Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 January 19

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 18 January	20 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. The analysis in the pro-deletion comments appears to be largely accurate and on-point. RL0919 (talk) 04:23, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

White Palace (Dhamdachha)[edit]

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

All sources are fake. All news stories claims to be based in Brussels [1], but they "share" that office with another business, [2] They even share their phone number. The same is true of .vernamagazine.com, apstersmedia.com and openthenews.com who also all share an office. I suspect that this page was created to de-orphan Shawar Ali, whose biography is also riddled with similar sources. Vexations (talk) 23:18, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete It does seem to exist, as this video seems to match the image in the article, as well as the name. But that video confirms to me that this article is just promotionalism. The Allnews source happens to have a picture of Shawar Ali at the bottom, and the website seems to have been created quite recently. And googling turned up nothing useful for pages, so doesn't seem notable either. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:44, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Noting the creation and subsequent deletion of White Palace Dhamdachha — billinghurst sDrewth 09:14, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be a newly constructed building, despite heritage claims. The offical website is suspiciously silent on any specifics of the building's history. Fails WP:NBUILD. I note their Instagram account has 1.2 million followers, but browsing their numerous five-star one-word Google reviews, I doubt anything can be concluded from that other than a strong desire to promote the building as a location for photo-shoots.----Pontificalibus 10:16, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as the article was likely created by a sockpuppet of banned user User:Whitepalacegujrat. Sambhil32 my apologies for the sockpuppet assumption. The article is still definitely a Delete. All of the sources are from what appear to be pay-for-coverage sites. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:10, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I created the article and I am not a sockpuppet of any banned user.Sambhil32 (talk) 20:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GPL93: If you have evidence for that claim, please take it to WP:SPI. ミラ P 05:15, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I created the page and I will try adding some reliable sources. Sambhil32 (talk) 20:38, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:29, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:33, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete there is not a single reliable source here. this is not a reliable source, it's yet another fake news blackhat SEO site, and should anyone need further proof take a peek at their gallery of "writers" which are all stock images. Every single source here is also owned by the same spam company. Praxidicae (talk) 15:05, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I am convinced. I tried my best but I couldn't find any other sources apart from those I already put in the article. Sambhil32 (talk) 19:49, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am not sure what is the criteria for building, but there seems to be enough news sources for the building. 157.47.246.112 (talk) 03:57, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The building has news from several sources, I am not sure how these are fake, 1 2 3 4. There is no point to delete a page for a heritage building that is a major tourist attraction in the city. 157.37.203.163 (talk) 05:04, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete there is not a single reliable source here. The IP above my comment has provided four sources. First is IBTimes: it is a clear cut puffed peice about the web show, and the subject. Most likely PR/paid for advertiesement of both the web series, and "shooting venue". Second is style.yahoo, at the bottom of the article, it states that the article first appeared at popdiaries. Popdiaries is owned, and handled by one individual. It is a clear cut promotional piece for Zulfi, Munna, and the palace. It also fails as a relaiable source. The third is stateman, it has just a little coverage of the palace, but seems like it was too a puffed up press release for the series, and actors. Fourth is vernamagzine. This has been covered in the nomination. Overall, it looks like the palace, and web series are trying to promote themselves together. In either case, it fails WP:NBUILDING, and it fails general notability criteria by miles. —usernamekiran (talk) 16:47, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What does likely paid means? Can you prove or it is just based on perception. Do you think that sources like IBTimes, stateman or any other reliable source won't disclose for paid? Sidtever (talk) 16:37, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per usernamekiran's careful analysis of the sources presented in this discussion Dartslilly (talk) 20:45, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it passes WP:NBUILD with the current coverage from stateman and other reliable sources. We cant say that these are paid articles until they explicitly says that, it totally based on user's perception and if there is a doubt it must definitely go in favor of the creator. Until you cant prove it, there is no point of bringing it. Sidtever (talk) 16:41, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can say it as much as you want but the Statesmen is not a reliable source. Praxidicae (talk) 16:42, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In any case we need significant coverage that addresses the subject in-depth. The Statesman article merely mentions it in passing in a single sentence.----Pontificalibus 16:56, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Statesman (India) was started in 1875 and it is one of the most reliable source with a daily circulation of 180,000 and if any article is paid, they explicitly mentions it on their website and newspaper. Saying it is not a reliable source is an incorrect statement. Statesman and ibm have disclosure for paid media, which clearly means these news articles are not paid. Bejinativity (talk) 04:13, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Statesman is a reliable news source with other sources from IBT, yahoo and a few others. Bejinativity (talk) 04:13, 27 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) 23:13, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Guillermo Zapata (actor)[edit]

