Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 January 18

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 17 January	19 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) 00:01, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ladeeda Farzana[edit]

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

The article simply fails notability criteria per WP:NOTE and WP:PERSON and also WP:CRYSTAL can't be done. It seems the article is made for getting promotion per WP:NOTPROMOTION. I would ask to delete the page. Dey subrata (talk) 23:00, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:18, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:18, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete ~~and merge~~ the subject fails general notability criteria, as well as WP:ANYBIO. I dont think the subject is notable enough to term as even a WP:BLP1E. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:47, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
update: I partially agree with S0091's comment/vote below. It makes sense to add merge selective content to protests' article. But I still believe even a redirect shouldnt be left behind. Whenever the subject becomes notable in future, the article can be created. (I also updated my bolded vote from "delete" to "del & merge" with this comment.) —usernamekiran (talk) 20:14, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
updated vote again to delete. —usernamekiran (talk) 16:01, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete ~~or merge~~ Agree sourcing is not strong enough to establish notability for her own article. Some sources are circular, referencing the India Today article which relies on her Facebook profile and a seemingly short interview. In all the sources are largely focused her and Ayesha Renna surrounding a viral video of their participation in the protests. However, it may make sense to merge with the Citizenship Amendment Act protests article but if that is course I think Ayesha Renna should be included. This would also lay a foundation if either of them do become notable enough for their own article, which is a possibility. S0091 (talk) 17:35, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
this would also lay foundation to create redirects for any person who has been covered in media sometime or someway. Talking generally - even though redirects are cheap, we should be careful about them. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:14, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point usernamekiran and falls within WP:CRYSTAL I suppose. S0091 (talk) 00:41, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per User:Dey subrata they have been added to the CAA article. No need to merge. S0091 (talk)

mergeThere are no other events or activities she is engaged in to show that she is an activist. However, there sources that show she was a notable active participant in the Citizenship Amendment Act protests. This article should be merged with Citizenship Amendment Act protests.Watchbotx (talk) 12:27, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

usernamekiran, Watchbotx, S0091 Nothing much to merge, one or two lines in the sub-section of Jamia Milia, thats it, which I will add soon there. Better to delete. Dey subrata (talk) 13:48, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dey subrata Go ahead. That'll just be fine too.Watchbotx (talk) 19:53, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Already added in the Jamia section. Dey subrata (talk) 00:46, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom fails WP:GNG and WP:CRYSTAL and really do not see much to merge either.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:09, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BLP1E. ∯WBG^converse 16:34, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:57, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without any merge. There is no content that is worthy to be added to the CAA protest. The incident with her happened with hundreds of others and does not merit a special mention. The BIO article being discussed here fails WP:BLP1E and even WP:GNG hence unfit to be kept here. DBig Xrayᗙ 12:01, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There's clearly not enough WP:SIGCOV to meet GNG, and I concur with the folks that point out BLP1E applies here. Waggie (talk) 07:32, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per watchbotx commentGeorgiamarlins (talk) 11:01, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Georgiamarlins, nothing to merge, the required information are added in the main article of the protests. 14:01, 25 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) 22:52, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of English exonyms for Italian toponyms[edit]

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

Like any other word, place names may be translated between languages. I don't think there's a historical connection to "Dolomites — Dolomiti" and "Lombardy — Lombardia". This is simply a list of translations also available at the places' articles, interwiki links to Italian Wikipedia, and Wiktionary. Reywas92^Talk 22:47, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 22:47, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 22:47, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 22:47, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wiktionary is the appropriate wiki project for this. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 23:30, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is just a list of translations. Wikipedia does not need to provide this service. Hog Farm (talk) 03:39, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wiktionary would be the better place for this. D4iNa4 (talk) 03:51, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with above , the article fits better in wikitionary. Alex-h (talk) 14:54, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. BD2412 T 04:27, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary, this article is clearly a direct violation of that policy.----Pontificalibus 16:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTDICT Wm335td (talk) 21:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete along with about a hundred similar lists. —Tamfang (talk) 04:18, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - what a bizarre unreferenced list! Mujinga (talk) 19:00, 25 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) 22:44, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of German exonyms for places in Italy[edit]

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

I don't think the historical arguments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German exonyms for places in Slovakia apply here, this is simply a list of translations also available at interwiki links, the German Wikipedia, and Wiktionary. Reywas92^Talk 22:43, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 22:43, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 22:43, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 22:43, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 22:43, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wiktionary is the appropriate wiki project for this. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 23:29, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – What if it were restricted to Südtirol and the like (and renamed appropriately)? Otherwise I'm all for deleting most of the lists of exonyms. —Tamfang (talk) 23:45, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The page says it is "for places in non-German-speaking areas of Italy :". If anything those are endonyms, and the Italian names like Brunico for Bruneck are the exonyms. Reywas92^Talk 00:11, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Yet it gives no link to German-speaking areas of Italy! —Tamfang (talk) 21:09, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's no good historical reason I'm aware of that would provide a rationale for keeping this article. We don't need to translate place names here. Hog Farm (talk) 03:37, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT b uidhe 20:14, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wiktionary would be the better place for this. D4iNa4 (talk) 03:52, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. BD2412 T 04:28, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary: this article is a dictionary.----Pontificalibus 16:50, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTDICT Wm335td (talk) 21:26, 24 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) 22:33, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hsu Yun Temple[edit]

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

For something that claims to be the first Buddhist hall in Hawaii, there is a remarkable lack of sources. I searched all three name variations and found no independent coverage, including newspaper archives. Praxidicae (talk) 19:48, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:13, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:14, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:14, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator, couldn't find anything on Google.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:11, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My search didn't find nothing independent coverage. Idolmm (talk) 14:18, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't really find anything either, except passing mentions in an obituary in Taiwan News, this book, this Star-Bulletin obituary, and Worldatlas.com. There's also this detailed mention in a travel article. Overall not enough independent reliable source coverage for WP:GNG or WP:NBUILD though. — MarkH₂₁^talk 10:18, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – no indication of meeting WP:GNG or WP:NBUILD. – Levivich 17:32, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These are great sources, Mark. Thank you. I've made use of them. Zenothing (talk) 16:11, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Easily meets GNG. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8].--Pontificalibus 15:50, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Pontificalibus: [9], [10] and [11] appear to be significant coverage, but emphasize ceremonies. Anything more broad?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 17:08, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In addition to what Pontificalibus said, one source I found suggested that the construction of the Hsu Yun Temple was a result of the contemporaneous political upheaval in China and became part of the post-Mao era transition for Xuyun Dharma, which favored the creation of national and transnational networks. Darwin Naz (talk) 23:18, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I understand how dharma names are given in this lineage, and have access to the relevant tonsure poem, I was able to conduct a better web search here, for Jy Ding, and for Chuan zhi. Several new citations added to each. Zenothing (talk) 11:53, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow others more time to respond to the sources brought forward late in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 21:36, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Definitely notable and worth rescuing with more research for citations. PenulisHantu (talk) 05:14, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:SIGCOV Georgiamarlins (talk) 11:07, 25 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. qedk (t 桜 c) 16:07, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quazi Johirul Islam[edit]

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

Non notable Poet, Columnist. Fails every criteria listed on WP:AUTHOR, WP:GNG. Doesn't qualify for WP:ANYBIO also. None of author books is notable. All references listed in the article are primary (Interview with author or Column written by author). I did a web search but didn't find anything. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 21:29, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:42, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:42, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:56, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable awards without source and own interviews to establish notability, fails every criteria under WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. ~ Nahid ^Talk 22:18, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I must concur with the others here, this author is clearly non-notable at this time, and I suspect the article would probably need a complete rewrite if sufficient sourcing is written in future. Waggie (talk) 07:36, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft Needs secondary sources and it needs someone who understand the language in most of the sources betterGeorgiamarlins (talk) 11:14, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Georgiamarlins: Fortunately, we (3 of us above) do understand the sources in Bengali. ~ Nahid ^Talk 12:39, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment :NahidSultan ,Greetings from Zimbabwe, the fact that you supposedly concluded that you and the other 2 understands the language raises some concerns and questions but i won't get into that.However, i didn't mean the sources available in the article , i meant other sources which might be out there on the internet which can be found by people familiar with the language because i tried to look for some but i hardly found results in English. Happy weekend to you.Cheers!Georgiamarlins (talk) 21:09, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Georgiamarlins, Please explain why you think knowing the language 'raises some concerns and questions'. As I understood, your argument was based on 'there might be some reliable sources out there other than English' (in this case Bengali) and someone who has better understanding of that language needs to find them. But you completely overlooked the fact that 3 users (see userpage/homewiki) commented above actually are native speaker of that language. That's why I pointed it out by using 'we' because you were looking for Bengali speaker. Anyways, I googled the name in Bengali as well and all the sources are routine news, most of them fails WP:RS. Best. ~ Nahid ^Talk 21:37, 25 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) 22:35, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CBIG Consulting[edit]

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

Lack of significant coverage by reliable third party sources. Legion Legion (talk) 20:33, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:57, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:57, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable and most sources are from PR releases. PenulisHantu (talk) 05:50, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like a lot of sources but there are a lot of repeated sources and most of it is routine business news. Don't believe that shows notability.Sandals1 (talk) 17:43, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A quick look at the sourcing looks like WP:CHURNALISM applies strongly with this one. The majority of the article is basically about rebranding and opening offices, and with the end "CBIG was mentioned by marketing web sites in 2014" summing it up nicely (see WP:TRIVIALMENTION). Waggie (talk) 07:41, 25 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) 22:42, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prudencio Garcia[edit]

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

He is a soccer referee, serving as a linesman (assistant referee who is not the one who runs in the middle of the pitch) in the 1950 FIFA world cup. The point of claim is that he is the first US national to referee in the FIFA world cup and that he is inducted into the US National Soccer Hall of Fame (A private museum, not connected in any way to the US soccer association). Not sure if that hall of fame is a notable criterion. Daiyusha (talk) 20:24, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:41, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:41, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:41, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:14, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. i think WP:ANYBIO 1 should count for all national halls of fame and that ANYBIO 2 should count for being the first American FIFA World Cup referee. ミラ P 14:54, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - being a member of the Hall of Fame is enough for me. Giant Snowman 16:51, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Miraclepine: @GiantSnowman:The "national hall of fame" is a private non-profit organization that honors players and non-players(basically anyone connected to the sport). Its not really something notable enough in my opinion. I'm assuming you were unaware of that fact at the time of voting, and does this change anything. Daiyusha (talk) 17:30, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as he refereed two Tier 1 international games (1950 WC qualifying matches) as a proper referee (not a linesman) per his worldreferee.com profile. Although the article is very clearly a work of single-purpose account. --BlameRuiner (talk) 20:44, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. International referee who meets GNG. No Great Shaker (talk) 06:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KeepMeets WP:BASIC and the general wiki-notability guideline. Watchbotx (talk) 12:34, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep referee who passes our GNG. Wm335td (talk) 21:38, 25 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) 22:40, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Park Seong-won[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that he meets WP:PROF or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 20:20, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:42, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:42, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete More of a resume and the only 2 sources cited are not independent. PenulisHantu (talk) 05:53, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NOT#PR. --Garam (talk) 17:03, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent sources demonstrating WP:SIGCOV. Also reads very promotionally, combined with the lack of good sources. Taewangkorea (talk) 19:44, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete,Not enough RS to establish notability. Alex-h (talk) 15:03, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - even assuming everything is true, "Adjuct Professor" (sic.) at a university and full (?) professor at a small theology school does not meet the professor test. I was involved in my local chapter of the Council of Churches, and I know that being on the board is no big deal; I would include it in a BLP, but that doesn't by itself create notability. Bearian (talk) 21:27, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging DGG in case he wants to convince us otherwise. Bearian (talk) 21:31, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My argument back in 2009 was that he was notable as a member of the Central Committee of the World Council of Churches. I have now discovered that the committee consisted that year of 159 people. [12] DGG ( talk ) 22:04, 22 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 nomination withdrawn following improvements to the article. BD2412 T 04:21, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quintana Olleras[edit]

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

~~He doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY criteria. Boleyn (talk) 20:12, 18 January 2020 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:18, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:18, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found nothing in a search for RS.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:24, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:18, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It would be a major mistake to delete this article. The artist is well-known in both Spain and Italy, and while he is perhaps less well-known in English speaking countries, his works are regularly offered for sale at high profile auction houses including Sotheby’s, Bonham’s and Christies, fetching prices of up to US$25,000. His most well-known works, In a Persian Bath and A Harem Scene, are widely reproduced in art books- particularly reference works concerned with Orientalist artists or Orientalist subject matter. The artist is sufficiently notable to warrant an article on the Spanish Wikipedia. See: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blas_Olleros_y_Quintana

I have expanded the article and added reliable references. A small selection of major works has been added in the form of a gallery. These changes should be more than enough to establish notability beyond any doubt.

Incidentally, a major issue which has almost certainly been an impediment to any expansion of this article is that the painter’s name in the article title is misspelt. The ONLY sources using this idiosyncratic spelling are Wikipedia mirror sites, popular art sites that have copied Wikipedia’s content or social media such as Pinterest which appear to have taken their lead from Wikipedia. Any prospective editor searching under the name “OLLERAS” will NOT locate any new content. However, anyone searching for the correct name “OLLEROS” will find plenty of material in Italian and Spanish art references.

I wish that editors, who in their haste to rack up long lists of new article credits, would take a bit of care with spelling of names, write a little more than 1-2 sentences and make an effort to establish notability from the first draft. I also wish that new page reviewers took a bit more time and attention evaluating the merit of new articles, rather than just looking at the quantity/ reliability of references. And, finally I wish that the deletion brigade would carry out a few basic background checks before recommending articles for deletion. 49.176.224.116 (talk) 00:27, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@49.176.224.116:, I removed the list of paintings and the eleven auction sites that you added to support the list. I left a note on your talk page about what is acceptable as a source. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:37, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep now well sourced and new material added. The mention above about this being an incorrect spelling of the name, if accurate, should be rectified with an uncontroversial page move. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:29, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination based on the excellent work above - will look at changing title. Boleyn (talk) 14:17, 20 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. Since there's clearly a consensus against deletion and merging can be discussed outside of AfD, I'm closing this discussion. No prejudice against a possible merger with Potentiality and actuality, but that would require further discussion to achieve consensus. RL0919 (talk) 22:49, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Potential[edit]

