’t we supposed to move article to Mainspace when they are ready for Mainspace? Isn’t that why a draftspace & sandbox is available for us? So we could work on articles extensively as we see fit before moving them to Mainspace? Do correct me if I’m wrong though. Celestina007 (talk) 01:12, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Celestina007, what would parking in draftspace achieve? Sure there is scope to expand, but having tucked away out of sight in draftspace isn't going to do that. The rules are quite clear; anybody with an auto approved account can create an article in mainspace. If we look at the first article that you wrote, 12 minutes after its creation this is all that existed. Had somebody been as anal as you are being, that uncited stub would have been deleted before you could finish it. Cerenybid (talk) 08:29, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cerenybid First off, I have never said this to anybody but you would be the first I would say this to, competence is indeed required and right now you do not possess it the article you speak of is not my first article but my 40th and latest article which was in my draftspace until it’s completion (that is, from start to finish, fully cited and sourced) before I moved it to Mainspace. For you to call it my “first article” and also say it was “unsourced when I moved it to Mainspace” shows an overwhelming incompetence from your end. Celestina007 (talk) 10:06, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Celestina007, my bad I took your most recent creation, not your first, but the principle remains the same, it another editor had been as trigger-happy as you, it would have been up for deletion before you had even finished it. As inconvenient as you might find it, one mistake does not equate to incompetence. AllyD's advice is a better way of dealing with it. That you elect to write an article in draft space and then make 124 edits over 3 hours to get it finished is your way of editing. Just because I elected to bypass the building in draft space process is irrelevant, the end result was a complete article, (that is, from start to finish, fully cited and sourced). Cerenybid (talk) 10:57, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cerenybid I see the problem is you don’t understand the imperative difference between draftspace and mainspace. Nonetheless, what I’m saying is it is customary to do all the work in your draftspace/sandbox (this includes sourcing it from start to finish) before moving it to Mainspace (like I do) I have never and would never move an unsourced article to Mainspace like you erroneously claim. I don’t understand this To & fro with you the issue here is I don’t think your article is notable enough to be a stand alone in the encyclopedia that’s the issue at hand every other thing is secondary. Furthermore I’m sorry for calling you Incompetent earlier on, you made false comments against me which got under my skin but now I’m no longer irritated I feel calling you or anyone incompetent is just plain wrong. Celestina007 (talk) 12:01, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Understand perfectly the difference between draftspace and mainspace, but if an article can be fully cited from the beginning, the draftspace route can legitimately be, and dare I say often is, bypassed. Cerenybid (talk) 16:33, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. there are six independent sources. Rathfelder (talk) 11:49, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Not only must the sources be independent, but the content must also be independent and not rely on information provided by the organization themselves. Can you point to a source that contains Independent Content? See WP:ORGIND for a definition of Independent Content. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:23, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Consider the present state of AFC, with the immense backlog, mostly composed of articles that either are of new editors who cannot create in mainspace or of editors who do have COI, and in very large part consisting of articles that will rightfully never be accepted. I think it is more helpful for any editor with even moderate experience to avoid using it unless there's a good reason. Those who, like myself, who work screening articles there will be grateful. DGG ( talk ) 22:47, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:55, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, 2 books published 125: The Enduring Icon ISBN 978-1-4456-7859-7 & Inter-City 125 Haynes Manual ISBN 978-1-78521-266-6 also registered charity Tempest3K (talk) 22:24, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Neither of those books are *about* this organization and both books were written *by* this organization so not an independent source and fails WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:23, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The test for notability (which can be found at WP:NCORP) is not whether the organization exists or even whether there are "independent sources". The sources must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. The sources must also contain in-depth information about the company and be significant. Not a single source passes the test for establishing notability and none of the Keep !voters above have argued anything beyond a simplistic argument of "sources exist". Topic fails GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:23, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:38, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: unless everyone has back issues of Rail or Heritage Railway at home, I’m not sure we can fully assess how significant the mentions are. From what I’ve seen of the online sources, enough of the sources are independent and notable to pass notability. However, some attempts at adding more notable sources are needed in the future. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:43, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Cardiffbear88, which sources are independent and notable to pass notability? HighKing⁺⁺ 12:39, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - HighKing, in my view this, this and this all demonstrate notability and are independent sources - and that's before we count the six references from independently published magazines.Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:12, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks Cardiffbear88. While I agree the sources are "Independent sources", this is only one part of a number of tests, one of which is that the references must include Independent Content and it is clear that both references fail to meet the requirement for "Independent Content" which is defined as follows in WP:ORGIND: 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. Since both of those press releases/announcements have been produced by sources connected with this organizations, they both fail the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:14, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment None of the Keep !voters have managed to provide a single reference that meets the criteria for notability and many appear to not grasp the criteria for establishing notability as per WP:NCORP. The Keep !voters should point to specific references (as is required) so that we can all examine the sources and comment - otherwise this is just a whole lot of vague noise. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:39, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As others said: "The test for notability (which can be found at WP:NCORP) is not whether the organization exists or even whether there are "independent sources". The sources must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. The sources must also contain in-depth information about the company and be significant. Not a single source passes the test for establishing notability and none of the Keep !voters above have argued anything beyond a simplistic argument of "sources exist". Topic fails GNG/NCORP." Topjur01 (talk) 10:45, 19 January 2020 (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. Materialscientist (talk) 14:54, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hamza El Moutadir[edit]

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

Spammy article with references that were completely fabricated/unreliable (literally new blogs posted in the last 2 days.) There are no other sources in Arabic or English to support any of the claims here. It's nothing more than vanity spam. Praxidicae (talk) 14:47, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:50, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:50, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: One source which is a site selling his book, otherwise non-noteable. N0nsensical.system^(err0r?)_(.log) 14:51, 10 January 2020 (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) 18:55, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Etmenan[edit]

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

No indication of meeting WP:NBIO. References are mostly routine coverage about his business. Google searches finding very few hits and no significant coverage about him. Some routine coverage in industry publications. noq (talk) 14:33, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:45, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:45, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:28, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG. He hasn't done anything that we'd call notable. This is a guy who runs a small hotel chain. Bearian (talk) 22:53, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails general notability guidelines. Missvain (talk) 21:39, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:43, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

China-based financial stocks in Hong Kong[edit]

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

WP:OR and fails WP:GNG as an article and fails as a list due to non-existence of Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Selection criteria. The current list is only loosely based on 八行五保 (eight bank and five insurer), a jargon term (a buzzword) by radio financial program host that grouped a few financial stocks together and nothing in depth per WP:GNG. It also omitted People's Insurance Company of China (listed in HK since 2012) and China Everbright Bank (listed in 2013) and way many banks that were not owned by the central government, such as Bank of Qingdao, Bank of Tianjin, Harbin Bank, Shengjing Bank, as well as China Cinda Asset Management . Did the radio host just retired the term "foo1 bank and foo2 insurer" (X行Y保), or the list itself is a trivial list that selectively grouping companies with their place of origin and business sector? There may be some equity classification structure by Morningstar or MSCI, but seem not that sufficient to craft a WP:GNG article, unless people think just listing a few WP:GNG passing articles as a list would merit to keep Matthew hk (talk) 11:29, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Matthew hk (talk) 11:29, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Matthew hk (talk) 11:29, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Matthew hk (talk) 11:29, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Matthew hk (talk) 11:29, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:13, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:14, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:25, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Groups of stocks can be notable: this reminds me of FAANG, which is a better sourced article on a similar topic. However, I think this falls down to two issues. The first is naming; the name China-based financial stocks in Hong Kong seems to describe a large category of stocks. To discuss this grouping of 13 particular stocks, we should name the article Eight banks five insurers or a similarly literal translation of the Chinese term. But the second and bigger issue is sourcing. With zero sources at present, it is impossible to argue that WP:GNG is met. I would argue to delete, without prejudice to recreation if relevant sources are brought forth. BenKuykendall (talk) 17:47, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. All arguments to delete are either made by now-blocked sockpuppets, or suspicious IP addresses that share the same misapprehension that sources have to be in English in order to warrant a page on the English Wikipedia. This is explicitly not the case in WP:N. Setting this unconstructive participation aside, all other participants seem to consider this probably sufficiently notable via its author and the foreign-language references available - though a Bengali-speaking editor could certainly assist in sourcing it more fully. ~ mazca ^talk 10:29, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sab Kichu Bhene Pare[edit]

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

The book is not notable at all to be kept as an Wikipedia article, the book's author is not so notable also; the given references of this book are not strong enough to prove that the book is notable, please read Wikipedia:Notability (books), and see if this book meets up the criteria(s) of having an Wikipedia article or not. Iniya Vale (talk) 12:43, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.67.159.194 (talk) 12:56, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 January 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:00, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:10, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Because:

The book has not won a major literary award.

The book has not been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable or significant motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement.

The book is not, or never has been, the subject of instruction at two or more schools, colleges, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country.

The book's author is not so historically significant that all of the author's written works can be considered notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GullPark (talk • contribs) 06:56, 6 January 2020 (UTC) SOCK STRIKE. Britishfinance (talk) 10:22, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Since that is bengali novel written by Bangladeshi writer Humayun Azad. it is a Bangladeshi article, it is basically found in Bengali Wikipedia. Please search on google bn:সব_কিছু_ভেঙে_পড়ে and review sources via transliteration. 1 2 and probably those source can be passed to WP:NBOOK.-Nahal^(T) 19:39, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@NahalAhmed:, Plese provide English-language references for this book, in Bengali Wikipedia Bengali references are suitable, in English Wikipedia English references must be given; also please note:

Has the book been ever awarded?
Is the book is so popular?
Is the book author (Humayun Azad) popular like Humayun Ahmed in Bangladeshi readers-world? (not in foreign countries)

Please give strong logic on behalf of this book.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.67.159.19 (talk • contribs) 04:09, 7 January 2020 (UTC (UTC)

Delete per nomination, no strong reference in English-language and the book is not notable at all, on the other hand the author of the book has no popularity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.67.159.130 (talk) 10:18, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This nomination is part of a series of nomination by a group of socks targeting articles on critics of Islam in Bangladesh. This is not a good faith nomination. The subject easily passes GNG.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 18:51, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Though nominated by a sock, an administrator must notice that this article has no strong and reliable English-language reference, it should be kept or not will be decided tomorrow finally as seven days since 3rd day of January is going to be completed tomorrow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.30.32.119 (talk) 04:23, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am finding this discussion rather hard to follow due to the number of unsigned comments. However, I would note that per WP:NONENG , it is not true that "in English Wikipedia English references must be given", and also, the first "delete" !vote omitted the 1st criterion of WP:NBOOK, namely "The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews." A book only needs to meet one criterion of WP:NBOOK, so doesn't need to have won an award, etc etc. I am looking at the sources included to try to work out if they are reliable, independent, etc, and also trying to search for other reviews - not easy in a language I don't read. If those who do read Bengali know of other reviews, please add them. RebeccaGreen (talk) 05:27, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 13:14, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If I could find any single reference in English-language on behalf of this book I would have definitely added that to this article; This book has no resemblance with Things Fall Apart, if anyone claims that Things Fall Apart written by Chinua Achebe is similar to this book that is a blatant lie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.30.32.162 (talk) 15:47, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If the book is notable then English-language reference on behalf of this book could be found by google searching.
Comment: meta:Special:CentralAuth/Iniya_Vale (i.e. about the AfD nominator) says: "global account "User:Iniya Vale@global": set locked", and for "Long-term abuse". It seems that sock puppetry is an/the issue; I wonder how this may be reflected in the comments above. -- Hoary (talk) 08:45, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per NahalAhmed. (ec) The nom as been globally locked as a sock, and I suspect the some IPs above may also be related; the 1st AfD was only in May 2019 and was closed as no consensus due to the amount of socking which prevented a proper discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sab Kichu Bhene Pare. Britishfinance (talk) 10:34, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 21:49, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of human protein-coding genes 1[edit]

Following discussion at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Seppi333Bot, it appears that these huge data tables (#3 has 289,117 bytes of markup, for example) serve no useful purpose for our readers, and possibly fail WP:INDISCRIMINATE. They could, perhaps, be moved to user space if the sole user who maintains and claims to use them wishes to keep them, though the data would be better transferred to Wikidata. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:31, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Was wondering when someone might try to do this.