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

Already deleted last September under G11 and G12, this individual clearly fails NACTOR and GNG. All coverage revolves around the restaurant he co-owns with Lisa Vanderpump (and a lawsuit) and is not about him. Note notability is not inherited nor garnered via association. His "roles" have been very minor ones, and most citations link to puff articles. I suggest salting the name as well. His Spanish language coverage is of a similar nature, also revolving around an apparent "likeness" to George Clooney and his father's singing fame (mostly in Argentinian tabloids). I didn't nominate under CSD G4 given the copyright violation is no more, and it no longer appears to be identical to its former version (although I obviously cannot verify this myself). Finally, the article appears to have been edited by someone with close ties to the subject. For evidence, contact me. PK650 (talk) 23:07, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PK650 (talk) 23:07, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. PK650 (talk) 23:07, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:14, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nothing but puff articles could be found in a search, and the odd thing about them is that they are all quite similar as are the images posted with the puff articles on basically unknown sites. As the nom stated, much of the coverage is about the subject's restaurant. Notability has not been shown. Fails WP:BIO and does not meet WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 03:10, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:12, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I tried to find articles about them on Google but nothing came up. Definitely not notable. Idolmm (talk) 07:06, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I had a quick look on imdb but couldn't find any noteworthy credits, and he only has two producer credits for films that have not yet been released (so it may be WP:TOOSOON in that regard). Therefore, I don't think he meets the notability criteria for actors. Dflaw4 (talk) 07:16, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per WP:SIGCOV - there's some coverage of his appearance akin to George Clooney, but it's either from unreliable sources or in passing, with an ¡Ay, caramba! feel to it.
Delete Article was deleted recently and a google search turns up only blog or tabloid type sources, but not enough to meet the WP:GNG Dartslilly (talk) 20:50, 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) 23:01, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After Hours (British TV series)[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP:TVSERIES/WP:GNG. DarkGlow (talk) 22:49, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:56, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:56, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: National TV show as per WP:TVSERIES. There's the usual coverage of a new show before broadcast (Radio Times) and after (The Telegraph). Also coverage on British Comedy Guide. It's not a very good article and it doesn't have references, but they WP:NEXIST and there's no reason to say this is worse than any other run of the mill article on a one-season national TV show. -- Toughpigs (talk) 00:52, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It aired on Sky One, a major national network. Needs work, but there are much worse TV series articles here than this. Nate • (chatter) 01:27, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Toughpig's references are plenty sufficient to indicate notability. matt91486 (talk) 12:09, 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) 23:11, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Markowski[edit]

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

Fake sources: vernamagazine.com, fabworldtoday, globestats.com, apstersmedia.com all share the same address. The author of https://artvoice.com/2019/12/11/jessica-markowski-a-model-an-actress-and-now-a-street-cleaner-yes-really/, jamiemoses288, is also Louisa Warwick, who lives in NYC and is a recent graduate of NYU, except on the source for Gilda Joelle Osborn [3] where she's not. Someone is creating fake news websites to generate buzz for their clients. Vexations Another very strong & false accusation to make. No one is creating fake news websites. Rolling Stone, WWD (Womens Wear Daily), Robb Report and ART news all share the same address also (475 5th Ave, New York,NY,10017). Many publications share the same address. It does not mean they are fake news publications. Also regarding Louisa Warwick you can google her and see she is a graduate of NYU. There are around 50 websites that confirm that What is the point you are trying to make? She didn't graduate NYU? Ciaragomez1 (talk) 22:26, 20 January 2020 (UTC) Vexations (talk) 21:57, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:04, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:04, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:14, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:14, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:14, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:15, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Strange faux sources aside, not enough coverage that I could uncover on Google to support GNG. JamieWhat (talk) 22:06, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Vexations: It is a strong claim to say 'someone is creating fake news websites' when there are 30 sources in this wikipedia article including Thrive Global, Huffington Post, Backstage, IMDB, Promo Magazine, BRWC and several others created on this subject over the past 3 years. On the previous wikipedia article on Gilda Joelle Osborn you also claimed Naluda Magazine had no contact page when it is clearly listed here https://www.naludamagazine.com/contact/. Ciaragomez1 (talk) 05:47, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ciaragomez1, it's just a little odd that that contact page isn't actually linked from the main page. I did do a search and check the source code. I even tried https://www.naludamagazine.com/contact-us/, but that didn't have any info on it. So yes, I wrongly assumed that they didn't have one. I'm surprised you found it. Vexations (talk) 13:19, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete when the defence of an article mentions IMDb, which is not a reliable source, there is clearly not an understanding of what reliable sourcing looks like to justify having an article. There have been IMDb entries on people who never existed, it is not a reliable source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:35, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with fire as per my rationale on this group of fake news sourced spammy BLPs. Praxidicae (talk) 20:01, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: In terms of her acting career, the subject doesn't pass the notability guidelines. I will defer to other editors as to her modelling career notability. Dflaw4 (talk) 07:33, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Terrible sourcing - they are all social media and blogs. Her run of the mill acting career consists of cameos and red shirts. Bearian (talk) 18:59, 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) 23:10, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gilda Joelle Osborn[edit]