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

Article is poor disambiguation and there is already a disambiguation page Volunteer1234 (talk) 19:32, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. This is not a disambiguation page, it is a WP:Broad-concept article (as with Particle and Window of opportunity) which provides the broadest parameters for the explanation of a concept that is difficult precisely due to its breadth. Wikipedia has a duty to develop these concepts rather than lazily sweeping them under the rug for the convenience of a disambiguation page that fails to explain the broadest parameters of the term. BD2412 T 19:47, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep BD offers a solid argument, and I agree. It is currently mislabeled as a disambig, but is not in fact a disambig. While making a good article will be difficult here, as with any broad topic, thats not reason for deletion. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:14, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is a broad concept to be described here beyond a dictionary definition and distinct from a list of possible meanings. This article is Wikipedia's best effort so far at filling that gap. Certes (talk) 12:19, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:DABCONCEPT. This isn't a DAB page. Narky Blert (talk) 13:03, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:04, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:04, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:04, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep The stated deletion rationale just isn't applicable. XOR'easter (talk) 17:42, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What is the topic of the article then? The article has been in a sorry state for years. Originally it was a broad concept for physics, then it included "human potential" which was recently deleted and now it includes math. The "broad concept" can't be just a word WP:NOTDIC. Is the topic Potential (physics)? Even within physics "potential" has multiple meanings. Volunteer1234 (talk) 21:04, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The topic of the article, as spelled out in the first sentence, is the concept of "a currently unrealized ability". There may be more artful ways to word that, but the applicability of this concept to multiple fields was described by Aristotle long before any of us were on the scene. BD2412 T 22:09, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I'm convinced by what's written above. Yes, broad-concept articles exist, but that doesn't mean we can build one around any culturally prominent ambiguous word. Broad-concept articles are not exempt from basic policies like WP:OR and WP:V. Are there any sources out there that treat these disparate threads as a single topic? – Uanfala (talk) 16:06, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The point is that it is not an ambiguous word, merely a word that is applicable to wide variety of situations. A boulder having potential to roll down a hill is no different in the characteristic of having an unfulfilled capacity that could be actualized through correct action than a student with the potential to become a scholar. The difference is only in the inputs required to actuate that potential. BD2412 T 04:31, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  That may be so, but that doesn't waive the basic requirement of having sources discussing the broad topic as such (and not simply the various facets individually). I would tend to concur with Mark viking's comment below that the broad-concept topic is actually a philosophy article that already exists, but potentiality and actuality looks rather niche in its present state. – Uanfala (talk) 12:25, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 16:06, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This one is tricky. On one hand, potientiality is an upper ontology philosophical concept applicable to many fields, including physics. Aristotle set forth this concept in his metaphysics. On the other hand, Wikipedia:Broad-concept_article#Approaches asserts that the article should not be so broad as to need expertise in multiple unrelated fields. My POV, is that the content of this article is more or less covered in potentiality and actuality, so merge there. However, the set of concepts of potential in physics, mathematics, chemistry, engineering, etc. are rather more tightly coupled and could make for a good broad concept article. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 19:53, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - no valid reason for deletion is given. There's lots of general articles, dabs, and categories to help our readers learn and navigate the website. Bearian (talk) 21:30, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now and see if it can be made into something beyond WP:NOTDICT WP:NORUSH Wm335td (talk) 21:33, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Wm335td:, are you saying that this article has potential? BD2412 T 02:41, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think based on your !vote rationale there is hope that there can be an article beyond a dictionary entry. Wm335td (talk) 21:40, 25 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:46, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AnswerRocket[edit]

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

WP:CORP Legion Legion (talk) 19:22, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:24, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:24, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:ORGIN, only sources are corp’s own website or references to minor “awards”, does not appear notable, does appear to be WP:SPAM. Shelbystripes (talk) 04:08, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORP....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:06, 26 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) 00:04, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Hudspith[edit]

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

No references, and brief search turns up little to support notability S Philbrick (Talk) 19:17, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:23, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:23, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:57, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete outlandish and not really cared about GWR entries are not grounds alone for an article, and that is all we have as a source here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:51, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Certainly not outlandish, but not WP:Notable either, which is all we should be concerned about. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:44, 21 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) 22:51, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wesley Wan[edit]

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

WP:BLP The article is mostly an attack page of a person who does not pass WP:GNG. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 17:57, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:13, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:13, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. His claim to notability, other than the sordid details of his marriage breakup, is the presidency of a non-notable organization. Ifnord (talk) 18:33, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above poster; lack of notability otherwise puts WP:UNDUE weight on salacious personal divorce details, making the entire article seemingly an attack in violation of WP:BLP. Shelbystripes (talk) 04:16, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've removed the BLP issues. The Hong Kong AA is an FIA member organisation but that doesn't make this person notable. Mattg82 (talk) 22:42, 25 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) Pkbwcgs (talk) 10:03, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Backun Musical Services[edit]

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

Article about a manufacturer of musical instruments, not properly referenced as the subject of enough media coverage to clear WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. As always, companies are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist; the notability test is the quality of the sources they can show to support an article, not just the things the article says. But two of the four footnotes here are the company's own self-published website about itself and the self-published website of another company that's a part owner of this one, and a third staples this company's own self-published website to a glancing mention of its existence on one page of a book that isn't about it as one footnote -- so none of those footnotes count for anything at all toward demonstrating the company's notability. And while the fourth footnote is a real article, substantively about this company, in a real magazine, it still takes quite a bit more than just one source of that type to make a company notable enough for inclusion here. Bearcat (talk) 17:30, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:30, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:30, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:30, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion[edit]

Backun is, from an objective point of view - beyond the ideas in the Wikipedia administration - a notable company, for at least these reasons:

1. Backun established the world's most modern clarinet factory in 2012. It still is today.

2. Within just a few years, Backun has developed from an unknown two-man company to a company that undoubtedly produces the best quality French A and Bb clarinets in the world and is therefore also known as the “noble smithy” for these clarinets.

3. In terms of sales, Backun ranks 3rd among clarinet manufacturers worldwide.

I know that all of these are not criteria for notability for certain people on Wikipedia. The number and quality of external publications about this company are relevant to their perception of notability and only to the extent that they are listed as references in the article.

When it comes to serious sources on clarinet-related topics, experts consider the sources of first choice:

Jane Ellsworth A Dictionary for the Modern Clarinetist, 2014

Eric Hoeprich, The Clarinet, Yale University Press, 2008

The article on the largest and oldest manufacturer of clarinets, Buffet Crampon, founded in 1789, is based in the German version - de:Buffet Crampon only on Hoeprich, only on this single source and no one would think to delete the article due to Buffet Crampon's lack of notability. Now Hoeprich appeared in 2008, a year in which Backun was still a small and little-known company. In a new edition, Hoeprich would certainly deal extensively with Backun.

But we still have the Ellsworth Dictionary from 2014. Backun is listed here with a brief description of his career and the delveloped products. That speaks for a notability of this company. Meanwhile there are a number of other independent publications on the development and products of this company. As far as they could be found during an internet search, I have put them as references in the article. The number of references is now 20, Buffet Crampon in the Englisch version has only 6. Even if there are a few who are not independent, this should be sufficient to prove the level of awareness of the company.--Gisel (talk) 20:33, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, clearly notable and much better sourced than when I saw it last. Could perhaps be better if shorter. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:05, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have now shortened the text by 1100 characters.--Gisel (talk) 16:13, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It looks well-referenced to me. It does need some work on grammar and formatting, but these factors are not relevant to notability or quality of sources.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:39, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Category:Musical instrument makers don't get much coverage in mainstream media, so their articles make up for that by citing the relevant specialized publications. In this case specifically, their entry in A Dictionary for the Modern Clarinetist alone satifies WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:06, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a notable subject. The article looks like it underwent improvement during this AfD. Wm335td (talk) 21:44, 25 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:39, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Haley[edit]

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

fails NACTOR, no coverage and hasn't had any major roles. Praxidicae (talk) 16:10, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I actually meant to prod this but wasn't paying attention and afd'd it instead. Praxidicae (talk) 16:11, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:26, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:26, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:50, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NACTOR - his roles were, except for playing the Canadian PM once, all very minor. Bearian (talk) 21:37, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: I think he has had enough supporting roles in notable productions to scrape through with WP:NACTOR, but there are no references in the article; it needs work. Dflaw4 (talk) 05:40, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We cannot keep articles based solely on one non-reliable source, especially when the subject is a living person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:36, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NACTOR is not automatically passed just because the article lists roles — the notability test is still the ability to show some evidence of reliable source coverage about him and his work to demonstrate the "significance" of the roles. Dief the Chief was a minor supporting character, not a main protagonist, in The Arrow — so just because he was a significant figure in the real world does not help to inflate the significance of Haley's portrayal of him if you don't show any sources to support the article. Bearcat (talk) 15:48, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough about him to show notability for WP:NACTOR or GNG Wm335td (talk) 21:35, 24 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:03, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lance Nimmo[edit]

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

Fails WP:NGRIDIRON, having ~~never played professionally~~ only played professionally in minor league NFL Europe. Was an NFL draft pick, but did not appear in a regular season or postseason game. Fails WP:GNG, only coverage found is transactional in nature or a daily diary he wrote for New Castle News, his hometown newspaper. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:03, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:03, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:03, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided for now. Offensive linemen rarely receive significant coverage. Here, Nimmo was a first-team all-conference player, was taken in 4th round of NFL Draft, and made an NFL roster. I have found significant coverage in the New Castle News, including (1) "Nimmo's road to Jacksonville a winding one", New Castle News, 2/5/05 (913 words, available via NewsLibrary.com); (2) "Finding Nimmo", New Castle News, 9/17/04 (1,216 words, available via NewsLibrary.com); and (3) "Nimmo a 'mountain man' for Mountaineers", New Castle News, 11/25/00 (825 words, available via NewsLibrary.com). Under WP:GNG, significant coverage is expected in multile reliable sources. Not sure if the following are enough to push him over the bar: here, this, this, this, this, this. If someone finds significant coverage in a source other than the New Castle News, I'd probably tip to "keep". Cbl62 (talk) 16:44, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, Nimmo spent time with four NFL teams (Bucs, Browns, Jets, Patriots and won a Super Bowl ring as a member of the Patriots' 2004 practice squad. See here. Cbl62 (talk) 17:21, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:51, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable based on information on the page. PenulisHantu (talk) 06:00, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG with sources Cbl62 provided plus [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 02:50, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Second source is a school board meeting minutes from the same local newspaper he wrote his daily diary in. I don't know how reliable "Farm and Daily" (source 3) is in demonstrating notability for a football player, and he's briefly mentioned in the story anyway. Source 4 is a blog post from a source that is not really reliable anymore at the time of its posting. Source 5 is a collection of random tidbits that occurred during one Buccaneers training camp practice. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:09, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The second source that Cbl62 provided is not the school board meeting minutes. It's a news article. Published by the New Castle News, considered a reliable source. @Eagles247:, what were you referring to?--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:32, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Paulmcdonald: I am referring to the sources Editorofthewiki provided directly above my comment. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:51, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, source #2 directly above your comment is not a copy of the school board meeting minutes.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:35, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nimmo's part in the article is literally his quotes during a school board meeting about abstaining from voting for a school district superintendent's re-election. Since the article doesn't mention he is a former football player, we don't even know if that refers to the same Lance Nimmo. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:00, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then that should be your argument, not something that is blatantly untrue.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Editorofthewiki and Cbl62. — Hunter Kahn 02:59, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sourcing presented is passing mentions or blogs, not the stuff passing GNG is made of.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:10, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly enough sources and broad coverage provided to pass WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:41, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, per the sources provided by Cbl62 and Editorofthewiki. Ejgreen77 (talk) 07:11, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of sources to pass WP:GNG. Smartyllama (talk) 19:43, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the only notability I see is that he has a Superbowl ring and did not earn it on the field playing for the team in actual games. FYI: The athletic trainer and front office also have Superbowl rings. He has some borderline notability just based on his routine coverage of being kicked around from one practice squad to another. But we have a higher bar for WP:NGRIDIRON - this is an encyclopedia and it is WP:NOT everything. Wm335td (talk) 21:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The given references are either blogs, off point, or very local news minor-mentions and most certainly do not pass wp:GNG (re:significant coverage); Also per @Wm335td: above. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 17:35, 25 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) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:26, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John Deraney[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NGRIDIRON, having never played professionally. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:59, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:59, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:59, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:59, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable. Deb (talk) 16:01, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appeared in 47 games for a Power Five team and scored 199 points from 2003-2006. See here. Passes WP:GNG with significant coverage in multiple, reliable and independent sources. Examples of coverage include: (1) "Once, twice, three times a kicker", Greensboro News & Record, 8/22/06; (2) "Coping through kicking: NCSU's Deraney draws inspiration from his father, who is battling MS", Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News, 10/4/06 (640 words, available via NewsLibrary.com); (3) "A Step Ahead, Deraney Has Wolfpack's Special-Teams Hopes Squarely on His Foot", Winston-Salem Journal, 8/30/05 (752 words, available via NewsLibrary.com); (4) "Deraney Delivers Touchbacks, N.C. State's Kickoff Team Doesn't Have To Do Much When John Deraney Is On Top of His Game", Greensboro News & Record, 10/4/03; and (5) "Deraney has weight on his shoulder pads: Pack kicker's dad in failing health", Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News, 8/3/06. Interesting fact: Deraney once recovered his own onside kick and followed with a field goal. See here. Cbl62 (talk) 17:08, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are 66 "Power Five" football teams right now, and Deraney is not even a top 5 kicker in NC State history per NC State Wolfpack football statistical leaders#Kicking. Two of your sources are stories about Deraney's father being ill from the same newspaper. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:22, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I draw the "Power Five" distinction because there are literally hundreds of college football teams, including over 100 at the Division I FBS level. "Power Five" represents the elite level. He was primarily known as a punter and it thus not surprising he only ranks 7th in NC State history for field goals made. What matters most is the extent of the significant coverage, found in multiple, reliable sources. Cbl62 (talk) 17:36, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If Deraney were a four-year punter at "Power Five" Oregon State from 1980–1983 when they went a combined 4–38–2, would he meet your notability threshold? There are subsets within subsets in college football and I don't believe NC State qualifies as enough of a top college football program to warrant inclusion of run-of-the-mill players from their program. I still don't find the coverage you found to be significant, it's the same articles I found before nominating. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:51, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who Oregon State's punter was, let alone what coverage he received, what accomplishments, etc. By no means am I saying that every punter on every Power Five team is notable. The focus under WP:GNG is on the coverage which here consists of at least ~~five~~ eight feature stories focused on Deraney. In close cases, I believe it is acceptable to give some consideration to the level of play and level of accomplishment, and in this case both of those factors bolster the claim of notability. Cbl62 (talk) 19:15, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have now expanded the article with in-line citations to eight feature stories about Deraney. Cbl62 (talk) 20:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, per the sourcing and improvements that have been made to the article since this AfD was opened. Ejgreen77 (talk) 00:14, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG per Cbl62. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:18, 21 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 Steve Korte. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:07, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Korte[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NGRIDIRON, having never played professionally. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:54, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:54, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:54, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:55, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable. Deb (talk) 16:00, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NGRIDIRON as noted by Eagles247. Also fails WP:NCOLLATH as he had no notable achievements while playing for LSU. Indeed, his college career consisted of nine carries for 25 yards. See here. His father Steve Korte played in the NFL, and the coverage I find consists mostly of passing references, sometimes making note that his father played for the Saints. E.g., here. Cbl62 (talk) 16:09, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Steve Korte. Not usually a fan of redirects as remedy at AfD, but it makes the most sense here for the reasons noted below by Ejgreen77 and Editorofthewiki. Cbl62 (talk) 09:38, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Steve Korte. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NGRIDIRON, and WP:NCOLLATH, per all above. Redirect to the article for Steve Korte, who happens to be Steven Korte's father. The younger Korte is mentioned at the bottom of his dad's article. Ejgreen77 (talk) 23:54, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect to the father's article makes sense. I'd be fine with that. Cbl62 (talk) 02:05, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Cbl62. Fine with the redirect to dad's page as well. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:14, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to father's article, as it is a valid search term for the elder Korte. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 04:56, 21 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. Tone 16:32, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ravi Krishnan[edit]

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

It appears to have been created by the subject or an associate, has been tagged for multiple issues for a very long time, and contains no claim of notability other than self-published sources Deb (talk) 15:52, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:02, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:02, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete More a self-promotion piece citing work of the person as sources. PenulisHantu (talk)
Delete: An article created and developed by WP:SPAs Lampo850 and Lwalker03 along with Ravikrishnan72, though without any disclosed COI. The article is effectively a CV with a list of authored articles. I am not finding evidence of the coverage about the subject needed to demonstrate notability. AllyD (talk) 10:49, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete not much to add after what Ally has said. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:51, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV and WP:NOTRESUME - the articles are all by him, or mention him, but are not really about him. Bearian (talk) 21:39, 22 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. Tone 16:32, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abram "Abe" Piasek[edit]