These pages are a complete list of all known protein-coding genes in the human exome. This webpage provides a straightforward explanation of what an exome is.

As for whether or not the topic of this list is notable per the WP:GNG: this is a PubMed search. FWIW, whole exome sequencing, which is used to analyze an individual's exome, is a highly utilized technology in the biotech industry [13][14].

Now, as for the list entries compliance with WP:CSC bullet 1, there are entire fields of study centered around human genes and proteins; even the less well understood genes/proteins in that list can be expected to have articles in the future based upon that alone, but for the time being, notability for every single entry in the list is easily determinable by clicking the links to the corresponding entries in the gene database and protein database listed alongside each gene in the list; they cite relevant literature since those organizations provide official names for validated human proteins and protein-coding genes.

This list can't be indiscriminate (by definition of that word) given that the list is complete; the selection wasn't random or haphazard, it was systematic.

In any event, keep per above. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 13:06, 2 January 2020 (UTC)"[reply]

Keep but rename. I was wondering what a "genes 1" was then I realised the list was split apparently for size reasons, and 1 means "page 1" of the list. Perhaps the convention of doing these alphabetically would be best e.g. List of human protein-coding genes A-E or by chromosome List of human protein-coding genes on chromosome 1 would be preferable to arbitrary numbers.----Pontificalibus 13:39, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Switching it to a letter-based name actually seems like a good idea. Alternatively, I suppose that could also be indicated in the navbox for the list pages; either way, that sounds like a useful improvement for list navigation. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 13:52, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~leaning delete~~ for two reasons. First, frankly this looks like a dump of the HGNC database, which I have to doubt is in the public domain; beyond the copyright issue, I have to question the merits of parallel maintenance of what I presume to be a dynamically expanding list. Second, I don't see the utility as it stands of a list that really doesn't do more than duplicate the corresponding category, except as a housekeeping tool to track uncreated articles. Mangoe (talk) 14:40, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Three points:
  1. Data release policy
    No restrictions are imposed on access to, or use of, the data provided by the HGNC, which are provided to enhance knowledge and encourage progress in the scientific community. The HGNC provide these data in good faith, but make no warranty, express or implied, nor assume any legal liability or responsibility for any purpose for which they are used.
    Guidelines on use of data in publications (copyright and licensing)
    It is a condition of our funding from NIH and the Wellcome Trust that the nomenclature and information we provide is freely available to all. Anyone may use the HGNC data, but we request that they reference the "HUGO Gene Nomenclature Committee at the European Bioinformatics Institute" and the website where possible. per https://www.genenames.org/about/. It'd be rather absurd for the organization that assigns the official name and symbol to all human genes to claim their nomenclature as their intellectual property; it wouldn't even be feasible because no researchers would submit their research and request a gene symbol for the purpose of having an HGNC-copyrighted symbol assigned.
  2. There is no category for human protein-coding genes. Even if there were, if list-category overlap were a valid WP:DEL-REASON for lists, then thousands of list articles would be subject to deletion given how common it is for a category and list article on the same topic to exist.
  3. The scope of the largest gene category on WP - Category:Genes - encompasses all genes in all organisms (hence the Category:Viral genes and Category:Prokaryote genes subcategories), but the sum of all pages in that category and all of its subcategories is still >3000 less than the number of bluelinks in these lists (~11500) and they'll gain another ~2000 bluelinks in the near future to boot; edit: the largest category is Category:Human genes, which is comparable in size; besides protein-coding genes, it includes pseudogenes, non-coding RNAs, multi-protein complexes, and phenotypes. The nonexistent human protein-coding gene category wouldn't serve as a viable alternative to these lists, because article navigation isn't the point of list articles in general or this one in particular. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 17:42, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
leaning keep This is something of a special case. I don't think we have a precedent for "tiny set of pages consisting of a massive data mirror, with their own attendant bot to groom them every few days". But taken on their own merit, I'd say these pages are a useful addition to WP. Having a sortable list of coding human genes where each entry (potentially) has a link to its own WP article: that is something the original database cannot provide. This link function on its own makes them worth having. Automatic bot updates also make a qualitative difference to the manually updated, selective lists at Chromosome 1 etc. The duplication aspect to these does rub me the wrong way, but I'd rather not have such housekeeping concerns prevent the addition of good encyclopedic material. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 04:25, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:31, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:31, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment I can see the argument for retaining the tables, but the division into four arbitrary chunks is a still a problem. Really, the best organization is not to break it up at all, because the sort-by-header feature is otherwise broken. Mangoe (talk) 13:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Combining everything into one article would probably yield something too large for comfort. These are ~280k each at the moment; combining them would more than double the currently largest article size on the project (see Special:LongPages) and come with a range of potential problems - mostly, you are screwed if you are on dial-up... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:00, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:21, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The list is reliably sourced to HUGO Gene Nomenclature Committee. The list is useful, especially because we have a large number of WP pages linked to entries in the table. Perhaps more human genes need to be processed by User:ProteinBoxBot under someone's supervision (the bot is currently blocked). Yes, I think these four pages should be merged to a single list. My very best wishes (talk) 04:36, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I'm discounting the drive-by vote by BOZ that is the same in all D&D AfDs and that lacks any argument. The remaining "merge" opinions do not agree about where to merge to. Sandstein 21:48, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Griffon (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 12:17, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:17, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:17, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 13:11, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to list of D&D monsters. There’s not enough out of universe coverage of this individual creature to warrant an article. We can cover the significant details in a D&D monster list and potentially include some of the relevant details in the main article on griffins.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:40, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm really not finding anything of substance about the D&D specific version of the creature that would allow it to pass the WP:GNG or warrant its own article. It could maybe be mentioned in the "Modern Usage" section of the main Griffin article, and thus this could serve as a redirect there, but that is about the extent of it. Rorshacma (talk) 16:31, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. DnD cruft failing GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:11, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Griffin - same beast, different century Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:18, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure fancruft. Disambiguation would not make a reasonable redirect to the main griffin article._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:32, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Sirfurboy (talk) 21:54, 16 January 2020 (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, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Choker (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 12:15, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:15, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:15, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 13:11, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indpeth secondary coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:27, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:40, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another of the myriad of minor D&D creatures that don't pass the WP:GNG. Sources appear to be limited to the usual array of primary sources and non-reliable websites. Rorshacma (talk) 16:34, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. DnD cruft failing GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:11, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. — Sirfurboy (talk) 21:56, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A redirect can be created (and contested) at editors' discretion. Sandstein 21:45, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gorgon (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 12:12, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:12, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:12, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 13:11, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or failing that merge and redirect to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters, because some treatment in secondary sources exists. There is no benefit in loosing that information. In addition to the ones appearing in the article (I have added an online source), the gorgon gets three pages of space in The Monsters Know What They're Doing, and the related Gorgon personality from the Birthright Campaign Setting appears in Pyramid (magazine) no. 16. Daranios (talk) 14:34, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:40, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The primary sources are, of course, not valid as establishing notability. Nor are the sources that are about actual, mythological creatures that may have inspired them, as they are not about the topic at all, and do not mention the D&D creature. That basically just leaves the book mentioned by Daranios above that, when reading the text, is nothing but a straight description of what the monster is in the game, that provides no actual indication of notability and merely establishes that WP:ITEXISTS. Thus, the creature fails the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 16:27, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters, though that article also has problems. Per Roshacma, the secondary sources provided do not do anything other than provide in-universe information, and therefore do not count towards WP:GNG. The references already in the article are either primary or do not actually relate to Dungeons & Dragons, and also do not contribute towards GNG. I could not find anything better with a search. Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:57, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. DnD cruft failing GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:12, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. — Sirfurboy (talk) 21:55, 16 January 2020 (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. Being bold given the articles PROD history. Missvain (talk) 21:40, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seven Shadows[edit]

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 11:51, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:51, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:51, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A clear PROD case; doesn't provide context for the reader to even understand what it's about. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:24, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is written entirely in-universe. The opening suggests this is real, at least it is less than explicit that they are fictional. This could be fixed, but there is no sourcing to show they are notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:29, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this almost looks like an abandoned draft, but it says short-lived, making me think they knew it was done. Not notable. -2pou (talk) 14:38, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Apparently, I PRODed this nearly nine years ago, and then never bothered following up with an AFD after the PROD was contested. In the near-decade since then, nothing has changed regarding this so-called team. They are ridiculously minor, appearing, if I recall correctly, in a brief flashback of a single issue of a comic. There is nothing to indicate that there are any sources regarding them at all, let alone enough to pass the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 16:39, 10 January 2020 (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. Kinu ^t/_c 07:36, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MRC Global[edit]

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

Company potentially fail WP:GNG. Also, there is an info tag that one editor of the article has close ties with the company. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:17, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tyw7: Hi all, I created this article as part of an effort to add basic pages for very large public corporations (specifically, those appearing on the Fortune 1000) in the United States that lacked Wikipedia pages. In theory, one would expect such large public corporations to meet Wikipedia notability-it looks like I can add a brief history section using sufficient reliable sources to clearly establish that it meets WP:GNG. The ties to the company tag was added due to a brief promotional-style edit that was quickly reverted and is no longer reflected on the page. DemocraticLuntz (talk) 19:48, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:17, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:17, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:17, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:17, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:LISTED notes that being listed or such is not enough for WP:NCOMPANY. WP:CORPSPAM based on press releases, their rewrites, and worse. WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:55, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need more discussion on the article now DemocraticLuntz has improved it
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:34, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I expected to find some analyst reports on this company which would count towards notability but I have been unable to locate any. As such, I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:35, 16 January 2020 (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" opinions are weak: one does not address the issue of sources at all, and another refers to two texts that are clearly barely disguised press releases. Sandstein 21:36, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Autocerfa[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. A Google search turns up nothing for news coverage. ZXVZ (talk) 15:27, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:28, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:28, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google news search returns some news coverage in industry specific sources: (e.g. [15] and [16]). It may be notable based on 1700 companies using the software. Given that, and that the software has implications for EU bureaucracy and was promoted by the French government, it may be notable according to WP:PRODUCT rather than WP:COMPANY Machetazic (talk) 13:03, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That's not how WP:PRODUCT works, the company must be notable. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:57, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe that Google search results aren't the only things indicative of notability and striking the article as not notable because of a Google search doesn't show an accurate scope of notability. Furthermore, American/British companies have a heavy bias on Wikipedia because they are much more represented on localized Google searches. Autocerfa has French government sponsorships, and the specialized nature of the company tailored toward specific enterprises (not the broader consumer market) means that there isn't coverage outside of industry specific sources.BeeTheBestThatYouCanBEE (talk) 21:38, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pure PR. Sources linked above are press releases. 1700 customers? What's special about that? What French government sponsorships (not that that would make it notable)? duffbeerforme (talk) 13:46, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- How can you tell they are press releases? There is no contact info for the company and they are not labelled as press releases, so they don't fit the usual format. "Les Pepites Tech," is the official directory for French Tech. See here: [17].Machetazic (talk) 07:18, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - How can one tell? From reading them. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:04, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 16:04, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:07, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:07, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pure WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES. Routine business with no coverage outside press release, their rewrites or worse. WP:CORPSPAM. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:32, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:33, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content. The Decision Atelier source relies entirely on information provided by the company and founder, fails WP:ORGIND and is churnalism. The Blog post fails as a [[WP:UGC|user generated content] and is not considered a reliable source. Topic fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:57, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:33, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shleppers Moving & Storage[edit]

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

Organization has not been discussed with in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. Does not possess WP:CORPDEPTH & ultimately falls short of WP:NCORP. Celestina007 (talk) 11:09, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 11:09, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 11:09, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 11:09, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 11:09, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails general notability guidelines. Missvain (talk) 21:41, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:33, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eärendur[edit]

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

A DAB page with three entries, none of them mentioned in the targets. All entries fail MOS:DABMENTION. Narky Blert (talk) 10:59, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are redirects to this DAB page, and it seems simpler to list them here rather than to take them to WP:RFD if the target page is deleted as a result of this discussion:

Narky Blert (talk) 11:11, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:05, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suport per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:4360:70DF:A7BE:7B40:9D51 (talk) 23:25, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The deletion of many non-notable Wikipedia articles and lists has created a large of stray redirects and dab pages that need to be cleaned up. Hog Farm (talk) 01:26, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. This meets the criteria for WP:G14 as a disamb page that "disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages". BenKuykendall (talk) 05:13, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by nom. WP:CSD can only be used if all intermediate revisions qualify for CSD. This article dates back to 2003, and there are more than 30 such revisions which would have to be checked. Narky Blert (talk) 20:14, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for Narky Blert: if any article gets deleted, its redirects are also deleted per WP:G8. For that reason, it's not necessary to also list the redirects. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:45, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply @Tavix: Even if a bot does the G8'ing, I had the page open and it was easy to check. Not all closers are scrupulous in cleaning up after deletions. I see orphaned redlinks left over from speedies/prods/AfDs all the time, often on DAB pages. Narky Blert (talk) 20:22, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an article masquerading as disambiguation, but we do not need to record every name Tolkien used. None of these figures appear in any stories of Tolkien in any meaningful way.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:39, 12 January 2020 (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 Wraith: The Oblivion#Books. Merge from history is possible as suggested. Sandstein 21:31, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wraith: Sins of the Fathers[edit]

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

A novel with one review in a niche magazine, and no significant attention otherwise (as far as I could see in the 29 Google hits[18]. Fram (talk) 09:58, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wraith: The Oblivion#Books and merge all relevant content (basically the title, publisher, and ISBN) FOARP (talk) 10:17, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:03, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect & Merge to Wraith: The Oblivion#Books, per FOARP. The single source is not enough to pass the WP:GNG, but a valid redirect target exists. Rorshacma (talk) 16:41, 10 January 2020 (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) 18:40, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dungeon Maps[edit]

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

One shortish review, and not much else to establish notability. Seems to have received little attention when they were new, and nothing significant since[19]. Fram (talk) 09:54, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete - This one is practically unsearchable but non-notable as far as I have been able to do so. FOARP (talk) 10:20, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A single mention in a niche publication is not enough to pass the WP:GNG. Though, as mentioned, the super-generic title makes it rather difficult to do any kind of searches. Rorshacma (talk) 16:44, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:11, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:11, 11 January 2020 (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 William Shatner#Non-fiction. Sandstein 21:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek Movie Memories[edit]

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

It's a book related to Star Trek (so I am skipping PROD). Anyway, you'd have thought there would be some sources (reviews) sufficient for this to pass WP:NBOOKS. But I am not seeing anything in my WP:BEFORE except a few minor blog reviews ([20] or worse [21]), which are not very reliable. There is a mention in passing in a few books like [22], and the only sources that may have something more is [23] but the snippet view this time fails me totally and I can't verify if there is an in-depth treatment. No hits in Scholar/LibGenesis (which is a surprisingly nice search engine for book reviews in my experience). No indication of awards, etc. MemoryAlpha page on this book does not contain anything useful that would suggest we missed something like an award or review or such. The book is already mentioned in William Shatner and sadly it does not seem it warrants a stand-alone article; at best we can redirect this entry back to Shatner's article (or perhaps to Star Trek Memories, which it is a sequel of, and which is notable due to the virtue of having some reliable reviews and such). Thoughts? Can anyone find some reliable reviews I missed somehow (and please don't confuse this with Star Trek Memories, similar title warning!)? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:29, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:29, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:29, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to William Shatner#Non-fiction for now, if nothing else, as it is already included in the bibliography there. Unless someone has better luck at finding some reliable sources covering it, that's about the best it can hope for. Rorshacma (talk) 16:47, 10 January 2020 (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. Being bold and closing this one early. Missvain (talk) 21:52, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Grant Thomson[edit]

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

Non-notable actor. Apart from the massive BLP concerns, the subject's only claim to fame is starring alongside some other people in a few TV shows. His IMDB profile lists mainly short films and bit parts, such as "Huge Scottish Football Player", "Hard Man" and "Bear Hugging David Beckham" (!) The article was created back in 2008, by an WP:SPA. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:51, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:08, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:08, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:06, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete no source other than the non-relialbe and non-notability showing IMDb.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:34, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - aside from the lack of sources and the other issues rightly raised above, the article does not suggest the subject has had a notable acting career up to this point. Dunarc (talk) 21:30, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable and no sources. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:46, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Created over 11 years ago and still no sources apart from IMDb. Run-of-the-mill jobbing actor it seems. According to the bio he is "best known" for playing Charlie in Still Game but the character only gets a one line mention in List of Still Game characters. So he hasn't done "significant multiple roles" required by WP:NACTOR. Mattg82 (talk) 15:55, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Actors do not automatically get a free pass over WP:NACTOR just because the article has acting roles listed in it — even just to claim that an actor passes NACTOR #1, what is required is not just a list of acting roles, but evidence of the reception of reliable source coverage about his having of roles. If all an actor had to do was list roles, and didn't have to source the significance of the roles at all, then every actor on earth would always get an instant notability freebie. But this article was created 12 years ago, and remains completely unsourced even today, which means he does not pass the bar. Bearcat (talk) 18:25, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing that indicates a WP:GNG pass and fails WP:NACTOR. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:28, 14 January 2020 (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. Sandstein 21:29, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Sabom[edit]

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

No significant, in-depth coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Neutrality^talk 22:04, 25 December 2019 (UTC) Neutrality^talk 22:04, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. Celestina007 (talk) 23:45, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Happy Festivities! // J 947 ^{^(c)} 02:31, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Happy Festivities! // J 947 ^{^(c)} 02:31, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Happy Festivities! // J 947 ^{^(c)} 02:31, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Happy Festivities! // J 947 ^{^(c)} 02:31, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure about Sabom, but his 1st book appears to be taken seriously. It was published by Harper Collins, has 700+ citations on GS, and has been reviewed [24]. The 2nd book also has almost 300 GS citations. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:07, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:45, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per my earlier comment, in lack of much other response here. Some combination of WP:NAUTHOR and WP:NPROF (via the high citation count) looks to apply. I added the review in the JNDE to the article. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:31, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability as a doctor or an an author.NotButtigieg (talk) 10:21, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is plenty of coverage, of the doctor and his books, in newspapers from the late 1970s on. A report on Colorado College awards in 1966 names him as the recipient of an award for outstanding scholarship in premed, and in 1972, he was an instructor in the US Army Medical Field Service School - so there is more biographical detail available that can be added to the article. Multiple sources can be added about his studies of near-death experiences. He certainly meets WP:NAUTHOR, appears to meet WP:NPROF, and probably meets WP:GNG as well. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:19, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:44, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable as a n academic, an author ,or otherwise. An award for excellence as a premed undergraduate does not contribute to notability-- no undergraduate awards do and this is remakabley trivial even for them. Being an insgtructor in the army , similarly, DGG ( talk ) 09:48, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Added a review of the 2nd book; also from the Journal of Near-Death Studies (a bit fringe). Added also a 2nd review of 1st book, from NEJM (certainly not fringe), for 3 total reviews so far. Sabom also gets reasonably significant coverage in this NPR piece and in this Salon article. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:56, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 16:15, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep although his books are fringe topic they do have reliable sources reviews and other coverage about him, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 16:26, 11 January 2020 (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 isn't an actual "keep" opinion here, and what Pi314m writes makes little sense. Sandstein 21:28, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Sirkis[edit]

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

Article about a non-notable business man who fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 21:50, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 21:50, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 21:50, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. There is some discussion in two different articles about Mr. Sirkis, and it might meet WP:GNG accordingly - though the article itself sounds like a clipped summary. Poorly built. I'm going weak, here, because I'm honestly not sure if this would meet GNG, though - and should note that my reasoning is not because it needs a cleanup. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:30, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Author's question: does WP:GNG improve by having found (via the 4th from the right "WP Refs" item => Bloomberg News, and from there a bit more via google)

"He is now CEO of Stradis Inc. a developer of video compression technology." Pi314m (talk) 04:24, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Author's) Not an opinion: Notability. Got it (I hope)..

His self-developed marketing skills helped him sell the Hayes modem hardware, license the Hayes command set, and decades later, as CEO of Stradis, a company known for hardware that compresses and decompresses video, to promote their equipment to the broadcast industry, which is a major purchaser, using his background of having managed WREK broadcasting 1970/1971. He also took time during the mid/late 1980s from his career to, as a labor of love, not only fund but run and promote the offerings of a major regional theater.

If the above is supported by neutral, second party sources - much of which is within the article's cited sources (even if not in the article), I'd think the lowest score the article would get is draftify, having met notability. (obviously not a neutral opinion- I wrote the article; see Talk page as to why)

- First, I should note that the formatting makes your reply a little hard to read. Second, please make sure your posts to this are signed.