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

Biography, written like a memorial obituary, of a person whose only apparent notability claim is having been a speaker at local high schools in a single city. This is referenced about 50 per cent to primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, like directory entries and YouTube clips and content on the self-published websites of organizations he was directly affiliated with, and about 50 per cent to purely local media coverage in his hometown media market. There's nothing "inherently" notable about speaking to youth to discuss your life experiences or accompanying them on a field trip, and the amount of sourcing shown here is not sufficient to make him more notable than the thousands going on millions of other people in the world who've done the same things. As always, Wikipedia is not a free alternative to legacy.com, where we memorialize local heroes just because they were admirable. Bearcat (talk) 15:07, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:07, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:07, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, I think Abe Piasek is a notable figure -- I intended to put his entry in Holocaust Survivors, which is where he's linked -- not as a notable person in NC. A criticism is that this entry is: "Biography, written like a memorial obituary, of a person whose only apparent notability claim is having been a speaker at local high schools in a single city." This is not correct -- Abe has spoken at cities and military bases throughout NC. He also spoke to a few schools in Florida before he moved to NC. "This is referenced about 50 per cent to primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, like directory entries and YouTube clips and content on the self-published websites of organizations he was directly affiliated with, and about 50 per cent to purely local media coverage in his hometown media market." His coverage is mainly in local media, but there was also an article from People Magazine about how he met with one of his liberators. "There's nothing "inherently" notable about speaking to youth to discuss your life experiences or accompanying them on a field trip, and the amount of sourcing shown here is not sufficient to make him more notable than the thousands going on millions of other people in the world who've done the same things." Again, with respect, there are fewer than 100,000 Holocaust survivors left (and that's using a broad definition of Holocaust survivor -- if you limit it to people who actually spent time in slave labor camps or concentration camps, you're probably under 25,000 people worldwide). The courage it took for him to tell his story in a cattle car when most survivors will not go near that cattle car makes him extraordinary. I'll add more sources and we'll see what other folks think. --GoldbergHistory (talk) 15:34, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

People are not automatically notable just because they were courageous or admirable, people are not automatically notable just because they've had a couple of human interest pieces written about them in their local media, and people are not automatically notable just because the number of people who have their particular life experience happens to be declining. Making a person notable enough for an encyclopedia article requires a lot more than just being able to verify that he exists. Bearcat (talk) 15:59, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On fence for the moment. The tone is certainly all wrong, but it's a close call on notability. Deb (talk) 15:59, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 17:36, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is adequate sourcing in the article to establish notability. Cleanup is needed, but is not a justification for deletion. Alansohn (talk) 00:09, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sufficiently covered more than "locally" now. Subject was also more notable than any random public speaker, as is now sourced and documented in his article. — Wylie pedia @ 05:58, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per CAWylie and Alansohn Patapsco913 (talk) 19:36, 24 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. I'm closing this as a keep based on the argument/evidence/sources provided by Cunard. Thanks everyone for assuming good faith. Missvain (talk) 23:59, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Andy Griffith Show guest stars[edit]

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

A list of one-time (rarely two-time) guest actors on a TV series. The list claims "the show had many guest stars", without further discussing them as a group, ~~so I still doubt this passes WP:LISTN.~~ The "Notes" column appears to be a mix of trivia and "of course the actor also had other roles". The guest stars are all named in List of The Andy Griffith Show episodes, so this list (without the trivia) is redundant to the LoE in it present form. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:31, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was unaware of the previous AfD, so I struck my doubts about WP:LISTN. However, with the number of deleted guest star lists in the past few weeks, I'd like the AfD to run its course and see if consensus has changed. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:36, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge ⌚️ (talk) 14:20, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
History lesson. I originally split this out of the main article because it certainly didn't belong there. Not too long ago, I expressed my doubts about its notability (that may have triggered the first Afd). Clarityfiend (talk) 09:42, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 14:12, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:LISTN informational purposes. Too long for a merge as well. Lightburst (talk) 14:59, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists, which says, "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." I will show below that "The Andy Griffith Show guest stars" has been treated as a "a group or set by independent reliable sources".

Sources
1. Beck, Ken; Clark, Jim (1996). Aunt Bee's Delightful Desserts. Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson. pp. ix–x. ISBN 978-1-55853-402-5. Retrieved 2018-09-07.
  The book provides a list of guest stars:
  1. Jackie Joseph—Ramona Ankrum
  2. Frank Sutton—Sgt. Carter
  3. Charles P. Thompson—Asa Breeney
  4. Enid Markey—Mrs. Mendelbright
  5. Will Wright, Tol Avery, and Jason Johnson—Ben Weaver
  6. Olan Soule—John Masters
  7. Josie Lloyd—Lydia Crosswaith
  8. Barbara Perry—Flossie, Mary Lee, Lavinia, and Doris Williams
  9. Norman Leavitt (it:Norman Leavitt), Trevor Bardette, and Cliff Norton—Wally
  10. Jane Dulo—Escaped convict Sally
  11. Barbara Eden—Ellen Brown
  12. Mary Grace Canfield—Mary Grace Gossage
  13. Joyce Van Patten—Laura Hollander
  14. Robert Cornthwaite—Inspector Somerset
  15. Alan Oppenheimer—Mr. Ruskin, the Interpreter
  16. R. G. Armstrong—Farmer Flint
  17. Elaine Joyce—Mavis Neff
  18. The Country Boys (Roland White, LeRoy McNees, Clarence White, Eric White, and Billy Ray Latham)—Local musicians
  19. Joel Redlin—Ferdie
  20. Alvy Moore—Kitchenwares salesman
  21. Dave Ketchum—Fred Michaels, Harry Walker
  22. George Spence—Frank the fiancé
  23. Brad (Joe Bolleter) Olson—Esquire Club member John Danby
2. Beck, Ken; Clark, Jim (2000) [1985]. The Andy Griffith Show Book. New York: St. Martin's Press. pp. 149–170. ISBN 0-312-26287-6. Retrieved 2018-09-07.
  The book notes:
  There are 249 episodes (159 in black and white; 90 in color) of "The Andy Griffith Show." The following is a list, with brief plot summaries, of all the episodes. The order in which the episodes are listed is the order in which they were filmed and also the order in which they are most commonly aired in syndication. (The order in which the episodes were originally broadcast is slightly different.) Guest stars and prominent actors are also listed, along with the writers of the episodes.
  The book notes this information about guest stars:
  1. In "Episode 8: A Feud Is a Feud", Arthur Hunnicutt and Chubby Johnson are guest stars.
  2. In "Episode 36: Barney on the Rebound", Jackie Coogan is a guest star.
  3. In "Episode 70: The Cow Thief", Malcolm Atterbury and Ralph Bell are guest stars.
  4. In "Episode 74: Convicts-at-Large", Reta Shaw, Jane Dulo, and Jean Carson are guest stars.
  5. In "Episode 107: Gomer Pyle, U.S.M.C.", Frank Sutton is the guest star.
  6. In "Episode 144: Goober Takes a Car Apart", Larry Hovis is the guest star.
  7. In "Episode 167: Taylors in Hollywood", Gavin MacLeod and Hayden Rorke are the guest stars.
  8. In "Episode 187: The Foster Lady", Ronnie Schell and Robert Emhardt are the guest stars.
  9. In "Episode 208: The Statue", Dal McKennon is the guest star.
  10. In "Episode 225: Opie Steps Up in Class", Joyce Van Patten is the guest star.
  11. In "Episode 245: Emmett's Anniversary", Ronnie Schell is the guest star.
3. Robinson, Dale; Fernandes, David (1996). The Definitive Andy Griffith Show Reference: Episode-by-Episode, with Cast and Production Biographies and a Guide to Collectibles. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company. ISBN 0-7864-2068-5. Retrieved 2018-09-07.
  The book discusses each episode in the series and the cast members (including guest cast) involved in each episode.
4. Hall, Lee (1999-05-31). "Mayburied: 'Griffith' Is Out at TBS". Electronic Media. Crain Communications.
  The article notes:
  Guest stars included Jackie Coogan (Uncle Fester, "The Addams Family"); Buddy Ebsen ("Beverly Hillbillies" and "Barnaby Jones"); Alan Hale Jr. (the skipper on "Gilligan's Island"); Bill Bixby ("The Incredible Hulk" and "My Favorite Martian"), Don Rickles; Bob Denver ("Gilligan's Island"); Teri Garr; Jamie Farr ("MASH"); Howard Hesseman ("WKRP in Cincinnati"); Rob Reiner ("All in the Family"); and Jack Nicholson.
5. Butler, Susan (2002-01-18). "Selected titles celebrate all things Mayberry". The Daily Reflector. Archived from the original on 2018-09-08. Retrieved 2018-09-07.
  The article notes:
  The small, fictional town of Mayberry, N.C., lives on in the Verona Joyner Langford North Carolina Collection at Joyner Library. The television series that was set in this picturesque town, "The Andy Griffith Show," debuted on Oct. 3, 1960, and ran for eight seasons. Several books in the collection give detailed summaries of all 249 episodes that aired, along with short biographies of the cast members and various guest stars who passed through Mayberry, including Jack Nicholson, Bill Bixby, and Barbara Eden.
  The article discusses the books The Andy Griffith Show Book by Ken Beck and Jim Clark, The Definitive Andy Griffith Show Reference by Dale Robinson and David Fernandes, and Mayberry 101: Behind The Scenes of a TV Classic by Neal Brower.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the subject to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:10, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Andy Griffith Show guest stars participants: AldezD (talk · contribs), Vorbee (talk · contribs), postdlf (talk · contribs), power~enwiki (talk · contribs), and Atlantic306 (talk · contribs).
Cunard (talk) 08:10, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—List article fails WP:TVCAST and WP:LISTCRUFT. List is redundant to those in LoE article. The more significant guest/recurring stars are listed in List of The Andy Griffith Show characters. AldezD (talk) 14:17, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the multiple reliable sources identified above by Cunard showing that WP:GNG is passed. It's also a valid WP:Split from a notable article and remerging would create an over-large page with difficulties for downloading as per WP:Paper. Regarding other lists at AfD WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST applies, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 18:54, 23 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. WP:SNOW keep. Article has been shown to pass WP:GNG, despite being a stub in its current form. (non-admin closure) _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:05, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vega Conflict[edit]

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

Non notable video game. Celestina007 (talk) 13:12, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:12, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:12, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:12, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not my area, but I found this pretty quickly - it's a good length, and looks like it was written by a staff writer - that would potentially contribute to notability, there might be more out there. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:35, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That certainly isn't a reliable site to use, looks like a fan blog site without a staff attached at all. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:58, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jovanmilic97 Computer games are not my area, so I'll defer to others' opinions on this, but looking a bit more closely, their 'about us' lists their editorial team, and their 'careers' page suggests that they employ freelance writers for their content - it doesn't have the usual 'submit a review' or 'get published' area that I can see anywhere. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:10, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Girth Summit It doesn't matter now with 4 reliable sources I have found in my searches per my comment below. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:22, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Actually, this should have been moved to draft to be incubated instead of this, but because WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, I am leaning this way. There is several significant coverage in reliable sources, such as Gamezebo [18], Engadget [19], Touch Arcade [20] and AdWeek [21]. Not strongly notable, but enough to pass the requirement per WP:GNG. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:21, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keeep per Jovanmilic97 - the article needs work, and some of these sources should be added to demonstrate notability, but I think it's a pass on GNG. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:58, 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. I am going to leave the backlinks intact in case someone feels a redirect to Shi'ar makes sense. – sgeureka ^t•c 22:55, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial Guard (comics)[edit]

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

Fictional organization with no evidence of notability. Merge proposal has been added when my prod was declined, but with no rationale, and I don't see any valuable referenced content that needs to be rescued. No prejudice to soft delete and redirect to Shi'ar. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:27, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:27, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:04, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:56, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Shi'ar. BOZ (talk) 16:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect - Fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 17:43, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Shi'ar. Artw (talk) 22:40, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I think a good article could be built around the Imperial Guard, but virtually nothing from the current article would be in it. Starting over from scratch would be easier. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:29, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Let this page stay. They are notable in the Shi'ar Empire and the comics where they played parts in space-based storylines. Plus, not all of the aliens that are in the Imperial Guard are from the Shi'ar race. --Rtkat3 (talk) 20:49, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- In-universe notability is irrelevant on a real world project like Wikipedia. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:11, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm going to relist as there is mixed views, but only 1 of the !votes (plus the nomination) appears to be policy justified, so a straight delete could be warranted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 12:02, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The bulk of the information here is completely in-universe plot information, sourced only to primary sources. They are already discussed on the main Shi'ar article, and as there is almost no non-primary sourced information, no merger is necessary. I would also argue that the title would not serve as a useful redirect. If this article is deleted, then List of Imperial Guard members should be deleted as well, as its in even worse shape than this already non-notable article. Rorshacma (talk) 18:40, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the article fails WP:GNG, being sourced to primary sources, one passing mention and one Comic Book Resources article that might help, but one source is not enough to pass GNG in any case. The page name too generic to redirect, and I have my doubts about the proposed target article's notability. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:54, 19 January

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 Disney's Saratoga Springs Resort & Spa. No consensus to keep as a separate article, and merge is supported as an option by most participants. RL0919 (talk) 22:59, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Walt Disney World Conference Center[edit]

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

Unsourced for over a decade according to the tag and fails WP:GNG/WP:NBUILD. I've done an extensive before search through a number of articles which all advertise conventions at the center, but I surprisingly can't find any articles which discusses the actual convention center in my before search. SportingFlyer T·C 05:14, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 05:14, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 05:14, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:19, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Found [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27]. Some discussion. If there is coverage but not enough sig. coverage, then certainly a Merge to probably Walt Disney World. Undecided and need to go now. MB 06:34, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1&2 are clearly not significant (unless there's more on 1 past the page cutoff, but it seems to switch topics, and 2 may not be a RS?), 3 is clearly primary, 4 is also primary (within an advertisement), 5 is the type of coverage I sifted through in my BEFORE search - lots of X conference is happening at the conference center without discussing the conference center, and 6 is actually the best of the lot but almost certainly isn't enough to show notability. As I've said, I'm surprised I didn't find all that much, and I hope someone else comes in and demonstrates coverage, but this is the level of coverage I've been finding. SportingFlyer T·C 12:17, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with these additional sources: [28], [29] ("Found inside: Walt Disney World Conference Center Building opened in August 1980. Surrounded by the Club Lake Suites, it offers meeting facilities. In 1996 it became part of The Disney Institute. Walt Disney World Dolphin Hotel at Walt Disney World, near ..."), [30] ("Found inside: Page 880 The Walt Disney World Conference Center consists of conference rooms and banquet facilities. The occupancy rates for all villas averaged 81% for 1986. The occupancy rates for the Company's resort hotels, Fort Wilderness and villas have ..., [31], [32] and [33]. MB 05:09, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Redirect to target article: Disney's Saratoga Springs Resort & Spa. Not sure it ever was notable - and now torn down. Wm335td (talk) 18:33, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:54, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

'Merge or Redirect per Wm335td. Provided sources do not rise above the level of trivial mentions. –dlthewave ☎ 20:11, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:23, 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 keep. Tone 16:33, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Battle of Bhima Koregaon: An Unending Journey[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Don't see enough reviews or any reports on the aftermath of this documentary for verifying the notability. WalkingDisks (talk) 09:59, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:03, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:03, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG and WP:NFILM there is coverage in reliable sources.