Now then. To answer, finding (and adding) material that meets the general notability guidelines does improve the article, but the material must still meet muster. I recommend checking out our reliable sources guidelines to this end. It's worth noting that a mention or so in an article does not mean that it makes the grade; a better article would have the person as the subject of such an article (such as the one where Mr. Sirkis is running a theater, which is linked). There's a lot to go through in a single AfD post, though, so you're best reading up on the WP:RS link I gave. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:27, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:32, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:43, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Author edit (in support of above item) - added
"Sirkis devoted four years (and money from his years at Hayes) to rennovating a "1940-vintage movie theater" dedicated to "the artier segment of the moviegoing audience in Atlanta." (with citation) Pi314m (talk) 08:59, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

.. another citation: to article with his name in the title "Sirkis is having 'reel' fun running the Ellis Cinema" Pi314m (talk) 17:40, 13 January 2020 (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) 09:42, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chain Reaction 2008[edit]

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

It seems this ran one or two years...not sure if it meets the WP:GNG. Raymie (t • c) 07:12, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 07:12, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 07:12, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:38, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Brown-era initiative that, despite having some prominent speakers, received zero sustained media coverage in reliable, independent sources. Looking at the (non-independent RS, single-source) brochure from the Council on Social Action it's not hard to understand why as it is far from clear what it was actually supposed to be about other than "social change". FOARP (talk) 10:10, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom, zero secondary sources Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:12, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there are no signs of lasting notability or even a high level of coverage at the time. Dunarc (talk) 19:44, 13 January 2020 (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. Sandstein 21:27, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Cloud Guru[edit]

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

Insufficient evidence of notability . The item in the Sydney Morning Hrald isa promotional article where the founders talk about their own project, and therefore is not independent by the standards of WP:NCOPR. The article in the Austin Statesman is a notice of funding + a quote from the founder and thus is not reliable for RS. The article in the Australian ,which I cannot access, also seems from the visible information to be either a statement by the founder or based on a statement by the founder. checking Google News and even Google I find more of the same:announcement of finance, and promotional interviews or reprints of what seem to be identical promotional interviews. Theeare discussions on reddit and quora. DGG ( talk ) 22:10, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. DGG ( talk ) 22:10, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I started this article thinking that the merger with Linux Academy would make it notable. Their co-founder also won the Entrepreneur of the Year award from Ernst and Young Zr2d2 (talk) 15:00, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 01:17, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep on the basis of current coverage. It's a bit promotional, but it more talks about them than promotes I think. Can't seem to access the other articles owing to what appears to be a paywall, so if we can get some better coverage that'll strengthen it up I think. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:03, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:37, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NCORP, The language of the article seems promotional.DMySon (talk) 12:59, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't work for, or subscribe to A Cloud Guru, so it certainly isn't meant to be promotional, if you have a NPOV way of stating things I would be open to it Zr2d2 (talk) 02:23, 16 January 2020 (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) 09:42, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sarkari Naukri Ind[edit]

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

Article cited with what appear to be press releases. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 08:21, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 08:21, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 08:21, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I couldn't find anything online except press releases and their own website. — MarkH₂₁^talk 10:23, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. — MarkH₂₁^talk 10:38, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. — MarkH₂₁^talk 10:38, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — MarkH₂₁^talk 10:38, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete similar to MarkH21, I couldnt find anything other than press releases. The website fails WP:NWEB, as well as WP:GNG. —usernamekiran(talk) 11:58, 10 January 2020 (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) 09:41, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Association of Magicians[edit]

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

Without any references, it seems like this article will have to vanish into thin air. Wolfson5 (talk) 07:58, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Wolfson5 (talk) 07:58, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:01, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I see a couple of book references (1 2) but both appear to be brief copied descriptions from CAM's website. Other than that only passing mentions in the media. FOARP (talk) 10:25, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and FOARP. I've looked through all the non-duplicate Google web and news search results. Press coverage is practically non-existent, but that which does exist is mere passing mentions or trivial coverage, including this business column from my local paper which also has a blurb about my optometrist. Web search results, likewise, are all trivial coverage, passing mentions, and directory listings, which don't qualify. Haven't looked through all the book results, but have looked through most of them and they appear just to be passing mentions, references in a tangential way, or bibliographic citations. Doug Mehus T·C 02:39, 12 January 2020 (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) 09:41, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doortechnik[edit]

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

Article doesn't pass WP:NORG. No references except to the company itself in the article and I couldn't locate any elsewhere, either. Wolfson5 (talk) 07:55, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Wolfson5 (talk) 07:55, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Wolfson5 (talk) 07:55, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A listing-type article by a WP:SPA which has lingered for over 12 years without improvement or claim to notability. Searches are finding nothing better than routine listings. Fails WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 08:47, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per nom Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:35, 11 January 2020 (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. There is realistically no consensus to delete this given the tainted nature of the now-globally-locked nominator and also potential issues with some of the other participation. Equally, the significant edits by Missvain seem to be improvements but have not been sufficiently commented on to wring an actual consensus to keep out of this discussion either. I very much agree with the position that if there are further good-faith concerns about this article, it would be far healthier to cleanly renominate it, otherwise we default to keeping the content. ~ mazca ^talk 14:55, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nafisa Kamal[edit]

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

The majority of the sources refer to her as Mustafa Kamal (politician) daughter and talking about her team players rather than her. Notability is not inherited. She is the chairman of Comilla Victorians and director of Lotus kamal group which are owned by her father Kamal. Chairman of a franchise and director of a company does not make anyone notable where's it is not a permanent place (changeable). If she is the first female cricket organizer in Bangladesh, then there should be any award or officially recognition by bd cricket board or government to claim her notability. If anything like this please do share. She is highlighted when Victorians win any matches and trophy. If you look at the sources maximum sources :

1.refer to she is a daughter of Kamal. 2. Maximum sources about comilla victorians players related. 3.some are unrelated with topic just like asking vote for her father etc. 4.she is highlighted in the news as the chairman of Comilla Victorians nothing else , when victorians win any matches or trophy.

Failed WP:SIGCOV, WP:ANYBIO Bbemoni (talk) 07:29, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bbemoni (talk) 07:29, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bbemoni (talk) 07:29, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Bbemoni (talk) 07:29, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the above comments. She's not yet been recognized as Notable. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:10, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agree with Bbemoni. Just to add, I think WP:NOTINHERITED applies here too. Lunar Clock (talk) 12:42, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: This is the 2nd nomination still as non-notable when it was first nominated. Maximum content added by single user, might be COI. Protect this article from re-create, maybe there have chance to re-create this article in future— Bbemoni (talk) 15:43, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where the first nomination was about notability. The article was vandalized by someone who did not want the subject to have a Wikipedia article. It was a snow keep. Missvain (talk) 03:52, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She passes general notability guidelines. These articles profile her and or are about her work in cricket, not her father. Including three interviews in three of the biggest news publications in Bangladesh, and India's most popular cricket publication:

আলোচনার কেন্দ্রবিন্দুতে নাফিসা কামাল from Jagonews24.com
"‘Mashrafe is a great leader, obviously I wanted him at Comilla’" from Dhaka Tribune
"Want to be at the top level of cricket: Nafisa Kamal" from NTV
"Revenue sharing should come into BPL - Nafisa Kamal" from CricBuzz

I will drop them on the talk page of her article for improvement. Missvain (talk) 03:48, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment : first three sources are already in the article. Sources :

1- about Comilla victorians jersy unveiled and players related 2- about Mashrafe and shakib 3- this is also players related. 4- you can search others franchise owners statement on revenue shareing.that doesn’t means others are also notable. And maximum sources are refer to she is a daughter of Mustafa Kamal and players related nothing else WP:NOTINHERITED. She is just mention in the news as a chairman of Comilla Victorians when victorians win any matches or trophy. Briefly describe about sources: 1- jersy unveiled of commilla victorians 2- unrelated- asking vote for her father 3- talked about players Mashrafe and Shakib 4- interview about players and mention that she is daughter of Mustafa kamal 5- nothing about nafisa kamal only about Comilla Victorians winning trophy 6- dead source 7 and 8- unrelated- about her father that he became member of cabinet 9 - personal website about she is director of company 10- unrelated- about her father. 11 and 12- about comilla victorians winning trophy 13 -unrelated and passing mention 14 and 15- unreliable sources just repeating previous news If she receive any award or recognition officially by government or cricket board as a "first female cricket organizer" in future then she will be notable till now there is nothing to claim her notable Failed WP:SIGCOV, WP:ANYBIO —Bbemoni (talk) 06:38, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, not a renowned organiser WP:SALT WP:TOOSOON Pokai (talk) 09:25, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note Nominator is now glocked. We have recently learnt that a number of paid sock farms are active from Bangladesh. I'm investigating further. The user probably belongs to Hafiz ansi and Mrittika.mehjabin (also the nominator of first afd) farm but it is hard to tell because there are so many of them. ~ Nahid ^Talk 19:01, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks NahidSultan. It appears that this article has been "victim" of numerous deletion attempts due to whatever reason. I hope the reviewers will take that into consideration. Missvain (talk) 20:05, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:32, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Non-notable entrepreneur,businessman . except daughter of a politician and ceo of a franchise , nothing outside found to support her notability . Fail GNG Ngrewal1 (talk) 20:57, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: well, this is strange. if you look at the history of this AFD, you will see that delete comment made under User:Pokai was from a proxy IP address then the sign was added later from another proxy after the first one got blocked. Now, the comment of User:Ngrewal1 is also made from the same proxy range and signed in the same way. ~ Nahid ^Talk 00:24, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: NahidSultan If you are concerned about socking, please report it to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations, if you haven't already, ASAP. Thank you. Missvain (talk) 18:25, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to reviewer – I highly suggest you close this as no consensus RATHER than just relisting it/deleting it/keeping it – and if folks want to see it re-nominated they can do so. My rationale for this request is because 1) The nominator's account has been globally locked due to socking behavior and 2) The first time the article was nominated for deletion it was speedy kept due to it being a vandalization nomination. Thanks for your consideration. Missvain (talk) 18:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have overhauled the article to reflect the reliable secondary sources that feature the subject significantly. Thanks. Missvain (talk) 19:52, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Convinced by Missvain.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 10:27, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:26, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hricha Debraj[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG, some success on a game show, but this is mostly a promotional article that lacks sourcing. It keeps getting moved from draft by the creator so this is the next option. There is one somewhat decent source, the indian talent magazine, but that appears to be a very brief overview without much in depth coverage. Another source barely mentions her and the rest are just videos. The sources just aren't there for her. Ravensfire (talk) 17:44, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ravensfire (talk) 17:44, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ravensfire (talk) 17:44, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:57, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not pass general notability guidelines. Missvain (talk) 21:54, 16 January 2020 (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 primary argument to keep simply does not appear to be based in Wikipedia policies regarding sourcing and notability. Consensus otherwise seems to support the nominator's suggestion that this fails the relevant notability guidelines. ~ mazca ^talk 15:02, 21 January 2020 (UTC) ~ mazca ^talk 15:02, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TAG TV[edit]

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

Article about an online-only "television" channel, referenced only to its own self-published website rather than any evidence of reliable source coverage in unaffiliated media outlets. As always, the bar for getting into Wikipedia is not simply the fact that its own self-created web presence metaverifies its existence -- the notability test is the ability to show that it has been the subject of actual journalism, in unaffiliated media outlets, at a volume and depth and geographic range that are sufficient to get it over WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Bearcat (talk) 18:04, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:04, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:04, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable, fails WP:GNG. WP:PROMOTION Wm335td (talk) 19:20, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is not online only, it is on Cable and IP Boxes. The channel is in association with channels such as BBC, CNN, Fox News, Al Jazeera etc. It also uses non original research sources such as ANI News etc. Over 50 million daily viewership on all platforms, would definitely consider it notable.

http://www.tagtv.info/tv-guide-audience-reach/

I've provided a second link below which has their daily news bulletins. Clearly shows they use multiple unaffiliated and reliable sources.

http://www.tagtv.info/category/news/ Hindian1947 (talk) 06:18, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The notability test is not whether they do or don't use reliable sources in their work, it is whether they are or aren't the subject of reliable source coverage about them in other media outlets. And I cannot find any evidence that they are distributed by any cable company in Canada, or indeed even that they have a license from the CRTC to operate in that manner in the first place — so you can't just say they're a cable channel and drop the mic, you have to show reliable source coverage, with TAG TV as the subject and not the creator, which verifies that the claim is true. Again, the notability test is not "it has its own self-published website to verify that it exists" — the notability test is "other media outlets have produced content about it". Bearcat (talk) 18:23, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Someone said above that TAG TV didn't use original sources. I told him they do. The channel is affiliated with companies such as BBC, CNN, Fox News, Al Jazeera. Listed on multiple IP boxes/IPTV. I've updated the Wikipedia page with multiple sources and information, hope you take a look. The channel is definitely notable. Over 50 million daily viewership, 170k+ subscribers on youtube etc. The sources and information I have added to the article have talked about and expanded on the notability. For example, the mayor of mississauga visiting the TAG TV staff, non related sources mentioning and discussing TAG TV. Hindian1947 (talk) 06:18, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're not getting it: the comment above is not incorrect, you're misunderstanding what it's about and what we're looking for. The notability test for a media outlet is not what other media outlets it is affiliated with — the notability test for a media outlet is not the extent to which the company has been the creator of coverage about other things, it is the extent to which the company has been the subject of reliable source coverage about the company in other media outlets. Notability is not established by what a company claims about itself, notability is not established by the number of subscribers it has on YouTube, notability is not established by getting an office visit from the mayor of the city — and the list of things you can use as "notability-supporting" sources does not include Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Roku, the channel's own self-published website about itself, anything that's a press release from any company's internal PR department, WordPress blogs, user-generated content on Medium.com, the Yellow Pages, or sources which briefly mention TAG TV's existence in the process of not being about TAG TV. What you have to show to establish notability is sources which represent other media outlets doing journalism about TAG TV as a subject, and exactly zero of your new sources are that kind. Bearcat (talk) 06:24, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, not exactly 0 are about that. Stop cherrypicking linkedin and the primary sources, look at the ones made by non affiliated sources. Linkedin sources have a specific purpose, a very narrow one. 50 million plus daily viewership is very notable i mentioned subscribers as it's a very easy way to gage notability. Also i have given sources in the articles that are other media outlets doing journalism about TAG TV as a subject why are you not mentioning them. Hindian1947 (talk) 07:14, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, exactly zero are that kind. LinkedIn pages may verify facts, but are not evidence of notability. To support notability, a source has to represent journalism, being done by a media outlet, with the topic in question as its subject — a company's own self-published claims about itself are not evidence of notability. Anybody can claim to have 50 million viewers — so the number of viewers that the company claims in its own self-published marketing materials counts for nothing toward notability until it's independently verified by a reliable source independent of the company's own self-published marketing materials. The notability test, again, is not what the company claims about itself — companies can and do lie about things like the number of viewers they have, so translating viewership into notability requires journalism to be done about the company in other media outlets besides itself, independently reverifying that the things it claims about itself are actually true. Bearcat (talk) 07:53, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On the CRTC, it is likely it they are exempt, so that it could potentially be an unfair allegation. https://applications.crtc.gc.ca/radio-tv-cable/eng/broadcasting-services-List?_ga=2.63587436.2121226200.1578272422-895540273.1578272422 Hindian1947 (talk) 01:06, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so guess what? One of our core criteria for the notability of a broadcast media outlet is the holding of a broadcast license — "license-exempt" services are not "inherently" notable at all. You just cut off your own legs. Congratulations. Bearcat (talk) 06:42, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you're exempt, you don't NEED a license. You still broadcast and it has no bearing on notability. Did you even read the link i sent or are you only trying to win an argument. No need to be patronising.Hindian1947 (talk) 07:14, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Our notability standards for broadcast media operations do require a license. "Exempt" services are not entitled to have articles on here in the absence of really solid media coverage, precisely because the lack of a CRTC license means they also lack the CRTC sourcing that helps to support the notability of a real licensed radio or TV station. Whether it's allowed to operate without a broadcasting license is not the point — it isn't allowed to have a Wikipedia article without a broadcasting license, because having a broadcasting license is one of our core criteria for broadcast media being notable enough for inclusion here. Bearcat (talk) 07:53, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:56, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now, until I hear back from Bearcat whether CRTC licensees need multiple, reliable independent sources. This article is in need of some substantial cleanup, expansion, and bare URL reference improvement, but we have a lot of radio and TV stations with little to no sourcing, so I wonder if this is an exception to our WP:GNG, perhaps? Doug Mehus T·C 02:30, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to reread my comments if you think "keep per me" is a thing. Television and radio stations have to have CRTC licenses to be handed a presumption of notability; unlicensed stations are allowed to have articles only if they can be referenced well enough to clear WP:CORPDEPTH, and there can be no special exceptions to that rule. Bearcat (talk) 03:30, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat, No no I got that, that they need a CRTC license - I don't dispute that as you told me that when an unlicensed CKOO-FM had slipped through the cracks, but do they also need to have multiple reliable, independent sources which cover the station in a significant way? Doug Mehus T·C 03:33, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They do, but the CRTC license itself counts as valid notability-supporting sourcing — which means that there's never any such thing as a CRTC-licensed station that's unsourceable. But again, the core point is that I argued delete, so there's no such thing as "keep per Bearcat" here. Bearcat (talk) 03:39, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat, Okay, I wouldn't have thought CRTC decisions would be independent sources as typically government listings (i.e., Elections Canada) count as primary sources, right? But we do need at least two, and ideally three, reliable sources, so are you saying that, potentially, there's some valid CRTC licensees (radio and/or TV) which fail WP:GNG despite having been issued a license? To your latter point, you did say, "Keep It is not online only, it is on Cable and IP Boxes. The channel is in association with channels such as BBC, CNN, Fox News, Al Jazeera etc. It also uses non original research sources such as ANI News etc. Over 50 million daily viewership on all platforms, would definitely consider it notable[,]" no? That's why I said "keep per Bearcat." Doug Mehus T·C 03:47, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat, I see you were the nominator. Geez, how did I miss that? But who is the "keep" !vote? Geez, I hate it when extendedconfirmed users forget to sign their comments/posts, which is why I opted in to SineBot. Doug Mehus T·C 03:49, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CRTC-licensed stations should ideally have additional sources beyond just the CRTC docments alone, but the license documents themselves do count as notability-assisting sources — in part because they're essential to properly verifying that the station even meets the licensing condition in the first place, but also because they're the only possible source for some of the information that a broadcast station's article needs to contain (e.g. the ERP and HAAT statistics of the transmitter). They don't permanently clinch the station's notability all by themselves if other sources turn out to be well and truly non-existent — for example, a station that had a license but then failed for whatever reason to ever actually get onto the air at all before that license expired, such as the Old CKOO example you alluded to, does not get to keep an article in defiance of the "established broadcast history" and "original programming" criteria just because it technically had a license it never actually used. But what the license documents do accomplish is shifting the burden of proof: if you can prove that the station has a CRTC license, then you need to prove that the station really, truly doesn't have any other sources before you can get it deleted.

But for unlicensed operations like this one, it's the opposite: precisely because there isn't a CRTC license to assist in sourcing the article over the notability hump, the people who want it to be in Wikipedia have the burden of showing that the correct kind of reliable sourcing does exist to get the station over WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH.

To summarize, CRTC-licensed radio and television stations are presumed notable until shown otherwise, so the burden of proof is on the "show that other sources absolutely don't exist before you can get it deleted" side of the equation — but unlicensed/exempt stations are presumed not notable until shown otherwise, and the burden of proof is on the "show that notability-securing sources do exist before you can get it created" side. This one is in the unlicensed/exempt class, however, and the sources that have been shown are not notability-securing ones. Bearcat (talk) 16:00, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat, Thanks for that very helpful summary on our notability tests for licensed/unlicensed stations, but in this case, Tag TV is a licensed station. So, if I've "heard" you correctly, as the nominator, it's incumbent upon you to show us that this station fails both WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Correct? Based on my preliminary review of the sources, WP:GNG may be met here, by virtue of the CRTC licensing documents and/or one or more sources; however, WP:CORPDEPTH may well not be. Is that a fair assessment? Doug Mehus T·C 16:16, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't a licensed station. Even Hindian1947, in his keep arguments, plainly admitted and demonstrated that it's listed as a license-exempt operation. There aren't any CRTC licensing documents being shown here at all, because there aren't any to show — the only CRTC "source" that's been brought to bear is its presence in the CRTC's list of exempt broadcasters that don't need licenses to operate. Bearcat (talk) 16:18, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat, Oh, I wasn't aware that we could have Canadian-based specialty cable television stations that didn't require a CRTC license. Interesting.

Still, I'm wondering about BuyNOW TV...a former, CRTC-licensed station but one which generated no press coverage whatsoever and nothing which would meet our WP:SIGCOV and WP:CORPDEPTH guidelines. There is one book, which is about a company which invested in BuyNOW TV but which is not about BuyNOW TV. The rest of the Google web search results are all directory listings, passing mentions, and copies of the Wikipedia page. Seems like a pretty clear WP:CORPDEPTH fail, eh? Doug Mehus T·C 16:45, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have yet to see any evidence whatsoever that this is actually a "cable television station" at all — I can't actually find any verifiable evidence that even one cable company in all of Canada actually carries it at all. That's claimed in the article but not adequately referenced as being true, and the only source that's actually been shown to verify anything about its distribution is an entry in a Roku app directory. One of our problems has always been that people have created hoax articles about radio or television stations that didn't actually exist at all, and/or overinflated the notability of streaming services by inaccurately claiming that they were real television or radio broadcasters — so the notability test isn't the fact that the article says the topic has cable distribution, but the quality of the sources that can be shown to verify that the claim is true.

But also, now that we're deep into the digital cable era, the CRTC did reorganize its licensing criteria a few years ago, and did indeed reclassify cable services as exempt from licensing if they (a) have fewer than 200,000 subscribers nationwide, and/or (b) broadcast 90 per cent or more of their content in a foreign language (i.e. not English, French or an indigenous language.) You can see Category B services if you need more information about this.