Bloomberg Quint A Docu Journey Into the History and Significance of Bhima Koregaon
The Indian Express Somnath Waghmare’s documentary explains why the Battle of Bhima Koregaon is important to Dalits
Mumbai Mirror TISS student’s docufilm heads for the Big Apple
Deccan Herald Docu-film on intriguing 1818 battle premieres in Bengaluru
Pune Mirror MEMORIES OF A FORGOTTEN WAR
Scroll Why is celebrating the Battle of Bhima Koregaon important to Dalits? A documentary has some answers
Pune Mirror Songs of revolution
The New Indian Express ‘Unending story’ of struggle for respect
Ozy (magazine) THE 201-YEAR-OLD BATTLE WHOSE MEMORY DIVIDES INDIA
The Wire A Month After the Violence, Bhima Koregaon Is Still on Edge
Business Standard India Heritage Walk Festival: Feast on documentaries online
Ananda Vikatan in Tamil language `ரஞ்சித்தை தலித் இயக்குநராகப் பார்ப்பது நியாயமில்லை!' - ஆவணப்பட இயக்குநர் சோம்நாத்

Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:53, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

one time coverage/newsbursts isnt considered sustained coverage required to prove notability. —usernamekiran(talk) 13:07, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG with significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, also WP:Notability is not temporary, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your guideline link states: "Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline", which is contrary to your meaning. Spare that guideline link for a person like Irenaeus, not for the subject that fails WP:NFILM. Aman Kumar Goel^(Talk) 15:07, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:GNG significant coverage is multiple reliable sources as already shown Atlantic306 (talk) 00:41, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, to achieve "notability is not temporary" status, the subject has to achieve the notability first. Also, would you kindly provide the sources where you found the significant coverage of subject? Thanks. —usernamekiran(talk) 16:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It obviously passes WP:GNG with the coverage listed above, notability is not supposed to be akin to the search for the holy grail, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:20, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Content may need beefing up but passed WP:GNG. PenulisHantu (talk) 06:16, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete WP:NRVE states: No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: the evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest. After a thorough search, what I found was news bursts after the documentary was released. The coverage simply stopped after a few weeks from release. There is no sutained coverage of the documentary. Notability can not be established without sustained coverage. The documentary also fails the notability guidelines for films/documentaries, it doesnt have other evidence of notability either. —usernamekiran (talk) 01:13, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree with PenulisHantu, there are enough sources to pass WP:GNG. Shashanksinghvi334 (talk) 06:45, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes both WP:NFILM as well as WP:GNG based on the sources presented above and my own searches. The film reviews have been published in major newspapers of India. [34] [35] DBig Xrayᗙ 05:47, 25 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. Keeping on the basis that the articles can be improved with better sources. If all else fails, we can revisit this again in the future. Thanks everyone for assuming good faith. Missvain (talk) 00:01, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sal Vulcano[edit]

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

I don't believe any of the members of The Tenderloins are individually notable outside of the comedy troupe/Impractical Jokers. These articles should be merged into The Tenderloins or deleted. Draft:James Murray (comedian) was put back into draft after being published, but should also not have it's own article. Cerebral726 (talk) 19:09, 3 January 2020 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:[reply]

Pinging some relevant users: Þjarkur, Lilydog945, QuiteUnusual.

Delete none of these individuals are notable per our guidelines on entertainers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:43, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect articles back to the The Tenderloins' members sections. Vistadan 20:47, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:31, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:31, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for all, sure the pages were initially terribly sourced, but there is enough coverage of each individual. They are far more well known than many other comedians on here.--Seacactus 13 (talk) 16:25, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

* AGREE with above sentiment, well-said. I say:

Keep from me as well for all, sure the pages were initially terribly sourced, but there is enough coverage of each individual. They are far more well known than many other comedians on here. From Peter a.k.a. Vid2vid (talk) 21:54, 6 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Actually, the members of The Tenderloins. Each of the jokers have more followers on Instagram than the Instagram account for Impractical Jokers. Although Sal, Joe, Murr, and Q are very connected, they are individual people. People WANT to read about them! I find it RIDICULOUS how you don't think they are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia pages as they venture on to their own journeys away from Impractical Jokers and have their own pasts. I can EASILY add more citations on their pages. Lilydog945 (talk) 19:09, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Highly strongly AGREE with above too. Hear hear. --Peter a.k.a. Vid2vid (talk) 21:54, 6 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Delete or Redirect How many Instagram followers someone has doesn't make one notable for Wikipedia. Sourcing does. Much of the sourcing for these guys is not independent of their group or their TV show. 15:50, 7 January 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muboshgu (talk • contribs)
Speedy Delete no in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources can be found.Celestina007 (talk) 22:53, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 2000 google news hits. [36] Peregrine Fisher (talk) 23:33, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:33, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It takes about 1 minute to vote delete, and 100 minutes to really improve an article. I will spend 100 minutes improving this article, if some one will in return vote keep on 100 other articles. Thanks. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 20:07, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I hate how so any people just try and get as many pages as possible deleted just by briefly looking at them.--Seacactus 13 (talk) 02:44, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:18, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For failing notability guiselines, such as WP:ENTERTAINER. Note to closing admin, most of the keep votes point to WP:WHATABOUTX which is not a valid argument in AfD. We don't compare articles to others, we judge them on their own merit. Ifnord (talk) 18:44, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Should be kept. I specifically searched for Q and found information about him through this page. It's ridiculous to delete such a famous personality page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.160.64.215 (talk) 00:57, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. I see sufficient sourcing to meet GNG and have reasonable stand-alone articles. Merge/redirect isn't a great option as they are all notable for both The Tenderloins and Impractical Jokers.--Mojo Hand (talk) 16:35, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. They meet WP:GNG I find quite a few RSs in a WP:BEFORE search. Lightburst (talk) 18:05, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:06, 28 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. v/r - T P 13:41, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michael F. Bachner[edit]

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

Does not meet notability requirements. Yes, Bachner has represented famous people, but notability is not inherited and I do not see any in-depth reliable source coverage of Bachner himself. The sources in the article are mostly about the people he represented with a line in them mentioning the he is their attorney. Rusf10 (talk) 23:31, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 23:31, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 23:31, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:59, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup Well sourced.-Splinemath (talk) 17:35, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is anything but well sourced. The sources only include trivial mentions of Bachner.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:51, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep mob lawyer for whom sources exist. Wm335td (talk) 20:27, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not a claim to notability. Where are the in-depth secondary sources?--Rusf10 (talk) 20:37, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per my standards and WP:BARE. He wasn't bar review nor a moot court judge, nor has he served in the New York State Bar Association in any leadership capacity (I particularly note that he's not a member of its Entertainment, Arts and Sports Law Section, of which I am a member, and he's not even a member of its Litigation committee). Being a research assistant to a professor and an ADA are run of the mill jobs many people have done. However, he has become well-known for his representation of celebrities in NYC. In a deeper search online, I've found some references to him being involved in the past in bar association(s) and important appellate cases. Bearian (talk) 19:15, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:57, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Despite Bearian's experience and knowledge, I'm struggling to see how the subject meets general notability guidelines. He has been named in cases and worked with high profile clients, but unlike other lawyers who do both, I don't see much coverage about him specifically at this point, just passing mentions or occasional quotes. Missvain (talk) 23:35, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete reliable source references are passing mentions, he's not the focal point of any of the coverage used as sources. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:48, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:17, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft to see if additional work can salvage the notability of the subject. BD2412 T 00:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or draftify, it does appear to be questionably over the notability line but there is significant potential for future coverage. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 01:01, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can someone please present the significant coverage in reliable sources that we require (WP:GNG)? We do not keep articles simply because they have a lot of references or because there is a possibility that significant coverage in reliable sources will exist in the future. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 11:33, 29 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 extended time for discussion. BD2412 T 03:56, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keon Alexander[edit]

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

Non notable actor failing to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR a before I conducted shows evidence that subject of article has next to no notability none whatsoever. Celestina007 (talk) 19:53, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:53, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:53, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:53, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:53, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient with regard to both roles and coverage and major media.NotButtigieg (talk) 20:13, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable.-Splinemath (talk) 17:20, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the actor has had a number of significant recurring roles in number of very popular notable TV shows (The Expanse, Impulse, Tyrant) as well as various other television and film appearances. To me, he meets the notability standards, but the text of the article itself needs work; there's hardly anything there. Dflaw4 (talk) 10:00, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Dflaw4. Articles needs some work. Patapsco913 (talk) 06:51, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 01:17, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:53, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete he has not held multiple significant roles and I'd hardly call one 5 episode role in a Netflix/Amazon show (which are churned out faster than I can type) to be major or significant. Praxidicae (talk) 13:52, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:16, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have cleaned up and added to the text of the article. I would encourage other editors to do the same, especially for the purposes of references. As I noted above, I believe that the actor's several significant recurring roles as well as his other film and TV work push him across the line in terms of notability standards. Dflaw4 (talk) 11:06, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weakish keep Some coverage. Would like to see a weightier source as to being a TIFF rising star. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 18:10, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Added some more sources (some are in-passing but one mentions the actor in respect of the TIFF rising stars). Dflaw4 (talk) 06:23, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:NACTOR has had significant recurring roles in notable TV shows. Lightburst (talk) 18:11, 28 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. While there doesn't appear to be a clear consensus for why this article should be kept, the consensus that it should be kept seems almost unanimous after two weeks of discussion. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:51, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nailya Alexander Gallery[edit]