BuyNow TV may also be problematic, but I'll have to look into it a bit more before I can make a judgement either way — and, of course, it can also be listed for deletion if it actually fails the test. Bearcat (talk) 16:55, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Hindian1947, can you please add your signature to your "keep" !vote above? It's confusing me, and potentially, others as well, as I thought that was Bearcat's !vote. Doug Mehus T·C 03:53, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per discussion with Bearcat above. CRTC-licensed station fails WP:CORPDEPTH and likely WP:GNG as well. Doug Mehus T·C 16:47, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:24, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

European Academy of Music Theatre[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:ORG. WP:ORG says: "An organization is not notable merely because notable persons are associated with it. An organization is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." This page needs to be deleted. Topjur02 (talk) 19:33, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Topjur02 (talk) 19:33, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Topjur02 (talk) 19:33, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:36, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:37, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:00, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:55, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not pass general notability guidelines. Missvain (talk) 21:56, 16 January 2020 (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 to delete, after much-extended time for discussion. BD2412 T 15:24, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dennison, Arizona[edit]

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

It's just a name on a map. It "was merely a siding with no gas, motels or services for the tourists." The GNIS was wrong in calling it a populated place, the National Gazetteer properly classifies it as a locale [25]. Nothing remains there and the mass-production of the microstub with the falsehood "is a populated place" was negligent. Reywas92^Talk 20:06, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 20:06, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:54, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Again, not a populated place. GNIS picked it up from the Tucker Mesa Topo Map, which clearly shows this is a rail siding, probably named after the nearby hill. Absolutely no indication of GNG required under GEOLAND#2. MB 21:27, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Seems to have been a railroad station as listed here. In this place name book it's listed as "DENNISON (Coconino) — For an assistant roadmaster named Denny who had charge of Santa Fe Railroad track gangs.". I find a mention in newspaper archives "the Court held both Mexicans to the May term of the Superior Court. The check was given by the Santa Fe in payment of wages. It was given at camp Dennison, in Coconino County, about 6 miles from Winslow, for $1.93 and raised to $11.90. The Mexicans took the check to Winslow and tried to get it cashed" (The Coconino Sun 20 Feb 1914, Fri) and in this court testimony "Question: Where do you reside? Answer: Have been residing at Dennison. Question: You are employed as section foreman of the Santa Fe Pacific Railroad Company at Dennison? Answer: Yes, sir, at Dennison." which is supported by a contemporary article about the same incident stating "Thomas McSweeny, section foreman at Dennison A. T., who was bought to the city on belated No.2 yesterday" (Arizona Republic 03 Apr 1899).----Pontificalibus 14:08, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This area fails to meet the guidelines of WP:GEOLAND. Not a legally recognized place and no RS to support GNG. Lightburst (talk) 04:54, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Because I couldn't find a redirect target, Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway doesn't list stations etc ----Pontificalibus 07:41, 5 January 2020 (UTC) changing to keep see below[reply]
Keep I went from delete to weak delete to weak keep to keep as I've continued to search through 19th century newspapers. Though [26] which was a legal resolution to change the name of the road at exit 239 on Interstate 40, which is where the point on the map is found. "WHEREAS: It appears that Dennison, from which the road name was derived, is a phone station on the Santa Fe Railroad and does not have an association with the traveling public, also, the designation of Meteor City Road would help the traveling public get on the correct ramp for Meteor City, which now has gasoline and food for sale." We could, in theory, keep this information if we wanted to. It is referred to as a point in other newspapers such as [27] [28] [29] [30]. This [31] suggests there was a station there in 1894. It was included [32] here as a place that would fall within Coconino County in 1889. The Dennison section foreman died in 1899. It's called a "small station" [33] here from 1891. Listed here as a description of property from 1910. [34]. We are a gazetteer, this is historical, and there's a stub in here somewhere if someone'll let me. SportingFlyer T·C 13:48, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, SportingFlyer, WP is not a gazetteer, WP:5P1 says WP has many features of a gazetteer. The specifics required at WP:GEOLAND always apply. A flag stop is not a populated place. As a train station, it certainly could be notable if there were enough sources for GNG but I don't see that here. Mentioning in another article seems more appropriate, but as stated above there isn't even an article covering stops and stations of the ATSF. I would support adding a sentence to Coconino County, Arizona#Communities in a new subsection (perhaps called "Other named places"), Dennison is a former flag stop on the ATSF, as a redirect target. MB 00:20, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, it's pretty clear this will be deleted, but I don't think that's the correct result. Pontificalibus has a source which shows the place was populated, even if barely so, at one point, and as I've noted there appears to have been a station there in the late 19th century. WP:GEOLAND is typically read to be less strict than WP:GNG for places such as these, since our goal with GEOLAND is to properly document places past and present. We've had a recent problem with the GNIS as the sole provider of information about places, and there are a number of places we've deleted as not notable, but I don't think this is one of those in the slightest. Most of those had no secondary sources whatsoever. As I've shown above, there's definitely enough sources to create a stub article about this abandoned place, and it's listed as a valid place name in place name books (not gazetteers). The fact it's a railroad stop doesn't make it much different than say Harker, Florida, except Dennison actually has some pretty clear available sources and there was (allegedly) a farm at Harker. I would have gone ahead and updated the article myself if not for the fact everyone before me !voted delete - if kept, I can definitely make this into a valuable place stub. SportingFlyer T·C 01:59, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SportingFlyer, I don't think that one source is convincing evidence that this was ever any kind of populated place. As a foreman on the railroad, it may well have been a tent at a work camp for a few months. This is nothing like Harker, were the source said there were farms and people lived there and commuted to work from there. I don't see the value in a stub for an abandoned flag stop when all we know about this can be put into a sentence in another article. I support a redirect so if someone reads one of these sources and goes to WP to find out more, we are able to serve them by getting them to that sentence. But we need more than this for an article. MB 19:54, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've got access to newspapers.com finally and I'm sure there's somewhere the content could be listed as a train stop, but I'm not convinced about it as a place. Every one of these is with respect to the rails or an incident with train cars rather than it being a community. I'm not sure what the abbreviation in "Dennison A.T." at [35] stands for, but it's about man named Thomas McSweeney who was a section foreman killed by a job applicant named John Smiley in April 1899. Pontificalibus's source [36] is a fictionalized book of ghost stories that uses a section foreman T.J. McSweeney killed by a George Smiley in October 1899, so I don't think that it's reliable or shows it was a community any more than a work site. I wouldn't think a logging camp, oil rig, mining camp, or whatever should be covered as populated places when all sources are in context of the industry there. Reywas92^Talk 20:26, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I remain unconvinced this should be deleted. Wikipedia does function as a gazetteer, and even though in practice that means we're not a directory of place names, it means that places don't need to make much of a showing of notability to be kept. The GNIS stubs which we have been deleting were mere subdivisions within larger places, or place names without any evidence of any human activity, ie river crossings or windmills, but this place was based around railroad infrastructure and is named repeatedly as such in period papers. I'm now discounting the ghost story, though. Even if this is only a historical train stop, there's still enough sources here to write a blurb about a proper place. The fact the place has been listed in multiple "how Arizona places got their names" book further shows that, at some point, this was treated as an officially named place with a train station, even if there's no sources that support any sort of population finding. There's nothing really to draftify, but I'm still happy to expand this article if it's kept. (Dennsion A.T. means the Dennison section of the Atchison Topeka line.) SportingFlyer T·C 00:39, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway. That article contains a list of trains that ran on the line, and there's no reason why it shouldn't contain a list of stations with appropriate descriptions of each. Just because that article doesn't currently discuss stations, doesn't mean this article should be deleted. I would compare this to Dovey Junction railway station as an example of a mainline heavy rail station that didn't end up turning into a populated place, but which is nevertheless notable as some kind of amalgam of an unpopulated place / building / infrastructure feature. A merge might be indicated due to lack of sources, but that would only be because this station fell out of use before railway geeks and travel journalists started publishing stuff.----Pontificalibus 16:52, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:55, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has been expanded with references. And Wikipedia serves as a gazetteer. Thank you-RFD (talk) 11:10, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP does not serve as a gazetteer (without regard to notability). GEOLAND specifically says "WP has features of a gazetteer; therefore, geographical features meeting Wikipedia's General notability guideline (GNG) are presumed, but not guaranteed, to be notable." The article was padded out with trivia and tangential things that do not establish notability. MB 03:15, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From July 17, 2012, when it was an essay draft, until December 6, 2019, GEOLAND said "Per Wikipedia's Five pillars, the encyclopedia also functions as a gazetteer; therefore, geographical features meeting Wikipedia's General notability guideline (GNG) are presumed, but not guaranteed, to be notable." This last December, Reywas92 changed it to "has features of," which is a major change. I've reverted it per WP:BRD. It's always been my understanding that Wikipedia functions as a gazetteer, and that if a populated place can be verified, historical or not, then it's notable enough for an article. SportingFlyer T·C 04:44, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:SportingFlyer; Wikipedia functions as a gazetteer. Thank you-RFD (talk) 08:57, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sign of significant coverage that would meet GNG. Events such as completion of double-tracking and people killed in/near the area merely use Dennison as a placemarker and do not discuss it in depth. –dlthewave ☎ 20:18, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has plenty of sources, and the standard of significant coverage is met. The delete arguments in this discussion seem to be moving the goalposts. The original argument for deleting this article was that the place wasn't a real place at all, which was disproven. The argument then shifted to a lack of sources, even though sourcing requirements for places like this have traditionally been lower than other articles, in part because of the likely existence of offline sources and in part due to the traditional gazetteer component of encyclopedias. Now that the article has thirteen sources, the argument is that they don't constitute significant coverage. I've seen GAs with less significant coverage in the sources than this article has. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 04:52, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:24, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Coronation Street actors[edit]

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

Highly similar to List of Coronation Street characters and List of past Coronation Street characters, just a slightly different format. DarkGlow (talk) 20:06, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:34, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Bad Girls cast members just ended with delete for several cast lists (although, to be fair, they were linked actor names only). – sgeureka ^t•c 22:30, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:39, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:48, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The list criteria is "actors who began their career on show X and later had success on show/film Y". There may be a link for the success, or it's just what normal people would call "career". – sgeureka ^t•c 08:41, 10 January 2020 (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. Sandstein 21:24, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blair Reynolds[edit]

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

This man has not been meaningfully discussed by any reliable publications. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 18:41, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 18:41, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 18:41, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 18:41, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as more sources have been found, otherwise move to draft so that it can be worked on. BOZ (talk) 20:54, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article is based on a single source. A search found no others.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:25, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can only find fan forum type threads. Curiocurio (talk) 22:27, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - All I could find online was social media and a kickstarter. I concur with BOZ that if more sources can be found, then draftify it. Netherzone (talk) 18:51, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added a number of sources that should establish this artist's notability. I would ask those who have already voted Delete to re-examine the article.Guinness323 (talk) 19:56, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The three new sources I can see appear to be either blogs or self published items. The Delta force one is just plain weird.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:50, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources I added are:
  - 1. Review of The Unspeakable Oath in Issue 201 of Dragon by Allen Varney, in which he specifically references the important role of Reynolds' illustrations.
  - 2. Acknowledgement by John Tynes, co-founder of Pagan Press and The Unspeakable Oath, on his website, of the quality of Reynolds' artwork.
  - 3. The foreword to Reynolds' short story "Operation LOOKING GLASS" in the anthology Delta Green: Intelligence: "A member of the original play test group that spawned Pagan Publishing, thirty-five-year-old artist/writer Blair Reynolds is known in the game industry for his excellent, meticulous, and unnerving paintings and illustrations. Blair has done work on Mega Traveller for Game Designers' Workshop and Digest Group Publications, as well as on Call of Cthulhu for Chaosium and Pagan Publishing. Recently, he established Room 308 Publishing, which has produced one ('Yeah," he says, "okay, one, shuddup!") horror graphic novel entitled Black Sands. He recently illustrated the entirety of The Realm of Shadows for Pagan. More than any other piece in this anthology, this effective story emphasizes the hazards of being a warrior against the entities of the Mythos. Be advised that this is a very explicit story."
  - 4. In Issue 232 of Dragon, Allen Varney confirmed that Reynolds was once again providing artwork for The Unspeakable Oath with the comment that "Of Reynolds' latest artwork [editor John] Tynes commented, 'My eyeballs bled.'"
  - 5. In Issue 249 of Dragon, Ray Winninger spends the first three paragraphs of his review of The Realm of Shadows specifically talking, not about the book, but about Reynolds' artwork.

Number 1, & Numbers 3–5 are RS. Since John Tynes is notable, I assume therefore that his personal website is also RS. I used a French role-playing games site, Le Grog, to confirm that Reynolds, through Games 308, published The Mysteries of Mesoamerica in 2008. It might not be RS, but I was not looking to confirm notability from that site, only confirmation of a stated fact.Guinness323 (talk) 03:48, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know you're making a good faith effort here, but the cover of "Delta Green Intelligence" sort of sinks any argument you might have for it being a reliable source when it says "As a training text for young mutants, I cannot recommend it too highly-- Lucius Sheperd". It also makes me doubt your other sources, which are already scraping the barrel of something or other.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:02, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I make no claims about the quality of the writing in the anthology Delta Green: Intelligence. It was written to satisfy a certain audience, mainly players of Call of Cthulhu, of which I am not one. I was more interested in the comments of the editors about Blair Reynolds. Nevertheless, perhaps not RS, but Dragon was the top-rated gaming magazine of its time, winner of numerous industry awards, using writers who are notable in their own right (Allen Varney, Ray Winninger, Rick Swan, Jim Bambra, Roger Moore, Chris Pramas, Bill Fawcett, to name a few); so the magazine is clearly notable, and clearly RS. I'm not certain how that qualifies as "scraping the barrel".Guinness323 (talk) 04:25, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They are all sources in niche or sketchy publications I have never heard of. I think the "training text for young mutants" quote sort of says it all. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:30, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"publications I have never heard of" has little or no bearing on whether a source is reliable. I have never heard of thousands of sources that are probably still reliable, and I imagine just about everyone could say the same. BOZ (talk) 04:47, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but we will have to disagree on the quality of these meagre sources. Have a nice evening.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:03, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference, the two non-blog publishers are Mongoose Publishing and TSR. Mongoose Publishing is an obscure gaming company. Meanwhile, TSR was the original publisher of Dungeons & Dragons. Neither of these two publishers are particularly reliable. We should not be using questionable sources in our biographies of living persons. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 20:04, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And their lack of reliability is determined in what way? BOZ (talk) 20:30, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid to say I think the comment that "Mongoose Publishing is an obscure gaming company" says it all about Susmuffin's knowledge (or lack of) of the subject! Mongoose is one of the largest RPG publishers in the world. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:24, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:45, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:22, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per all above. Notable figure in the RPG industry. Whether non-RPGers have heard of him or the publications that mention him or not or deride the reliability of the latter is completely irrelevant. Most people are only experts in a handful of fields and wouldn't be expected to know much about other fields. That doesn't make the figures in them non-notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:32, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:48, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources offered don't look good enough quality to source a BLP and don't indicate that this person is of any particular note. b uidhe 07:21, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Designers & Dragons is a critical history of role-playing games; this is exactly the kind of independent secondary source that we're supposed to be using to determine notability. I believe that the people in this discussion who are questioning the quality of this source have probably never read it, and are judging it based on their personal opinions of the topic. Dragon was an extremely well-respected specialty magazine, and doesn't become unreliable just because someone hasn't heard of it before. -- Toughpigs (talk) 00:11, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:24, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Center for Pastor Theologians[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG. Cannot find any SIGCOV - all the hits I see on Google are generated by the subject. The text states that the organization has a three-person staff. Rogermx (talk) 23:49, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 23:49, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 23:49, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, see this book review: [37], this journal article: [38], this book review: [39], this book: [40], this book: [41], and this magazine article: [42].--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:55, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:33, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- I am afraid that these sources are about their books, not the center itself. I don't see anything other than passing mention to the center itself in any of these references. However, I appreciate your research on this. Rogermx (talk) 20:36, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The magazine article is in-depth coverage from a third party source. It is not about advertising their books, either. As for the journal article, it goes over their last conference in some detail. It is also a third party journal. Another source that I did not mention before, is this one from tiu.edu, it goes into the history of the center's operation in some detail.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 00:41, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although it has been toned down considerably, it still comes off as WP:PROMO due to the multiple WP:COI editors. While that in itself is not a reason for deletion, I do agree that the stringent requirements of WP:NORG have not been met. Jmertel23 (talk) 23:04, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:39, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on the reasoning of Jmertel23. The promotionalism is undesirable but, even were it written in a strictly NPOV way, it wouldn't really seem to pass the basic requirements of WP:NORG. Wolfson5 (talk) 07:45, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - dubious of merits -- This seems to be a learned society with a journal, and holding an annual conference, but we have no article on the journal and no indication of how many attend the conference. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:54, 10 January 2020 (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. Two keep votes but these are not grounded in any guideline. No indication of either NFOOTY or wider GNG pass. Fenix down (talk) 15:24, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Ward (footballer, born 1997)[edit]

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY. All his FA Cup and EFL cup appearances were for either non-FPL teams or U21 teams BlameRuiner (talk) 06:05, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:07, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:07, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:07, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:34, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:35, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Has played in professional competitions and has just signed a professional contract with St Patrick's Athletic. Supersaints2014 10:44, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Agreed, has played in professional competitions. While he has signed a professional contract, NFOOTY does consider the Irish league clubs to be only part-professional, so not an absolute qualification, but discretion is possible. While we are disproportionately rich in sportspeople, the coverage here seems adequate to sustain an article.SeoR (talk) 09:21, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - he has played for U21 team, which was never enough to pass NFOOTY so far. Coverage is 99% routine transfer updates. --BlameRuiner (talk) 13:56, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has only played for the U23 teams of clubs in fully-professional leagues. Number 5 7 13:12, 15 January 2020 (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) Natg 19 (talk) 01:40, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

United States House Select Committee on the House Beauty Shop[edit]

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

Non notable minor congressional committee. Other than a passing reference to it in a CNN article there are no detailed sources on it; the two newspaper links appear to have been falsified (the links are broken and no record of them can be found in their respective archives). Even with sources, however, there is no indicia that this body, which existed for only a few years, was ever notable other than the mere fact that it was briefly associated with a few notable congresspersons. Michepman (talk) 04:40, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Michepman (talk) 04:40, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Michepman (talk) 04:40, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Michepman (talk) 04:40, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Michepman (talk) 04:40, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Michepman (talk) 04:40, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The newspaper links were not falsified. I apologize for not knowing how to properly reference the newspaper archive that I used as a source. Thank you Cryptic (talk · contribs) for taking the time to find the original articles and include the reference that I omitted at first. I think if you read the original articles which are now available in the references section that will support the notability of this topic. It is not as high profile as other Congressional committees but it does come up on occasion and there were multiple detailed articles which offered significant coverage it over time (both recent ones and ones from the 1960s and early 1970s). Omanlured (talk) 15:27, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:07, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes general notability guidelines This is a notable part of women's history and American politics. Missvain (talk) 03:54, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--I'm with Missvain on this one. Drmies (talk) 03:57, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think you meant it this way at all, Missvain, but it is sort of patronizing to describe a beauty salon in a Congressional building as an notable part of women's history. This isn't the suffragettes movement or the 17th amendment, it is barely even notable for the Congresswomen who were involved with it. We would never write an article suggesting that the men's barbershops at the Capitol were important, so emphasizing beauty salons/makeup as a core part of womens history seems inappropriate. Michepman (talk) 04:07, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Women's beauty and fashion is a critical component to women's history. I'm a woman, and I don't need anyone explaining to me what is important to women's history or not. Beauty salons are a core piece of women's history and have been dating back to ancient history. Besides, this subject has been widely written about in political science and political women's history, especially when one digs into the history of the women who created it. Missvain (talk) 04:10, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

missvain. Thank you for your response. Are there any sources backing up the claim that this topic has been widely written about in political science and political women's history? The sources in the article are very dodgy (a handful of old local news pieces and a one-sentence off-handed mention of it in a CNN article). I tried to find better sources on my own but all I could find were of equally shoddy quality. However, if there are lots of articles talking specifically about this committee in polisci or history texts then I would reconsider my position. Michepman (talk) 05:15, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Without the Beauty Shop, Congresswomen might not have equal rights as Congressmen. It was also the first and only committee women were allowed to chair. Regardless, it passes general notability guidelines. I don't have time to sit here and dig up other sources, but this is what I have and again, it shows that it passes GNG. Please note, I have a Newspapers.com advanced subscription, so some of these might not be accessible to everyone, but I assure you, they are reliable secondary sources that cover the subject significantly.

"Whereas: Stories from the People’s House - Wash, Rinse, and Equal Treatment" from the History, Art & Archives of the United House of Representatives
"Reopen Beauty Shop for House" from the Associated Press
A History of the Committee on House Administration, 1947-2012. Four pages devoted to the history of the Beauty Shop.
"House Beauty Shop." Time. 24 August 1970. pps. 30-31.
"Lady Legislator's Beauty Shop Is Closed To Outsiders" from the International News Service
"Capitol's Beauty Business" by Drew Pearson. His column was syndicated in publications across the country.
"The ladies change from red to black" from the The Richmond News Leader
"House beauty shop committee runs money making venue" and "House Beauty Shop Committee: It's 'unsubstantive' source of good news" by Frederick L. Berns - he wrote two articles for the Washington Bureau and they were nationally syndicated
"Letter from Catherine May to the Editor of the Yakima Morning Herald regarding House Beauty Shop Committee, 1967" held in the collection of Washington State University
"Former Rep. Yvonne Brathwaite Burke (D-CA) on chairing the House Beauty Shop Cmte." on C-SPAN

And it still exists...

"Congressional hair salon finds its roots" from The Hill - yes, the salon still exists!
"New Cannon Salon Aims to Beautify Capitol Hill" from Roll Call
"The Senate Has Its Own Longstanding, Secretive Basement Barbershop" from DCist (talks about the beauty salon)

Missvain (talk) 06:10, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Missvain has proven her argument.NotButtigieg (talk) 13:09, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Thank you Missvain; this is way more sources than I was able to find and I also have a Newspapers.com account haha Omanlured (talk) 14:40, 13 January 2020 (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. Empty disambiguation (non-admin closure) ^{[Username Needed]} 12:18, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Haldir[edit]

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

We have a redirect and a non-entry here. No reason to have a dab page on this topic. Hog Farm (talk) 04:11, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 04:11, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. By now, a DAB page with a single unlinked entry - completely useless.