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

This gallery does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Qono (talk) 00:15, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Qono (talk) 00:15, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Qono (talk) 00:15, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Qono (talk) 00:15, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Qono (talk) 00:15, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Qono (talk) 00:15, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:52, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems well sourced to me. What am I missing? That it's sourced in art magazines? Randy Kryn (talk) 10:24, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Randy Kryn, The sources are all industry-specific and do not provide significant coverage of the gallery. They are merely directory listings or are covering an exhibition held at the gallery, not the gallery itself. Qono (talk) 17:28, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The notability of the gallery, mentioned below, also includes the shows exhibited there. It's a 15 year old established gallery, with sourced articles about the 15 year anniversary. So per NotButtigieg as well. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Randy Kryn, See my response below. Qono (talk) 01:09, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping, although J947's reasoning is closer to my view. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:43, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Randy Kryn, Can you clarify what you mean? J947 has said he doesn't see evidence of the article meeting the general notability guidelines, but you have voted to keep the article, indicating that you do think it meets the notability guidelines. Qono (talk) 19:43, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"...the part of GNG that says it does not need to be the main topic of the source material [to qualify as significant coverage]." If you answer, we're supposed to put additional comments below the relist. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:55, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Shows in this gallery are regularly reviewed in the New York Times, The Guardian, the Wall Street Journal and the arts media.NotButtigieg (talk) 11:07, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NotButtigieg, Though shows in the gallery may be covered in reliable sources, the coverage is of the artwork displayed there, not the gallery itself, so this does not constitute significant coverage from reliable sources. Qono (talk) 17:29, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Qono, Please notice that there are two articles in reputable publications about this gallery's fifteenth anniversary.NotButtigieg (talk) 18:40, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NotButtigieg, Randy Kryn The two articles mentioned about the gallery's anniversary are actually just repostings of the same press release provided by the gallery, and so are not coverage independent of the subject. Even if it were, it does not constitute significant coverage. Also, neither of the publishers are particularly reputable and both are industry-specific. This gallery does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Qono (talk) 17:39, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Qono—you say "They are merely directory listings or are covering an exhibition held at the gallery, not the gallery itself." Art galleries are notable for holding art exhibitions. A "press release provided by the gallery" is evidence that the gallery is holding art exhibitions. If the gallery does this over a sufficient length of time, that art gallery should be considered "notable" by Wikipedia's standards. You want coverage of "the gallery itself". What does that mean? Do we need coverage of the bathrooms? How high the ceilings are? The lighting available for illuminating art objects? "The gallery itself" happens to be almost irrelevant to whether or not we should have an article on an art gallery. We have articles on Mike the headless chicken—but Wikipedia is not going to have an article on a photography gallery functioning in New York City since 2004? Bus stop (talk) 17:42, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bus stop, On Wikipedia, art galleries, like everything else, are notable because of significant coverage by reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Simply holding exhibitions does not make a gallery notable. Further, a press release is not independent of the subject. If editors cannot show that an article meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability, it should be deleted. This is Wikipedia policy. See WP:SIGCOV, WP:ORG. Qono (talk) 01:02, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's a guideline, not a policy. An important difference. Also, please read the guideline MOS:LISTGAP to make sure you don't change indentation types. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 01:19, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Qono—art is an entity very different from other entities that might be for sale. We are not slaves to policy. If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. Bus stop (talk) 02:39, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bus stop, the policies and guidelines represent the consensus of editors and should be followed unless there is a very good reason not to. "Art is special" is not a compelling argument to break from established consensus about notability. Qono (talk) 16:22, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Qono—you are misquoting me. I did not say "Art is special". Bus stop (talk) 17:04, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bus stop, I was paraphrasing you. I think it is a fair paraphrasing of "art is an entity very different from other entities that might be for sale", but I will try to specify when I am quoting and paraphrasing in the future. Qono (talk) 18:49, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unsure of this currently as I feel like there is some SIGCOV out there; I don't think I've seen enough to establish GNG yet (I'd like some links to news articles). Press releases should not and do not contribute to GNG. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 00:57, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
J947, I've looked, but all the mentions of this gallery in reliable sources are incidental to reviews of the work exhibited there. The gallery itself is not the subject of any of the articles in reliable sources. WP:ORGDEPTH says that "trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability." Qono (talk) 01:18, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm no stranger to this area; I even made an essay on it. That essay references this the part of GNG that says it does not need to be the main topic of the source material [to qualify as significant coverage]. I have a lax view on what constitutes SIGCOV and in my opinion in topics like this only 30/40-odd words are needed in each search, as that is enough to base a decent stub on and is direct and in sufficent detail. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 01:26, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll trust the others because they know much more about the proper notability of galleries than me. Keep. Basically, this article should function as a collation of substantial mentions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 19:59, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:16, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An article about a gallery located in midtown Manhattan for the past 15 years showing photographs of Russian and American origin is worthy of an article. It is as simple as that. Policy has it wrong, in this case. Policy is not cognizant of the unique nature of art. Policy is like a bull in a china shop—in this instance. Policy is demanding inapplicable standards be met for the subject of an article, in this instance. The expenses are enormous in keeping an enterprise such as this afloat and art is so indefinable that we have to resort to other metrics to determine notability. Do we have strong indication that this is a functioning art gallery? I think so. The existence of the art gallery can't be an enormous hoax, though I have never visited it. Concerning art galleries, you are not going to get the same sort of confirmation of notability that you are going to get for a noteworthy entity marketing widgets. Marketing art is quintessentially about creating demand where none existed before. Bus stop (talk) 17:07, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bus stop, the Arbitration Committee has confirmed that "participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope." See WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. So, the notability guidelines apply to this article and others about art galleries. Editors need to show that this gallery meets the notability guideline of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Qono (talk) 16:07, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Qono—punctilious application of policy should coincide with what one feels is the preferred course of action. Please tell me, in your own words, without recourse to policy, why the article on the "Nailya Alexander Gallery" should be deleted. I'm interested in knowing your motivation. Is it on the merits of the article, apart from how policy comes to bear, that you feel this article should be deleted? Or are you simply trying to apply policy? Bus stop (talk) 17:24, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bus stop, I think the article should be deleted because the subject of the article is not noteworthy enough to be included in an encyclopedia. Qono (talk) 18:51, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Qono—can you not expand a little further on why you feel the subject of this article is "not noteworthy enough to be included in an encyclopedia"? Bus stop (talk) 19:05, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bus stop, my feelings about what constitutes notability in this context largely align with the guidelines. There is no indication that the gallery is particularly remarkable or important. A simple Google search reveals no substantial information about the gallery that might indicate that it should be included in an encyclopedia. If there was a clear indicator that the gallery is somehow remarkable or noteworthy, I would accept that—but so far my good-faith efforts to find those indicators or other significant coverage of the gallery have turned up nothing. That it holds some rare prints and exhibits artwork is not remarkable. There needs to be evidence that it plays an important role in the cultural life of the city or has a place in art history or the history of photography. Qono (talk) 19:34, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Qono—you are saying "There needs to be evidence that it plays an important role in the cultural life of the city or has a place in art history or the history of photography. For 15 years the gallery has survived in an expensive city. The gallery is involved in the art market and NYC is known as an important city for its art market. Does that not suggest for the gallery an "important role in the cultural life of the city"? Artforum tells us "Nailya Alexander Gallery specializes in Russian vintage (1920s-1950s) and contemporary photography." Bus stop (talk) 20:10, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bus stop, I do not think that the gallery's mere existence in NYC, no matter the duration or the local real estate market, is sufficient to indicate notability. The gallery's specialization does not indicate its significance. If a reliable source said that their specialization was substantial or somehow remarkable, I might think otherwise. Qono (talk) 20:17, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Qono—how can a non-notable gallery exist in NYC for 15 years? It is notable by definition. The reason is that it is selling art. What is fine-art photography? It cannot be defined. The gallery is notable because it is contributing to, along with the artists, the creation of a product. And it is doing this over a sufficient period of time that should indicate to Wikipedia that it is a notable entity. For 15 years the Nailya Alexander Gallery has probably convinced the art-buying public that something that heretofore did not exist—new art—is worth paying money for. Bus stop (talk) 21:33, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Glueck in 2006 in the New York Times reviews the work of Alexey Titarenko at the Nailya Alexander Gallery. Bus stop (talk) 06:29, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well-established art galleries are of substantial cultural significance, and should easily pass the bar of notability. BD2412 T 21:10, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
BD2412, you're right, but the way Wikipedia determines if something is substantially culturally significant is through editors providing evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. This gallery does not meet that criteria and so is not substantially culturally significant (notable) enough to merit a Wikipedia article. Qono (talk) 16:25, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Qono, can you explain what, in your view, makes The Eye of Photography Magazine and ArtDaily insufficient as sources to provide coverage independent of the subject? I am also somewhat curious as to why you are disputing every single comment made by anyone else in this discussion. BD2412 T 19:52, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
BD2412, the sources you mention appear to be simply republishing a press release distributed by the gallery and so this coverage doesn't apply because it is not independent of the subject. I am engaging with discussion in this thread to try to reach a consensus that is in accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. Qono (talk) 20:14, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have founded and added a reference from a book in print. BD2412 T 00:36, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
20 words direct and in detail isn't really enough for SIGCOV to be satisfied though. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:36, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nevertheless, it meets the standards for noteworthiness within the article, as it underscores the role of this gallery as not just presenting contemporary artists, but preserving older works of historical significance. BD2412 T 04:43, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly meets notability requirements for art galleries, per the votes above. Ambrosiawater (talk) 02:38, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It clearly does not meet the notability guidelines for NCORP, as there is not much coverage about the gallery itself out there. There are one or two decent sources in the article; maybe it just barely meets WP:BARE. I searched for the gallery, the gallery +collection, the gallery + founded+2004, Nailya Alexander alone and so on. All I found were trival mentions. Their collection might be important, but all I found were photo credits for the gallery (for example in this blurb for the Jewish Museum show of Russian photographers). Perhaps that is enough, if they have been distributing important photographs.. even if no one has written much abotu that contribution? Anyway, this AfD seems like it is going to slip through the WP:NOTINHERITED guidelines, so I am happy to jump on board and IAR. Keeping it would be the proper non-policy based decision to make, and I encourage all others to get on the keep train. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:12, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't have a problem with a gallery gaining some measure of its notability from the artists it shows, as that is what galleries do. This does not seem to be a situation where the gallery, by dint of having been chosen by the artist, is getting publicity. Rather, it appears that the galleries is choosing which artists they will showcase, and thereby making the artists notable. With respect to this gallery, at least, it appears to have undertaken efforts to pluck long-forgotten photographers from obscurity and showcased their work in ways that brought them new appreciation. BD2412 T 04:23, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but it is the photographers who get the coverage here, not the gallery. There aren't really any valid policy-based keep arguments in this AfD... which is why it is an interesting AfD. It's a bit of a rejection of the current notability policies. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:58, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When you are talking about artists born recently, a gallery of contemporary art should "inherit" notability from the artist and from the artwork. That is because to some degree the art gallery may have "discovered" the artist (and the artwork) and to some degree the art gallery may be taking a chance on unestablished artists even if they did not "discover" them. That is just my opinion and it is not enshrined in policy. Bus stop (talk) 16:07, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the same applies to galleries publicizing older artists whose work might otherwise be overlooked or forgotten. I am actually somewhat perplexed by the notion that a source discussing the presentation of an artist by a gallery is not a source about the gallery, in much the same way that I would be perplexed by an assertion that a source on a basketball game was not a source about the teams playing in the game, because it is the individual players rather than the team doing the playing. BD2412 T 00:26, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BD2412: A well-known restaurant hires a chef. The chef is profiled in the NYTimes but they only talk about the chef. Is the restaurant more notable? Not by our rules. In any case, this was all discussed to death recently on the WP:NOTABILITY talk page, which clocks in at 30,762 words. The clear concensus was that all of the possible arguments to make an exception to NCORP (galleries are special; notability is inherited from the artists; established galleries are special; galleries curate and develop and artist's career, so they are notable for that; reviews of individual artists are dependent on the gallery's work so they contribute to the notability of the gallery itself; and so on) are not acceptable exceptions. This AfD has many similar arguments, which aren't valid reasons to keep. Just don't ping anyone from that discussion, as they will come over and derail the WP:IAR keep train that we have going here. TLDR: yes we should have an SNG for galleries. We do not because it would open too many holes for subjective interpretations in the notability rules.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:41, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ThatMontrealIP: For a single instance, that might not render notability, but if the same restaurant hires a series of up-and-coming chefs, each of whom is profiled in the NYTimes with even some small mention being made of the restaurant in each profile, and if the same restaurant also briefly revives the career of some retired and long-forgotten great chefs, and those chefs are similarly profiled in the NYTimes with some mention being made of the restaurant, then in the aggregate it is the restaurant that is being profiled, for its choices in hiring chefs. Of course, it isn't the case here that the gallery itself is never the subject of commentary; the issue there is whether commentary directed to the gallery is independent enough or high-profile enough. However, we aren't looking at any one source in isolation here, but the universe of available sources taken as a whole. BD2412 T 04:41, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK lets skip the analogies. The coverage for this subject is really poor. The mentions of the gallery itself in reviews of its shows are largely "showing at Nailya Alexanger gallery" more or less. There aren't any policy reasons for keeping it, and no convincing ones have been advanced yet. This subject fails the notability test by a long shot. But I am still on the keep train, for IAR reasons.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:10, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ThatMontrealIP, can you clarify why you are "on the keep train for IAR reasons"? Do you think that following the notability guidelines prevents us from maintaining or improving Wikipedia? I'm trying to understand why you are applying IAR in this case, since you agree that coverage of this gallery "is really poor." Qono (talk) 15:52, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Qono I !voted keep because I think our policies are wrong. We should recognize galleries, but our policies are preventing it. So IAR.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Qono—the notability guidelines are ignorant of art galleries. Art galleries are not like other organizations and companies. That isn't to say that all art galleries get a pass. We need to be discerning. But nothing in WP:ORG addresses art galleries. So discernment particular to art galleries isn't a possibility if we are to adhere to the strict letter of overly-general policy. (I'm certainly not meaning to speak for ThatMontrealIP. I am only expressing my own views.) Bus stop (talk) 19:25, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bus stop: I agree entirely with what you just wrote.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 08:53, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The gallery is blindly notable and really close AFD, we should not waste more time on it. Shashanksinghvi334 (talk) 06:51, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I wanted to call attention to a recent and extensive discussion on this very topic on the Notability talk page (pointed out by ThatMontrealIP). I'm not sure what the consensus of that discussion is so I have requested that an admin officially close that thread. Either way, the arguments there are very relevant here and may be helpful for participants and the eventual closer of this discussion. Qono (talk) 16:15, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's one of several notable galleries in the Fuller Building, itself a notable venue. FWIW, I've been there, most recently 11 September 2019 for a major opening for their show on avant garde Soviet photography. Bearian (talk) 21:50, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There do seem to be a number of articles on north American galleries whose importance eludes me, e.g. Tina Kim Gallery. (Yes I know, othercrapexists.) -- Hoary (talk) 04:36, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it should be merged with Tina Kim (art dealer). Bus stop (talk) 05:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

i would support that.... Coolabahapple (talk) 13:30, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

. . . except that I have similar difficulty discerning the notability of Tina Kim (art dealer). -- Hoary (talk) 23:44, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"The whole area may be a mess" and then again the whole area may not be a mess. A general problem is that the odds are stacked against finding notability for galleries and gallery-owners because their work is behind-the-scenes. Little in their activity serves to provide notability for galleries and gallery-owners. Effort is devoted to providing exposure for artists and artworks. Bus stop (talk) 00:24, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Collector Daily could be called a blog. But whatever it is, it has commentary on photo exhibitions (and, irrelevant here, photobooks) that -- although too reverent for my personal taste -- is thoughtful and signed. A quick look for mentions of it in the archives of WP:RSN doesn't show anything. I think one could make judicious use of comments made at Collector Daily on the taste, enterprisingness, imagination, etc of this gallery. Such comments should be retrievable via the website's page of Nailya Alexander reviews. Unfortunately I don't now have time to do this myself. (I also don't know whether Collector Daily is one of several similar websites, or is unusual.) -- Hoary (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 13:25, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tajinder Pal Singh Bagga[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN as a politician who never contested nor won any national or state level election. Only claim to notability is being a Delhi "state" spokesperson (spox) of BJP party, which is not a notable post . (BJP has 11 national spox) and probably more than a few hundred state spox. The news hits are mostly him giving newsbytes to media as a spox, which doesnt help with the notability. DBig Xrayᗙ 11:00, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 11:00, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 11:00, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 11:00, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being a political party spokesman is not an "inherently" notable role that guarantees an article under WP:NPOL, but the article is not referenced anywhere near well enough to get him over WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 21:55, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete subject doesnt have significant coverage thus fails general notability guidelines. The subject fails notability guidelines for politicians as well. —usernamekiran (talk) 06:29, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet WP:GNG & WP:NPOL. Party spokesperson is not a notable post. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 11:34, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A quick online check finds hardly any significant coverage. No persistent or in depth mentions. Accesscrawl (talk) 06:36, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NPOL, not independently notable to qualify for a Wikipedia page. Shashanksinghvi334 (talk) 07:01, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. - He was recently declared ( 21st Jan IST ) as the BJP's candidate for the Delhi state assembly election 1. Not sure how this recent events affects the notability of the person. Razer(talk) 20:04, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Razer2115, It does not affect the notability one bit. Assembly election candidates are non notable. see WP:NPOLITICIAN DBig Xrayᗙ 20:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it'll make substantial difference, if he wins and bears an office than there is a chance for the article. However, for now candidature is WP:BLP1E and winning is WP:SPECULATION Accesscrawl (talk) 01:52, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - except for national leaders such as chairperson or secretary-treasurer, we almost never keep articles about party officials. We have even deleted articles about candidates for one of the two major parties in the United States Senate. I don't see this very strong consensus changing before the next election in India. Bearian (talk) 21:58, 22 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. Tone 13:24, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JoelPatrick[edit]

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

Cannot see that this man is notable. Sources are unconvincing, both in terms of content and in some cases as reliable sources.TheLongTone (talk) 15:13, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Got no input before and was apparently incorrectly formatted
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:25, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:15, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:15, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete many sources are primary or questionable. His music career has zero secondary sources. The best source, and it looks like the sole reliable source we have, is the article in Politico, he is described at end of the article. Beyond the few mentions of him already in the aritcle, my search on his name produced nothing except his twitter and youtube accounts, primary sources, and unreliable ones.IceFishing (talk) 12:40, 20 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 07:12, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Audrey Hopkins[edit]

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

Article subject fails WP:NARTIST. The article cites some sources, but said sources are all WP:PRIMARY, unreliable, or contain only passing (one word or sentence) mention of the subject and are about other topics. Most importantly, no in-depth, independent sources credibly indicate the subject meets any of the criteria laid down by NARTIST, and a WP:BEFORE search turns up no potential sources that could rectify this. SamHolt6 (talk) 07:06, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 07:42, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 07:42, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, WP:NARTIST. I haven't found any significant mentions in reliable sources either. Less Unless (talk) 10:35, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:17, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:17, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:17, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't see any notability. Deb (talk) 16:05, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not seeing WP:SIGCOV, so this is a GNG fail.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:14, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Have not found anything significant to establish notability of this American animator. Maybe in a few years if there is sigcov of her work. Does not meet GNG or NARTIST criteria. Netherzone (talk) 02:59, 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 delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 07:11, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pastoral dog[edit]

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

Fails GNG. The only source for this page is one added by me in an attempt to improve it, David Hancock's Dogs of the shepherds: a review of the pastoral breeds (Marlborough: Crowood Press, 2014, ISBN 978-1-84797-809-7). Despite using the phrase "pastoral dog" in the book several times, Hancock usually says "pastoral breeds" or "shepherd's dog" and very definitely separates livestock guardian dogs and herding dogs throughout, really the book is about dogs used by shepherds across the world. I suspect the page was created because The Kennel Club has a "pastoral group" which encompasses both herding dogs and livestock guardian dogs. Cavalryman (talk) 06:55, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and its meaning in the current source is not clearly defined. This article has remained a stub since it was created in 2006, it is not going to be developed further because there are no other WP:RELIABLE sources. William Harristalk 07:07, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 07:40, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is essential a dab page with two types. Bearian (talk) 22:00, 22 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. Deleting per HighKing's rationale. Thanks everyone for assuming good faith. Missvain (talk) 00:02, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comsec Consulting[edit]

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

Non-notable consulting firm. There’s no reliable sourcing available on this firm; every source is a press release or other information directly from their website or a brief blurb on an internal industry newsletter, which is not something that can be used to establish notability and is probably not reliable. Michepman (talk) 13:14, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Michepman (talk) 13:14, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Michepman (talk) 13:14, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Michepman (talk) 13:14, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Michepman (talk) 13:14, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No non-trivial coverage in reliable independent sources. Guy (help!) 13:28, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can find things out there in reliable sources showing they are notable, certainly enough to pass WP:GNG and WP:42. [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], etc. --Jayron 32 13:31, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I saw those sources as well, but my thinking was that they fell under the definition of “trivial coverage” as defined by WP:NCORP.

for example, the third source you listed is about cybersecurity at the World Cup. A Comsec employee is quoted only once, as a source about the amount of phishing related spam emails sent during the Germany World Cup. That is not “significant coverage” since the article contains no information about Comsec and is just citing it for information about an unrelated topic.

The other sources (such as the first and second) fall under NCORP’s standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage, such as [...] of expansions, acquisitions, mergers, sales or of changes in share or bond prices (such as the Haaretz link you provided). As the guideline states, this type of coverage is not enough to establish notability. Michepman (talk) 15:01, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Except the Haaretz article is not just a change in share price. Sources are not invalidated simply because they mention share prices, sources should be assessed on the totality of their coverage, and the Haaretz source also discusses the organization of the company and some of its background. It's not a lot, but it is not merely a change in share price report. It's that and more information, which the and more information which is useful for notability purposes. Those sources are also not comprehensive. This dutch documentary appears to discuss the company in some detail. This computer weekly article discusses the company as well. This Times of India article, and This Ghanese news source, This other Haaretz article, etc. --Jayron 32 17:00, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to have received no significant coverage other than self-published sources (press releases and website) and only incidental references outside of that. I agree that WP:NCORP controls. Alicb (talk) 15:03, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to have coverage in a number of reputable sources. Keep. Rathfelder (talk) 18:24, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jayron's sourcing establishes sufficient notability to pass NCORP. ——SN 54129 19:06, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jayron has produced sufficient sources to establish notability. The Times of India piece in particular is convincing. Now some of that should make it into the article - current sourcing is indeed an abomination unto the Lord. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:10, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sourcing found above. Meets WP:GNG. Jayron32 has located many. By a preponderance of evidence we can see notability. Wm335td (talk) 19:40, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, on balance. The Times of Israel piece and the Dutch documentary are probably enough to get it over the hump. --valereee (talk) 13:37, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the Times of Israel, Haaretz, Ghanese, and Dutch documentary as sources. I'm completely ignorant of cybersecurity issues, so anyone who does know them please check my work. --valereee (talk) 14:27, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources are low quality, rewritten press releases or mentions in passing. There is not much we can do with that. WP:CORPSPAM. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:54, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hug^syrup 17:22, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The test is not merely for "reliable sources" or "independent sources". The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of *significant* coverage with *in-depth* information on the company and (this bit is important!) containing *Independent Content* which is defined as follows: "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. The "independent" "reliable" sources produced above by Jayron32 fail to meet the criteria for establishing notability as follows:
- Times of Israel reference is based entirely on press conference/interview/quotations from the CEO and CRO and does not contain Independent Content, fails WP:ORGIND
- Globes reference is based on a Press Release from Convertix, has no Independent Content, fails WP:ORGIND.
- EMERCE reference is entirely based on a company posting which is clearly stated at the top of the page, fails WP:ORGIND
- Security Intelligence reference is a mention-in-passing to a Comsec blog post on "Keep one eye on the ball and the other on the NET!", fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORGIND
- SC Media source in based entirely on an interview with the CEO, contains no Independent Content, fails WP:ORGIND
- Haaretz source is based on a normal quarterly announcement by the CEO/Chairman. It is stated above that "the Haaretz source also discusses the organization of the company and some of its background" but none of that comes from an source not connected with the company nor is the content clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Fails WP:ORGIND.
- Cybernation reference is based on a company announcement from Eldav on its acquisition of Comsec, fails WP:ORGIND
I am unable to find any sources that meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails WP:NCORP/GNG HighKing⁺⁺ 13:19, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To further discuss the quality of the sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:54, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jayron on basis of gng. 2604:2000:E010:1100:6CE7:D625:5B30:1B91 (talk) 08:53, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per lack of multiple reliable sources as cited above by HighKing --Adamant1 (talk) 01:09, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per HighKing's in-depth analysis. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:03, 26 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. Wow, that was a headache to review. I'm deleting this one. Folks can bring it up at deletion review if they disagree. Thanks everyone for assuming good faith. Missvain (talk) 00:03, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

T. G. Mohandas[edit]

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

A non notable worker of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and Bharatiya Janata Party from Kerala. The subject fails general notability guidelines, because there is no significant coverage of them. Also, the subject clearly fails notability guidelines for politicians. Kutyava (talk) 01:12, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kutyava (talk) 01:16, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Kutyava (talk) 01:16, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kutyava (talk) 01:16, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : See the Discussions Talk:T._G._Mohandas that the admin kept after the result of long discussions ,Please Remember Kutyava,Wikipedia is not the place to play your dirty politics. Padavalam Kuttan Pilla Talk 06:34, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Mr. Padavalam Kuttan Pilla the Wikipedia not a political party's platform. Bcs you explain the notability of the person as you are the creator of the article. Kutyava (talk) 09:43, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kutyava:You got it wrong, I didn't create it .but the notability of this article was once discussed.Check out his talk page- Talk:T._G._Mohandas -- Padavalam Kuttan Pilla Talk 10:51, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Padavalamkuttanpilla: Nothing explained on the page about the notability of the article. Kutyava (talk) 11:51, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kutyava: Please Watch this discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/TG_Mohandas — Preceding unsigned comment added by Padavalamkuttanpilla (talk • contribs) 12:26, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Padavalamkuttanpilla: Tell me what is the notability of the man as a lawyer, politician or sangh parivar worker. Authordom (talk) 04:42, 13 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 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:25, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP There is no change in notability from eight months ago. Why is this here again so soon? GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 17:33, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GenQuest: Is the lack of changes a cause of notability?Authordom (talk) 07:48, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nothing has changed since the last deletion nomination. Still meets WP:GNG. ([43][44]) --RaviC (talk) 22:45, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@RaviC: Is the lack of changes a cause of notability? Some sources are notable but not a subject for his notability. Authordom (talk) 07:48, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment a review about the sources used in the article.

LINK 1; Source: The New Indian Express: Date: 09th August 2016 - This link is the source for establishing that he was Kerala state convener of Bharatiya Janata Party's Intellectual Cell. Are the position is notable? The Intellectual Cell is a wing of the Kerala state committee of the political party. The political party not a major in the state, only one seat in the Kerala Assembly and no any seat in Loksabha from Kerala. The source was used three times in the article separately.
LINK 2; Source: Haindava Keralam; Date: 28 October 2010 - This is a promotional release by a Sangh Parivar linked portal. Not a reliable source.
LINK 3; LINK 4; LINK 5; Sources: Non Reliable Malayalam portals - These are tag links not that sources.
LINK 6; LINK 7; Source:vod-videos.janamtv.com - These are links of a Portal linked to RSS and BJP authority of the state and these are not working properly, but redirecting to a YouTube channel.
LINK 8; Source:Janam TV; Date: 2017-03-09 - This a link of a Portal linked to RSS and BJP authority of the state.
LINK 9; LINK 10; LINK 11; LINK 12; LINK 13; Source: Some Malayalam portals - non reliable sources.

Some other sources like: Deccan Chronicle, The Hindu and The Times of India are good but they are not support his notability. Authordom (talk) 08:42, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A review about the "review":

TNIE is a highly reliable and independent source. TGM is not a politician and RSS is not a political party, even for a politician notability does not depend on whether his party is major or minor in a particular state. No problem in citing a source 3 or 15 times.
It's a website, NOT a portal. And from where did you got the information that it is linked to Sangh Parivar, your source?
NOT "portals". Mangalam and Chandrika are "newspapers", reliable and are among the oldest Malayalam dailies, with established reputation. Asianet News is a reliable and among the oldest news channels in Kerala, also THE most watched Malayalam news channel, per data from BARC.
Again, NOT a "portal", Janam TV is a news channel. Redirecting means it was once live, such sources should not be removed because of its current status. No matter BJP or INC, reliability depends on the specific content being cited. Do you find any problems with the content? If so then provide counter sources for justification.
Same as above.
Give me a break. Portals? Madhyamam is a reliable Malayalam newspaper, Asianet News and MediaOne TV (subsidiary of Madhyamam) are news channels. Not to mention that Madhyamam and MediaOne are Jamaat-e-Islami newspaper and channel, just noting.

He was already found to be notable. You can challenge it though. I support to Keep. 137.97.92.43 (talk) 19:41, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Close:@Authordom:What do you mean..?? The major National and Malayalam news media are not reliable sources..??-- Padavalam Kuttan Pilla Talk 10:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why close? Authordom (talk) 11:59, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject fails WP:NPOL, WP:JOURNALIST. Also, there is no in-depth coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, so it fails WP:GNG too.- Akhiljaxxn (talk) 19:18, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He is NOT A POLITICIAN and he is not currently a journalist. He is a social critic and television personality, for which there is sufficient coverage to establish that. 2409:4073:83:D6EB:FCC8:DFE8:8EC1:CCFC (talk) 14:48, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:53, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Delete

Does Intellectual Cell of BJP is notable?
Does Bharateeya Vichara Kendram notable?
Does Ayodhya Printers notable?

What makes a person of a non-Notable cell/organisation Notable? -❙❚❚❙❙ JinOy ❚❙❚❙❙ ✉ 12:25, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Close *Comment

Does Intellectual Cell of BJP is notable? : The intellectual cell provides ideological inputs to the ruling party of India and has a considerable say in policy making : Please use new Indian express article 27th May 2017 By N V Ravindranathan Nair as reference, TG mohandas heads the ittelectual cell in Kerala which is a pan india support organisation for BJP

Does Bharateeya Vichara Kendram notable? : P parameshwaran the founder of Bharateeya vichara kendram was awarded with Padmavibhushan the second highest civilian honour in India , does that make him and his organisation notable ? : Ref Wikipedia : P. Parameswaran

Does Ayodhya Printers notable? : Ayodhya printers is the establishment which brings out Janmabhumi daily which is noted for it's fight against emergency . refrence Janmabhumi dialy : about -— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahit23 (talk • contribs) 18:27, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mahit23: Intellectual Cell of BJP- I cannot find sufficient independent or third-party coverage to meet GNG for this. Bharateeya Vichara Kendram - The Wikipedia article was previously deleted because it fails to prove WP:GNG. See the deletion log here. Ayodhya Printers- No Sources available to Verify and no Significant coverage.-❙❚❚❙❙ JinOy ❚❙❚❙❙ ✉ 14:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your perception is wrong. He is not notable because he is the convener of BJP's Intellectual Cell or secretary of BVK or manager of Ayodhya Printers. He is notable because he's a well known social critic, public litigator, and television personality. Look at the opening sentence: T. G. Mohandas is an Indian orator, social critic, writer, lawyer, journalist and television presenter from Kerala. The rest of the positions all are additional data as it is his biographical article. 2409:4073:83:D6EB:FCC8:DFE8:8EC1:CCFC (talk) 15:43, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the article seems to be more biased as well as here in Afd. So many Ip users and newbie users voted here. When gone to sources in the article, there is no independent sources to prove notablity of the Subject in all the cases mentioned above. Well known? Wikipedia is not a place to creates hoaxes. No sources has been provided in opening sentence to prove notability. The sources cited on Opening paragraph fails WP:NPOL. So i decided to support Delection.-❙❚❚❙❙ JinOy ❚❙❚❙❙ ✉ 12:10, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable politician and journalits.Fails WP:SIGCOV. Kumblani (talk) 14:03, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He is NOT A POLITICIAN and he is not currently a journalist. He is a social critic and television personality, for which there is sufficient coverage to establish that. 2409:4073:83:D6EB:FCC8:DFE8:8EC1:CCFC (talk) 14:48, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:T.G.Mohandas is a familiar figure to all and famous in different arenas. A lot of news articles are available about him.94.129.90.165 (talk) 15:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable politician and journalits.Fails WP:SIGCOV. Mywikiupdates (talk) 07:24, 28 January 2020 (UTC)Mywikiupdates[reply]

Strong Keep He is a well known media personality and the sources are reliable WP:GNP clearly meet Anilp68 (talk) 16:30, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: (or perhaps suggest no consensus with option to re-nom in 2 months) Going through early sources in the article I am just finding WP:SIGCOV but I observe possible bias in content lifted from the those articles and failing to give fuller context. While WP:NPOL appears failed there is some merit in cover otherwise. The AfD seems disrupted by by !votes by accounts little history or perhaps a vague wave at trying to accumulate a little history. I was going for Weak keep but the keep arguments don't counter the delete arguements well. Poor citations don't help; and if non-English language with poor incomplete citations (no trans-title or english quotes and of key points) are being used to cover content. Along with the bias of content taken from the article this is probably just about a delete. but there are real issues with people interfering with the article and having battles behind the scenes here. In fact I've looked at the previous AfD and with that I've enough for a weak keep, just. This AfD has been severely afflicted by Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process and I'd suggest peoples take a break.Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:47, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:29, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Iamreallygoodatcheckers: Can you explain about the notability of the person. Authordom (talk) 06:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The multiple reliable sources in the article establish notability. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 23:18, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can explain please. Authordom (talk) 03:03, 28 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. Although the !delete voters had the numerical strength, I find the policy argument strength lying with the !keep voters. WP:LASTING specifically says "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable." Using WP:LASTING as the only argument to delete suggest that the !voters are unfamiliar with what that section of the Notability guidelines actually says. v/r - T P 13:47, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dalit Film and Cultural Festival[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. WalkingDisks (talk) 15:05, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WalkingDisks (talk) 15:20, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG e.g. 1, 2, 3.----Pontificalibus 17:19, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:21, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:LASTING. A one-off event from New York is all we have for proving notability. Bharatiya29 19:23, 3 January 2020 (UTC
Keep passes WP:GNG and WP:EVENT. The first Dalit Film and Cultural festival will be held at Columbia University New York.There is significant coverage in reliable sources in clearly independent leading newspapers including The Times of India ,New Indian Express ,The Hindu even without going into the regional Indian language newspapers in depth through could find coverage in the leading Bengali language newspaper Anandabazar Patrika , Marathi language newspapers like Lokmat and few others. I strongly that disagree that all of them are promoting an agenda and 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 Times of India US to host its first Dalit film and cultural festival in Columbia Varsity
The Times of India Filmmaker Nagdeve wins director’s award at Dalit film fest in New York
The New Indian Express Dalit Film and Cultural Festival: Celebrating Dalit cinema in New York
News 18 First Dalit Film Festival in US Shortlists Kaala and Masaan Among Other Films by Dalit Filmmakers
The Hindu Pa. Ranjith to be part of Dalit film festival in U.S.
The News Minute DALIFF: A film and cultural festival celebrating Dalit art, life and Pride
The News Minute 'Kaala', 'Pariyerum Perumal' in first ever Dalit Film and Cultural Fest in New York
India Abroad Inaugural Dalit Film and Cultural Festival to be held in New York
The Wire Dalit Film and Cultural Festival to Be Held in New York City
Newslaundry 'Dalit Film Festival is not just a festival, it's a movement .
Scroll Pariyerum Perumal’, ‘Masaan’ and ‘Kaala’ to be screened at New York’s first Dalit Film Festival
Silver Screen Pa Ranjith Among Three Filmmakers Who Win At The Dalit Film Festival In New York
Anandabazar Patrika in Bengali language প্রথমবারের জন্য অনুষ্ঠিত হচ্ছে দলিত ফিল্ম ফেস্টিভ্যাল
Lokmat in Marathi language दलित कलावंतांचा अमेरिकेत होणार जागर!, २३-२४ फेब्रुवारीला पहिला दलित चित्रपट महोत्सव
Maharashtra Times in Marathi language Dalit Film Festival: दलित कलावंताचा झंझावात अमेरिकेत; पहिला दलित चित्रपट महोत्सव रंगणार
Dinamalar in Tamil language தலித் திரைப்பட விழாவில் காலா, பரியேறும் பெருமாள்
Asianet News in Tamil language ரஜினி படத்திற்கு சாதிய முலாம்... தலித் லிஸ்டில் சேர்த்து சரவெடி கொளுத்தும் இயக்குநர் பா.ரஞ்சித்.....
Varthabharathi in Kannada language ಅಮೆರಿಕದಲ್ಲಿ ದಲಿತ ಚಿತ್ರೋತ್ಸವ
Hollywood Reporter states the first Dalit Film Festival victoriously unspooled in New York.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:53, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But these links are discussing only 1 event. WP:LASTING (as mentioned above) simply requires more. Aman Kumar Goel^(Talk) 21:53, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:: This is a Film festival and the this one was held only in Feb 2019 that is less than a year.No major film festival is held twice within the same year.Hence do not agree WP:LASTING or one off applies for a Film festival within a year.If the event was held say 5 years ago it may be arguable but it was held less than a year ago that in Feb 2019.Further sorry to say disagree with the nom coverage is clearly not trivial and national newspapers are not partisan sources, Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:58, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But I agree that the coverage is made by 'trivial and partisan' sources since the event took place in the US and yet there is not a single American source (NBC, CBS, CNN, etc.) which would provide coverage, but the Indian media which is obviously biased towards this particular subject and just plagiarise/rewrite the single report which was sent to each of them probably via email by the distributor. Should Wikipedia be allowed to promote this event until it meets WP:LASTING? Definitely not. Aman Kumar Goel^(Talk) 02:58, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:09, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has multiple reliable sources coverage in India and The Wire is US rs coverage, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 15:08, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TheWire.in is an Indian blog, not an American source. Aman Kumar Goel^(Talk) 15:18, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my comments above. Subject is known for single event that took place in the US failed to attract any American WP:RS but was published around same days on a few like-minded Indian online sources. Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:LASTING. Aman Kumar Goel^(Talk) 15:22, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG.Cinelover (talk) 02:04, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cinelover But how? WalkingDisks (talk) 09:41, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:43, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:LASTING. --RaviC (talk) 01:20, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One-off event as mentioned above. Should wait till it meets WP:LASTING. Accesscrawl (talk) 13:36, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As per Times of India , News 18 ,Hollywood Reporter clearly state that this is the "First" Dalit Film festival as far as I can see no one has said that another festival will not take place and this is a film festival was that is less than a year and hence .No major film festival is held twice within the same year.Clearly pass WP:GNG and disagree that WP:LASTING applies here at this point and it is too early to say a one off event.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:35, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:32, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As said above, this subject depends completely on a single event and has failed to attract purely independent sources thus fails WP:GNG and WP:LASTING. Orientls (talk) 11:14, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~No coverage in newspapers of record~~, seems to be a lot of churnalism being claimed as RS. Might well in future be a significant event, but WP:TOOSOON to tell. --Goldsztajn (talk) 16:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Times of India (1838) and The Hindu (1878) are the only two Indian newspapers considered as Newspaper of Record are clearly listed above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:10, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment NB three pieces do not constitute *significant* coverage (WP:DIVERSE). The Hindu piece focuses on the films presented - which might be useful to justify the notability of those films and film makers, but not for the event itself. The ToI pieces are mostly the same - one does elaborate more specifically about the festival. So essentially one piece in a newspaper of record in India, none in the US or elsewhere....and a mountain of WP:PROMO material and churnalism. --Goldsztajn (talk) 23:44, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In addition to The Times of India there is coverage other WP:RS sources like The New Indian Express and regional language coverage from the Anandabazar Patrika,Lokmat ,Maharashtra Times amongst others .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:26, 28 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) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:50, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Evolución (band)[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) 22:15, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have to use more robust search terms. I searched for <Evolución Costa Rica band> and got many results. Unfortunately most of them are no good; see my vote below. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:55, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did, it just may be what google returns in my geopgraphical area.Theprussian (talk) 13:21, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:17, 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]