Bundling the redirect Haldir (disambiguation) into this nomination. If the DAB page goes, the redirect ahould be deleted also. Narky Blert (talk) 10:50, 10 January 2020 (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" opinion makes no policy-based argument. Sandstein 21:23, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Laurelbank Public School[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NORG. Störm (talk) 19:38, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:21, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:22, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:22, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:Apart from being an article about a successful secondary school, it is notable in the use of chess in the curriculum and the visit of grandmaster Nigel Short. Retain. Perhaps the foundation should look to building up a community of Chess playing Wikimedians in Lahore. ClemRutter (talk) 20:10, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:36, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:04, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails general notability guidelines. Missvain (talk) 21:57, 16 January 2020 (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. Can't merge because no merge target has been identified. Sandstein 21:22, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trenithon[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Cited only to "Ordnance Survey get-a-map SW8933055367" but WP:NGEO says "This guideline specifically excludes maps and census tables from consideration when establishing topic notability, because these sources often establish little except the existence of the subject." Reywas92^Talk 17:38, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 17:38, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 17:38, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- no evidence of notability.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:25, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge somewhere. I found books that show at some time, people were listed as being from Trenithon ([43], [44], [45]). A map shows there is a Trenithon Lane and the satellite images shows a farm and 2-3 houses. Not notable as a legally recognized populated place under GEOLAND#1, and not enough info for GNG or to develop an encyclopedic article. But since it is a historical place, there should be a mention/redirect to the article on the recognized populated place it's in. I'm just not sure what that is. It is near Summercourt, which is in St Enoder, but I don't know if it is correct to say Trenithon is within either. MB 02:47, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a former village according to this reliable source: "documentary analysis suggests that this farm was formerly a village split into several tenements owned by two different landowners in the 18th century", so passes WP:GEOLAND.----Pontificalibus 08:23, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:00, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The document only "suggests" it may have been a village, not that it actually was one, so there's no evidence that it was an officially recognised populated place. There once being a "John Whitehead Peard, of Trenithon, Esq." doesn't imply it was a village either. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:54, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As not notable, possibly unlikely, and not proven by sources. I am all for historical things but if we had a "WP:grasping at straws", it would apply. I looked at the sources, including the 3 provided above, as well as the "1699 Gascoyne Map of Cornwall". Although there seems to have been a "Trenithon Farm, St. Enoder, Cornwall", the reliable source states "...the documentary analysis suggests that this farm was formerly a village split into several tenements owned by two different landowners in the 18th century.". The word "suggests" does not give evidence of a village nor a "Populated places without legal recognition" per WP:GEOLAND, "in accordance with the GNG", which the subject fails. Otr500 (talk) 06:22, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:21, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keka (film)[edit]

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

Unsourced film. Promotes nepotism. DragoMynaa (talk) 03:45, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 03:45, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 03:45, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails general notability guidelines. I could find no sources to help with GNG. Missvain (talk) 21:58, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:19, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peoples Bank[edit]

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

Noticed Peoples Bank is for a small western Bellingham, Washington-based bank, but People's Bank is the disambiguation page. No clear primary topic here, given the "Peoples Bank" listings on the disambiguation page and the Peoples Bank of China central bank. I propose moving this page to Peoples Bank (Washington), Peoples Bank (Bellingham, Washington), or some other target preferred by consensus in this AfD and then retargeting Peoples Bank to the People's Bank disambiguation page for consistency. Of course, an alternative may be just to delete this bank as notability may well be in question. Doug Mehus T·C 03:34, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:36, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. --Doug Mehus T·C 03:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I just did Google web and news searches for "Peoples Bank"+Washington -wikipedia and I'm not even seeing any news coverage, certainly nothing that amounts to significant coverage or which would be an in-depth article about this small Washington state-based bank to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. --Doug Mehus T·C 03:38, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:01, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per the sources provided and a search I do not see any notability, more than a yellow page listing, and does not satisfy Wikipedia:CORPDEPTH. Otr500 (talk) 09:14, 12 January 2020 (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) 09:41, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Faizan[edit]

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

Various sources claim this person as Faizan Khan. Furthermore, this player doesn't meet WP:GNG as he didn't play any official forms of cricket. Human (talk) 02:19, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Human (talk) 02:19, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:33, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:33, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. StickyWicket (talk) 19:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO besides a lack of cricket career. LibStar (talk) 14:31, 16 January 2020 (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) 03:23, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gift Chidima Nnamoko[edit]

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

Non-notable individual. Could not find a single source outside those listed. Those references are either not independent of the subject, under some sort of login/paywall, or no longer available. PK650 (talk) 02:04, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PK650 (talk) 02:04, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:35, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:35, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very little found on news and newspaper searches to indicate significant notability. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 02:42, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:38, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources hence falls short of the WP:GNG standard.Celestina007 (talk) 00:05, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as too soon. She was co-featured in a book with five other women. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:18, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject fails WP:GNG. A Google search of her doesn't show her being discussed in reliable sources. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 01:51, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems like a charitable person, but, the sources were dead and I can't find anything that helps her pass GNG. Missvain (talk) 03:58, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No policy-based reason for deletion has been put forth. Sandstein 21:19, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aap Ke Liye Hum[edit]

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

No indication that the film has released yet. DragoMynaa (talk) 01:34, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 01:34, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 01:34, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:39, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - We don't have a policy against articles about films that haven't been released yet - if it meet general notability guidelines. Missvain (talk) 21:59, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of accidents and incidents involving the Boeing 737. RL0919 (talk) 03:24, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of accidents and incidents involving the Boeing 737-100/200[edit]

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

Most of the information on this can be merged and kept at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incidents_involving_the_Boeing_737 . This appears to be a separate article for content already on another page. CatcherStorm ^talk 01:04, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:07, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:07, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the list suggested by the nominator. Lightburst (talk) 01:09, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the article suggested: "List of accidents and incidents involving the Boeing 737". Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 02:48, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested above. Shelbystripes (talk) 04:36, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Appreciate the good faith nomination but should have been an easy WP:BOLD move. Bookscale (talk) 08:40, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:14, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A technical merge vote in case something changes, but there's a complete overlap between the two articles at the moment, so we can just delete this. SportingFlyer T·C 07:33, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of accidents and incidents involving the Boeing 737 per SportingFlyer, there is nothing really to merge. Ajf773 (talk) 22:14, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. It doesn't seem like the evidence offered by the sole keep has convinced people that notability is established. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:40, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Vladyslav Sobolewski[edit]

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

Google news search for his name turns up 4 irrelevant results. Fails GNG. CatcherStorm ^talk 00:44, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 00:46, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 00:46, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:02, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello User:CatcherStorm nice to meet you! Could you please explain the reasons why this article is considered for deletion. Please indicate which sections should be rewritten. Can you point to any good templates that show a well written bio of a living person? My article is mainly a translation of the article written by Prof. Subieta on the Polish wiki: (https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micha%C5%82_W%C5%82adys%C5%82aw_Sobolewski) 5 years ago. It only has some updates. Today I added some more references to keynote lectures by Sobolewski. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prubach (talk • contribs) 13:49, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To show the topic passes notability you need to find independent and substantial writings from other people about Michael Vladyslav Sobolewski, or his work. For most academics these don't exist and so I think about 90% of articles about these people should be deleted. In this case all the references appear to be connected to the subject and thus unsuitable for proving WP:GNG. There are a number of get out of deletion free rules made up for academics, but I don't see these applying in this case either. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:22, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Graeme Bartlett, Nice to meet you! In your delete comment the searches "Find sources: "Michael Vladyslav Sobolewski" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR" are invalid since they search for "Michael Vladyslav Sobolewski" while he is known as "Michael Sobolewski". When you do it for "Michael Sobolewski" you can find in "books" and "scholars" categories a lot of references.

I have added recently multiple links to Sobolewski’s keynotes. When he is invited by leading research organizations in the world to present his research results and the organizers of conferences (leading scientists in the world) write about him when advertising their conferences, this are the instances of expressing notability. Being an international keynote speaker is the highest notability for scientists and researchers. He was invited to give a keynote to the members of the Chinese Academy of Engineering (CAE) and received the certificate (http://sorcersoft.org/docs/CAE-Lecture-2014.pdf) from the Persistent of CAE. He is the Honorary Professor of Computer Science at the Ulyanovsk State University (Russia http://sorcersoft.org/about/photos/HP-diploma.jpg). Received ISPE Life Time Achievement Award (http://sorcersoft.org/docs/ISPE-LTAA-2014.pdf) on the occasion of his keynote at the Oakland University, MI. These are three instances or others expressing recognition for his work and research results.

He is not just academic, he designed many real world systems for GE businesses while working at GE Global Research Center, now his SORCER (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SORCER) developed initially at TTU is expanded at AFRL/WPAFB and is used to design the next generation of air vehicles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prubach (talk • contribs) 09:52, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I searched for "Michael Sobolewski" and "Michael W. Sobolewski" on Scholar, Books and News and resulting citations don't seem sufficient for WP:PROF. Nothing else suggests passing GNG, nobody seems to have dedicated as much as a interview to him (ping me if any in-depth coverage is found), there is a big list of awards, mostly unreferenced, and they all seem minor. Also a well-meaning WP:COI write up per [46]. PS. He may be notable on pl wiki since their PROF inclusion makes having a habilitation sufficient, through I started a discussion anyway: pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/biografie/2020:01:13:Michał Władysław Sobolewski. PS. Dear Prubach, have you read WP:COISELF: "You should generally refrain from creating articles about yourself, or anyone you know, unless through the Articles for Creation process. If you have a personal connection to a topic or person, you are advised to refrain from editing those articles directly and to provide full disclosure of the connection if you comment about the article on talk pages or in other discussions." --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This page reads as a classic promotion. WP:COI is obvious. My very best wishes (talk) 19:09, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. User talk:Piotrus nice to meet you. I don't see any WP:COISELF as this article is a translation of an article written previously in Polish by a person who has no COI. I noticed that the Polish article has been cleaned up - this one can also be cleaned up according to your recommendation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prubach (talk • contribs) 21:12, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Piotrus. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:08, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails general notability guidelines. Missvain (talk) 22:18, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 00:44, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Matt C. Harris[edit]

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

Completely non-notable businessperson per WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. KidAd (talk) 00:18, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:25, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:25, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Found no independent, reliable to indicate pass notability requirement. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:39, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:48, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Only source that could contribute towards notability (still far too little coverage) is Harvard Business Review study. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:21, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Run of the mill entrepreneur and producer. This page was created 10 years ago and I can't understand why it's been up this long. Bearian (talk) 22:51, 13 January 2020 (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.

[1] Canfield, David. "The Night Country: Melissa Albert previews her next Hazel Wood novel". Entertainment Weekly. Retrieved 10 January 2020.

[1]