Keep Delete tentatively. I found one instance of significant coverage: [45]. The band is also mentioned by name in a few articles on Costa Rican music, but none amount to anything that establishes notability. Unless someone else can come up with another source, the single source I found isn't enough to demonstrate that the band is notable. Skeletor3000 (talk) 23:04, 10 January 2020 (UTC) Changing my vote in light of the additional source found by Doomsdayer520. We've now got multiple pieces of significant coverage. Skeletor3000 (talk) 17:32, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This one is a close call because the band really did exist and got some notice in their country. In addition to the source found by Skeletor above, here is another biographical media profile in Spanish: [46]. I also found them listed as a tourist attraction in a travel guide for Costa Rica. Unfortunately I can find nothing else beyond these fairly basic media introductions, and beyond getting some local coverage they seem not to have been noticed by any significant sources. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:53, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes general notability guidelines. Keep in mind, Costa Rica is a small country and they have very few major news publications, so it's primarily one publication that covers the band – given the circumstances this should not discredit their popularity and notability. Sources are as follows:

""Evolución: En paz y con su 'rock' visceral, la banda tica regresa a escena" from La Nación
"Evolución Amarse en vivo" from La Nación
"Los costarricenses de Evolución volverán a escena luego cinco años de no tocar juntos" from La Nación
"Balerom: 'Estoy hecho una bomba atómica de creatividad y vengo a arrasar con todo'" from La Nación - about the guitarist but talks about the band.
Profile of the band from the Ministry of Culture
"Entrevista Exclusiva a Balerom" from Artstudio Magazine - he's the guitarist
"The best pop songs for learning Spanish" from The Culture Trip - a reliable source in the States. A passing mention but they get attention for their major hit single.

I'm sure there are more. I will drop these on the talk page of the band. Missvain (talk) 20:52, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in view of the multiple reliable sources listed above including multiple articles in a national newspaper that show that the band pass WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC criteria 1 (only one criteria needed) and therefore deserve to be included, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:31, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article needs a large rewrite, but they pass GNG from the sources I see listed above. – DarkGlow (talk) 20:56, 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 keep. Tone 13:24, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

General Insurance Association of Korea[edit]

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

I hesitate to nominate this for deletion, but feel I need to. This is a 13 year old article that has no references, and the Korean article is also free from citations. My looking for citations to support the article was relatively unsuccessful, and was insufficient to support general notability for the encyclopedia. I'm bringing directly to AfD rather than going the PROD route as I do not think this would class as a uncontroversial delete. However, arguments for WP:SNOW will likely turn up. Thanks for discussing. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:00, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:03, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:03, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:00, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is there no coverage in Korean media? Our coverage of Korea is pretty sparse. Rathfelder (talk) 16:39, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- That is why I took a look at the Korean version of the article -- no citations on that one either. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:11, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As not notable and certainly fails WP:CORPDEPTH. -- Otr500 (talk) 12:06, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Searching for Korea-specific topics can be tricky, since the government has some strong pushback against some outside internet services, and many Korean-language news sites aren't indexed well on Google, in my experience. Naver [47] brings up a long list of articles on this organization if you search for its Hangul name, 손해보험협회. The Hangul translates to "Non-life Insurance Association," for clarity's sake for anyone viewing the results. I didn't find anything incredibly detailed, but there are many, many articles focused on specific events and aspects of the organization that I believe meet WP:SIGCOV. Examples (with plenty more available): [48], [49], [50], [51], [52]. Thanks to the nominator for considering this one carefully. Google results certainly make it appear non-notable, and the complete lack of sourcing in the article doesn't help. Skeletor3000 (talk) 21:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We need to adjust our expectations about sourcing for Korea. Rathfelder (talk) 10:14, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:31, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google does not index Korean sources very well. A search on Naver reveals quite a few sources in Korean that demonstrates SIGCOV. Taewangkorea (talk) 19:42, 20 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 Draftify. Draftifying this one. Thanks everyone for assuming good faith. Missvain (talk) 00:05, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Deutsche Tourenwagen Masters[edit]

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2021 Deutsche Tourenwagen Masters discussion it should be draftified too. Corvus tristis (talk) 06:27, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:32, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:33, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Drafity per WP:TOOSOON and redirect to Deutsche Tourenwagen Masters#Hybrid powertrain. The only sources which discuss DTM 2022 are related to the Powertrains and the amount of detail covered in the article is nearly equal to the level of detail in Deutsche Tourenwagen Masters#Hybrid powertrain. Based on this I think it fails WP:SIGCOV but the engine regulations are significant so the article should redirect to that.
SSSB (talk) 12:22, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Userify per WP:TOOSOON. 2022 is still quite far off. Putting it in user space until late 2021 is an easy and reasonable choice, and will avoid having to have it refunded later on. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:21, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Userify per CaptainEek Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:20, 28 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. Missvain (talk) 00:09, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sakurako Okubo[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG or WP:NACTRESS. No notable third party source found of actress. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 06:05, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 06:05, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 06:05, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 06:05, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 06:05, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 06:05, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 06:05, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found three sources about her in Japanese. [53] [54] [55]. ミラ P 15:52, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Miraclepine, not a significant source. They just say she has a bikini photoshoot. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:29, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability as it stands. Looks more like the agency's page at the moment. Deb (talk) 16:08, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the actress has at least three prominent roles in notable television series and therefore passes WP:NACTOR with the sources above and in the article confirming the roles. It wasn't written by the agency but is a translation of the Japanese wikipedia article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 18:34, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Atlantic306, in one series, which does not pass criteria, which requires MULTIPLE roles.

Plus, this all requires the presence of third-party sources covering her, which I think there are scant. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:47, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
in three series Uchu Sentai Kyuranger, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:18, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Atlantic306, two series, three crossovers. So she played a total of 2 roles, one for Uchu Sentai Kyuranger and Blackfox: Age of the Ninja, apparently according to the article. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:20, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Four projects that are notable means a pass of WP:NACTOR, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:23, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Atlantic306, which criteria? 3 of them are for the same role. Criteria states: "has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:07, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: The actress has had main roles in various productions (despite playing the same character, but I don't think that is problematic). The notability of the productions, however, may be in question. Dflaw4 (talk) 05:48, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NACTOR has had significant roles. Lightburst (talk) 18:13, 28 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. Tone 13:24, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of German exonyms for places in Slovakia[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a translation service. We don't need to have lists of place names in various countries translated into other languages. Hog Farm (talk) 05:45, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 05:45, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 05:45, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 05:45, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:52, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is scope creep by Wikipedia. Wiktionary is the appropriate wiki project for translations. I also note the complete lack of sourcing. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 07:54, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On further review I am going to move to Keep on this one but with a strong recommendation that there be a merge discussion with List of cities and towns in Slovakia. I note that several internet sites seem to source this list as they find it useful, but generally in conjunction with what is on both pages. See, for instance, [Maps7] who look like they have used Wikipedia but taken information from both pages to make that page. Others do the same. The reason, per User:Mccapra below, is the German speaking minority and history. I see there is also a List of Hungarian exonyms for places in Slovakia not yet proposed for AFD, and this page exists for the same reason (Hungarian speaking minority). Both are linked from List of cities and towns in Slovakia.

Now the question is whether any of these should be kept, but List of cities and towns in Slovakia adds additional information that makes this start to look encylopaedic (as opposed to the simple list, which does not, in my view). These exonym lists seem to have been spun out from that page, perhaps for stylistic reasons. I think that decision is wrong. This is additional good information that can support List of cities and towns in Slovakia, and should sit on that page. I don't think it should be on a page on its own. I note that editors may raise table clutter as an issue though. Still, there should be a merge discussion.

Although I could vote for merge here, the merge would still need to be proposed on those pages, and it is a matter for the editors there, not the admin closing this AFD proposal. Thus my view on the AFD itself is now keep. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 20:23, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We have interwiki links, the German Wikipedia, and Wiktionary and in many cases our own enwiki articles if someone is looking for mere translations. Reywas92^Talk 08:41, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These German names had official status when Slovakia was part of the Austro-Hungarian empire before the end of World War I. Their usage can probably be attested in many pre-World War I print sources. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:14, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In general I don't think there is a good case for this sort of article - e.g. Italian versions of names of places in China, or whatever. However German names in Slovakia is one of a small number of special cases where those names were 'official' for centuries and were used consistently in maps and official documents. It is true that for each individual town the relevant article can carry historic names but I think there is good encylopaedic value in also having a single point of reference for someone studying then history of Habsburg Hungary, or working with historic maps and documents. Mccapra (talk) 16:43, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary. ミラ P 17:31, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eastmain and Mccapra. This list has nothing to do with "translation service" as the nominator implies. German names for plenty of towns and villages in Slovakia are historical and in many cases pre-date Slovak names by centuries, e.g. Pressburg / Bratislava.--Darwinek (talk) 17:34, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think there is an additional problem. This could well be a copy vio from here. The lists are not identical but it is very suspicious that the ordering is the same. Collections of information are protected by intellectual property law in the same way as creative works (see, for instance, database right in the UK). -- Sirfurboy (talk) 18:16, 18 January 2020 (UTC) Ignore me - that site sources Wikipedia. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 18:21, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Rather encyclopedic article for reasons others have already stated. Dream Focus 13:00, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Reywas9, and per WP:NOTDICT. Most Keep arguments appear to be arguments for mentioning the German names in the individual place articles, and since they are already mentioned in each place article, there is no reason to merge. The suggestion that there is encyclopaedic value in having a single point of reference could equally be applied to any such list, it is a vague argument that doesn't overcome the clear policy of WP:NOTDICT: this article is nothing more than an extraction from a German-Slovak dictionary. ----Pontificalibus 16:41, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Darwinek, Eastmain, and Mccapra. I'm on the record as being very much against these types of "translation" articles because they are often not verifiable, not even wrong, just useless, or based on folk etymology. This is an exception, because there's lots of significant coverage about German names in the former Austro-Hungarian territories of Slovakia, Slovenia, Czech Republic, and Hungary. Bearian (talk) 22:14, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article could be useful for mappers on YouTube, Reddit, etc. for historical reference since, again, some of these were, once, the official names for the places. --Yeetstuff (talk) 00:59, 25 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 Transwiki and delete. The content can now be found at wikt:Appendix:List of Latin names of islands. BD2412 T 04:11, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Latin names of islands[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a translation service. It is one thing to discuss Latin names in the contexts of ancient cities and regions, it is another to list how the names of selected islands translate into Latin. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Latin names of lakes. Hog Farm (talk) 05:43, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 05:43, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 05:43, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islands-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 05:43, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:53, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wiktionary. ミラ P 17:31, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is just scope creep on Wikipedia. Wiktionary is the appropriate wiki project for translations. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 07:50, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per my comment at linked afd. We have interwiki links, the Latin Wikipedia, and Wiktionary if someone is looking for mere translations. Half of these don't even change the spelling and half are OR neo-Latin. Reywas92^Talk 08:41, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wrong project, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Doug Weller talk 11:10, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This belongs on Wiktionary. TheAwesome Hwyh 04:39, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete along with most of the exonym lists. —Tamfang (talk) 21:10, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary, this article is clearly a direct violation of that policy.----Pontificalibus 16:53, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT as not even wrong. This includes places that were named 1,200 years after the end of the Roman Empire. Bearian (talk) 22:08, 22 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. Tone 13:25, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Forward to Snow[edit]

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

Preliminary warning: My web browser does not pick up websites originating in Canada well (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Contrived as not my finest AfD hour). However, there honestly seems to be basically no coverage in reliable sources for this EP. Generally, non-notable albums and EPs are redirect to the band article, so I'll suggest a redirect to Elevator (band). Hog Farm (talk) 05:10, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 00:01, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 05:10, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 05:10, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and/or redirect per nom. Once upon a time, albums (including EPs) were automatically accepted as notable enough for Wikipedia articles so long as the band that had recorded them had a Wikipedia article. That's no longer the way it works, however: our notability criteria for music have been tightened up considerably in the 14 years since this was created, and albums now have to have a much stronger claim of notability — fairly wide critical attention, notable awards, etc. — than just existing. But I can find nothing on either Google or ProQuest that would bolster the notability here, so a standalone article is not warranted under contemporary wikistandards. In fact, even the band's full albums are all pretty questionable too — none of them are making any claim of notability stronger than the fact that they exist either, and they're all either minimally sourced or entirely unsourced. Bearcat (talk) 16:26, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Elevator (band) per the nom. Aoba47 (talk) 02:01, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since it seems like the Elevator (band) article will soon be deleted, then I have adjusted my vote to delete since there will no longer be a viable redirect target. Aoba47 (talk) 19:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Elevator (band) -- It looks like this one fell through the cracks. The article has no sources for a reason: there aren't any except basic retail/streaming entries that only indicate the album's basic existence, and a few mentions at blogs. Not enough to confer notability. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:44, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am in Canada and there are no reviews of the work. Not a likely search term, and the search tool would pick it up in the band's article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:16, 20 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. RL0919 (talk) 05:49, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alberta Report (TV series)[edit]

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

Poorly sourced article about a local-interest television community magazine show. The only claim of notability in evidence here is that it existed, which isn't an automatic free pass over WP:TVSHOW in the absence of any evidence of reliable source coverage about it in media other than itself, but the only "references" here are a (deadlinked) primary source profile in an online video streaming directory and its own channel's (deadlinked) self-published scheduling grid, which aren't notability-making sources. Bearcat (talk) 04:47, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 04:47, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 04:47, 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. Tone 13:26, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GetConnected[edit]

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

Article about a "television, podcast and radio show", not reliably sourced as the subject of any significant media coverage for the purposes of clearing WP:TVSHOW. The primary notability claim here is that it was nominated for, but did not win, a regional film and television award, referenced only to that award's self-published website about itself -- but regional awards aren't instant notability clinchers if they're self-sourcing, because we still need media coverage about the awards in order to establish that they even have sufficient notability to bestow upon their nominees in the first place. And otherwise, this is more or less written like somebody tried to convert its closing credits scroll into prose ("past cohosts include [insert extremely long list of non-notable permanent redlinks here]") without ever actually showing any sourcing for any of that content either. There's just nothing here that's "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to show much better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 04:31, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 04:31, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 04:31, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 04:31, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The page looks untidy. Since it has 3 categories, there's a single source for 2 of them each. The other sources I found are only passing mentions about the show. Fails WP:GNG. _SUPER ^ASTIG 23:29, 22 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) 05:48, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mark W. Pedersen[edit]

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

Poorly sourced WP:BLP of a magistrate judge at the district court level. This is not an "inherently" notable level of judgeship that automatically guarantees a Wikipedia article per WP:USJUDGE -- a person at this level can get in the door if they can be referenced well enough to clear WP:GNG, but is not automatically entitled to keep an article on bad sourcing just because he exists. The footnotes here, however, consist of his primary source staff profile on the self-published website of his own employer, which is not a notability-supporting source, and one short blurb announcing his appointment in Buffalo's local newspaper, which is not enough media coverage to get him over the bar all by itself as the only media source in play. Bearcat (talk) 03:55, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:55, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:55, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication of encyclopedic notability under guidelines set forth in WP:USCJN. If the subject puts in a few decades of service in the position, they would have a more likely claim to notability. BD2412 T 01:05, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete magistrate judges are not default notable and nothing comes close to showing notability otherwise.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:35, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - almost there, but fails my standards. Bearian (talk) 22:02, 22 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 WP:SNOW keep. There is clear agreement that some improvement of the existing article is needed, but there is no realistic prospect that this discussion will result in a consensus for deletion. BD2412 T 02:17, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tolkien family[edit]

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

According to WP:BIOFAMILY, Being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person. Articles about notable people that mention their family members in passing do not, in themselves, show that a family member is notable. Apart from the individuals who have their own articles, this article provides no evidence that the family is notable. Many of the sources are JRR Tolkien biographies or encyclopedias which mention his family in passing. With the lesser known members of the family, a lot of the information is original research or completely uncited, particularly in the case of Arthur. Much of the information given here is trivial. Jack Upland (talk) 03:01, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and fix it. This can easily be converted into a list of notable members with their own article. And I would also consider Royd and Ruth Tolkien to be notable on a list level since both of them have enough secondary sources to attest notability. Also, as I read it, WP:BIOFAMILY refers to standalone articles of non-notable relatives, and not to this type of comprehensive list. De728631 (talk) 03:07, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and fix also. While some on the list are important only for their connection with J.R.R. Tolkien, others are important enough in their own right that they have their own articles, such as Christopher, Simon and Tim Tolkien. The article can be pruned of the unnotables easily enough. BPK (talk) 03:44, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Whatever you decide to do with this, note that both of these comments are wrong about the non-notable members of lists. The list topic itself is the consideration for the title existing on Wikipedia, and members of the list need not themselves have articles. Lists are not necessarily improved by purging red links or unlinked. Better to remove the brackets and err on the side of keeping if you don't know. Anarchangel (talk) 04:08, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think the question raised WP:BIOFAMILY is: does that fact that some members of the family are notable make the "Tolkien family" notable? Are there any sources that discuss the "family" itself? What is the point of this article? Why are we duplicating material from the articles of various members?--Jack Upland (talk) 04:39, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the general question is, at which point a larger family becomes notable. In the past, apparently there hasn't been much discussion about this subject, but I have found two positions in the archives of WT:BIO. One of them is that unless there are sources that cover the family as a group, a main article on the family should not necessarily exist (archive). The other, more versatile, argument was this: "A family can be notable in a different way from an individual. As ODNB has recognised, one cannot show how influential a family is in an article focussed on only one of its members. This influence can continue over several generations, for instance, through a family-controlled company or through the members who follow one profession, e.g. physicians. A family can also have a sudden burst of extremely capable siblings and cousins." The Tolkien family I think meets boths of these criteria: Christopher T. took over the responsibility for his father's literary legacy and continued to publish JRRT's manuscripts and books. And there is clearly more than one notable family member involved in this group, so it would only be prudent to have a separate article on the entire group, i.e. the Tolkien family. De728631 (talk) 05:53, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple published authors here and key influences on Tolkien himself. A useful one-stop article. Deagol2 (talk) 09:38, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep People just need to quit deleting so many good entries. It's annoying. Durindaljb (talk) 15:46, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Several notable members in the family and the article is of great interest to anyone reading about Tolkien, and yes, agree with Deagol2 "People just need to quit deleting so many good entries". --Honymand (talk) 18:49, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:26, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Deagol2 and De728631's rational above. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:36, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above. Ejgreen77 (talk) 22:20, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is a useful list article, and is effectively a spin-off from the main J. R. R. Tolkien article. I just arrived at the article from Christopher Tolkien (who died last week), where I clicked on Baillie Klass to find out more about his wife, and got taken to a useful and informative paragraph about her. The article could maybe be pruned a bit, but even if deleted it will need to be redirected (probably to J.R. R. Tolkien) to provide attribution for merges such as this which I did back in 2008 (though that is not a good example as it is now an article again!). Carcharoth (talk) 14:56, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but trim. Currently, six of the Tolkiens listed in the article have their own articles. That should be enough to pass WP:BIOFAMILY. There's a need for some trimming, but the article should be kept. Hog Farm (talk) 14:58, 20 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. RL0919 (talk) 05:43, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First Local[edit]

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

Completely unreferenced article about a cable community channel (the Canadian equivalent of public access television) news show, hosted almost entirely by non-notable permanent redlinks. As always, television programs are not guaranteed an automatic notability freebie just because they exist -- the notability test requires showing some evidence of reliable source coverage about the show in sources other than its own self-published website about itself -- but there's no evidence of that being shown here, no evidence of it locatable anywhere else either, and even its own self-published website doesn't exist anymore (it now just splashes back to the channel as a whole, not to any content that verifies the existence of this show.) Bearcat (talk) 02:49, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:49, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:49, 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. RL0919 (talk) 05:41, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Newport Life Magazine[edit]

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

NCORP fail. Currently unsourced, an earlier version before some apparent COI edits by an IP had five or six sources. These were mostly primary sources from the article subject. The last significant version before that was created by user "NLMintern" in 2011. I cannot find good sources that make this stand out as a notable corporation. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:37, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:37, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 16:58, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I originally thought, prior to all the COI nonsense, that something could be salvaged and put into the parent company (the newspaper that really owns it) but, to me, this is WP:TNT. Besides all the fluff, there's not much to merge. Ifnord (talk) 18:17, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I had the same thought.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:26, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete - WP:TNT, there is nothing here to salvage, just promotion. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:21, 24 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) 05:38, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Latin names of lakes[edit]

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

Fails WP:LISTN. This is a really odd list. As the lead states, this is a list of "Latin names of lakes that did not exist when Latin was a living language." We don't need a list of hypothetical Latin names for lakes the ancient Romans didn't know existed. Hog Farm (talk) 02:33, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 02:33, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Some of these lakes are in Italy or Switzerland and were known to the ancient Romans, while others are in the U.S. or Canada, but there is no particular need for this list in either case. If someone wants to know the Latin name for a lake, we have interlanguage links and the Latin Wikipedia for that. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:45, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom/Met90, coming from someone who's studied Latin. Wiktionary also provides translations. I don't think it's our place to be a dictionary of Latin or neo-Latin terms, which to some extent may be original research. For places known to the Romans, it may be fair to include the ancient name in the history section, but we don't need to list it. Should we add List of Latin names of regions, List of Latin names of islands, List of Latin names of cities etc to this? I do see many equally low-quality or worse articles linked from Exonym and endonym like Italian exonyms, List of German exonyms for places in Belgium, and List of German exonyms for places in Denmark. I likewise fail to see why we need to list these basic translations available in many places. Reywas92^Talk 04:52, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:53, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Doug Weller talk 11:10, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary. ミラ P 17:31, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary, this article is clearly a direct violation of that policy.----Pontificalibus 16:52, 22 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) 05:35, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This Weekend[edit]

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

Article about a defunct rolling television weather forecast segment on a weather channel, not reliably sourced as having any standalone notability as a separate topic from the channel as a whole — the programs on a weather channel aren't different from each other in any meaningful way apart from their titles, and thus don't really warrant their own separate articles at all. I would ordinarily just have redirected this to the channel and walked away, but there's actually a film of significantly greater notability than this being bumped down to a disambiguated title even though it clearly has a much greater claim to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC rights for the name, and the only inbound link that's actually coming to this page at all is also expecting that film rather than this. So this should just be deleted so that the film can have the plain title, as I don't see the value in retaining a redirect to The Weather Network from a disambiguated title like "This Weekend (The Weather Network)". Bearcat (talk) 01:43, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:43, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:43, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Searching for sources for this article is quite complicated by the fact that "this weekend" is such a common phrase. I tried pairing it up with "the weather network" and still got nowhere. This article's been here since 2006, and there's just no improvement nor does there appear to be any means by which to do so. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:43, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and particularly because the article has no sources. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:46, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is a stub with zero sources.TH1980 (talk) 20:03, 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 07:10, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LB Spiffy[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO and WP:MUSICBIO. No charted songs or awards. Unable to locate any significant biographical information except for this article in Vice. Most of the sources cited in the article are song lists, or don't even mention him. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:45, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:45, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:45, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:56, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing here passes any of the notability criteria in WP:NMUSIC, and the article is not referenced anywhere near well enough to get him over WP:GNG in lieu. People are not automatically notable enough for articles just because their music technically metaverifies its own existence on YouTube or Spotify or iTunes — the notability test for a musician is the reception of reliable source coverage about him in real media. Of the nine references here, however, three are streaming platforms, two are non-notable blogs, and two are simple directory entries — and of the two that are real media, one completely fails to discuss LB Spiffy or his song at all, and just generally verifies the purely tangential fact that Drake has done "co-signs" without saying anything whatsoever about LB Spiffy's song actually being one of them. The Vice source is good, and does get him off the starting blocks toward a GNG pass — but it doesn't get him to the finish line all by itself as the only good source in play. As always, no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when he has a stronger notability claim and better sourcing to support it. Bearcat (talk) 16:39, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not in any way pass the notability guidelines for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:12, 23 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. BD2412 T 04:03, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Kosiner[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Highly advertorialized WP:BLP of a businessman, whose claims of notability are not properly sourced. Far too much of the sourcing here is to unreliable sources, such as the self-published websites of companies or organizations or educational institutions he's been directly affiliated with, film directories, YouTube clips and CRTC licensing documents -- and even the sources that are real media are divided even further, including unrecoverable dead links from unarchived publications, hyperlocal community pennysavers, and articles which glancingly mention Evan Kosiner without being about Evan Kosiner to any non-trivial degree. There are literally just two sources here that actually pass both of the "reliable source" and "about him" tests, and both of them are short blurbs that still fail the "substantive coverage" test.
Further, things like the "Governor General's Sovereign's Medal for Volunteers" and the "Governor General's Caring Canadian Award" (which are actually the same thing renamed, not two separate things) are not WP:ANYBIO-clinching awards, as they're little more than a "thank you for getting involved in your community" certificate presented to practically anybody whose name gets submitted for consideration at all -- and his career as a media executive mostly amounts to trying to launch projects (like an all-infomercial channel) that crashed and burned or never actually succeeded in getting off the ground, which is not "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have much better sourcing than this, either.
This frankly has all the classic hallmarks of being autobiographical self-promotion, with the exception of a transparently self-referential username dominating the edit history — but the article's otherwise hitting classically self-aggrandizing beats like "advertorialized tone", "namedropping random former alumni of the same high school who aren't otherwise relevant to his career", "capitalizing job titles" and "overstating the significance of what's basically a form letter as prima facie evidence of notability". Although this was kept when it was nominated for deletion in 2013, that's not definitive: it was a "5 keeps to 4 deletes" which I would have either closed no consensus or relisted for another week of discussion, not a clearcut keep under proper AFD practice, and our notability and quality of sourcing standards have been tightened up even further in the intervening seven years, so we have even lower tolerance for content that's this egregiously advertorialized. Not to mention that it was neutralized from obvious spam at that time, and has since been readvertorialized (which is even further evidence in favour of the probable COI). Bearcat (talk) 00:36, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 00:36, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 00:36, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm going to assume that absolutely anything that might conceivably contribute to this subject's notability has been added to this article, on the grounds that it gives every appearance of encompassing any remotely important thing he has ever done. On this basis alone I don't see that the subject is notable in our terms - leaving aside tone, sourcing and potential CoI editing, if this is a good summary of the subject's achievements, the article should be deleted. Mccapra (talk) 17:08, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, who has eloquently said everything that could be as to why this advertising should be deleted. Ifnord (talk) 18:41, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's so many words to this nom, but they all explain why this article is a WP:COI mess which should have never passed the first AfD, and another "ur example" of a WP:VANISPAM. Nate • (chatter) 01:24, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Bearcat's thoroughly explained reasoning. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:47, 22 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:10, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Guy[edit]

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

Essentially unsourced except to IMDb since its creation in 2010. Subject has had roles in a number of notable productions, but whether or not thses roles were "significant" (as required by WP:NACTOR) is debatable. A quick check prior to nomination suggests that there are insufficient sources to warrant to pass of WP:GNG, so bringing here for discussion. Yunshui ^雲 _水 00:18, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Yunshui ^雲 _水 00:18, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:55, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:55, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:55, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looked for the sources, but failed to find significant coverage or at least mentions in reliable sources. I don't think that her roles are significant enough to secure her an article. Less Unless (talk) 12:59, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not meant to be an IMDb mirror. The situation is made worse by their being no evidence her roles were significant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:33, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: Starring roles in Cavegirl and Harry and Cosh may meet WP:NACTOR, although the shows might not be notable enough. Another problem: no sources in the article. Dflaw4 (talk) 05:57, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Where are the sources? We can not keep BLPs without reliable sources, and IMDb is not reliable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:03, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, John, I agree that sources are needed—hence I have only voted it as a "weak" keep. If no progress is made in that regard, then I'd expect that the "delete" votes would prevail. Dflaw4 (talk) 14:20, 23 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:10, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shersby[edit]

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

Surname disambig with only one person with a WP article. Attempt to redirect was contested by creator with WP:OSE, so I’m going here. ミラ P 00:06, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 00:06, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 00:06, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 00:06, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 00:06, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are many surname articles with few people. (MoonlightTulsi) (talk) 00:12, 18 January 2020

@MoonlightTulsi: We don't keep those with only one. ミラ P 00:16, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Miraclepine: I've literally seen pages with only one. I get your point though. (MoonlightTulsi) (talk) 00:24, 18 January 2020

I have added a name that appears in another article. BD2412 T 00:40, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is (now) no policy reason to delete. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:37, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Michael Shersby and, if desired, add a redirect hatnote to the sheriff. Pretty standard application of WP:ONEOTHER. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:49, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It was initially created with a single entry (WP:TROUT for the creator: such an article was worse than useless as it gets in the way of search results for other people with the name). However, with the recent addition, if you squint a bit it will sort of almost kind of pass WP:APONOTE, but the thing that pushes it over the line for me is the "See also" entry for an article with a very similar name that would otherwise be inaccessible via the search results. I don't think resolving the ambiguity with hatnotes is a good idea, at the very least because it's premised on Shersby redirecting to Michael Shersby and it doesn't look like he is commonly referred to using just his surname. – Uanfala (talk) 15:00, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It could be a surname page, but the SA makes it perhaps a dab page, but in any case it is standard to provide access to people by their surname and where they share the surname, unless they are equivalent of Shakespeare, we make a surname or dab page - it doesn't really matter which. PamD 15:43, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input everyone. I'll withdraw this now. ミラP 16:42, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Undid withdrawal; Clarityfiend still supports the article's redirection. WP:SK#1 says: and no one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted or redirected. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 21:15, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~I will strike my lvote, but~~ I feel strongly that MOS:DABMENTION is way too broad, and ~~I may start~~ I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages#DABMENTION discussion. A failed candidate and one of a gazillion medal recipients just for that year's honors list really aren't worth mentioning. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:08, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I retract my retraction. The discussion about rewording DABMENTION has reached a consensus, and simply being mentioned in an article (without any indication of notability) is no longer considered an automatic pass. So we're back to two entries and one clear primary topic. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:31, 24 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.