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

Sources are fake. News Distinct http://www.newsdistinct.com/contact/ Coverage Log http://www.coveragelog.com/contact/, Curious Desk http://www.curiousdesk.com/contact/ (who forgot to fix a copy/paste error from the Daily Beast), are all operated from the same address. naludamagazine.com has no byline and no contact information at all. Vexations (talk) 21:43, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:44, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:44, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Vexations: There are 20 sources total in this wikipedia page- you are claiming 3 are fake. You then mention Naluda Magazine has no contact information when they provide a contact page, contact form, contact address and email. Sources included in the article including Maxim, Next Model Management, Gilda Joelle Official Webpage, Healthy Celeb, Artvoice & Busted Coverage are also not fake news outlets. Ciaragomez1 (talk) 05:11, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ciaragomez1, Actually, there are only twelve unique sources, including the ones I have already identified as fake, plus the subject's own website and that of her management, both of which are not independent, and then there is https://www.maxim.com/tag/gilda-joelle which isn't really an article at all. I'll go though the other ones in a bit. Vexations (talk) 15:12, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Vexations: The Maxim Article cited & sourced is this one: https://www.maxim.com/women/what-gilda-joelle-wants-2019-12 which is a 13 question interview with Gilda Joelle Osborn. It is independent and it is an article. Ciaragomez1 (talk) 18:00, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's an interview, not an independent, reliable secondary source. See:WP:PRIMARY Vexations (talk) 18:54, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Vexations: Incorrect. Naluda Magazine Contact information listed here: https://www.naludamagazine.com/contact/ Naluda Magazine 4590 MacArthur Blvd, Suite 670, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Listed on the contact page of their site. Contact page also lists an email. Ciaragomez1 (talk) 05:11, 20 January 2020 (UTC)Ciaragomez1 (talk) 05:01, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
as I explained at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Markowski It's a little odd that that contact page isn't actually linked from the main page. I did do a search and check the source code. I even tried https://www.naludamagazine.com/contact-us/, but that didn't have any info on it. So yes, I wrongly assumed that they didn't have one. I'm surprised you found it. I also think it's weird that several other companies all have the same address: [4] for example. I think that they're all connected to [5]. Vexations (talk) 16:10, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Discounting the fake sources already listed, there does not seem to be any other sources which would help with notability. TheAwesome Hwyh 23:18, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete discounting the fake and unreliable sources would leave this with a grand total of 0 sources. I can find nothing better. Praxidicae (talk) 20:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Voicing Praxidicae can’t seem to find any true RS that substantiates any notability claims made.Celestina007 (talk) 20:31, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - another page about a model with terrible sourcing. My partner and I watch all the pageants and modelling vlogs, but you can't take this one seriously as notable. I would have excused this in 2007 but not now; we are a charity, not a free web-host.Bearian (talk) 19:05, 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. Sandstein 09:09, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AES School for Girls[edit]

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

Despite my best efforts to find reliable, secondary sources, I was unable to find anything that would enable this subject to meet our general notability guidelines. Perhaps I am wrong, and there are sources out there I missed, or in other languages. Thanks for assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 21:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Missvain (talk) 21:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Missvain (talk) 21:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Missvain (talk) 21:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Thanks to the nominator (Missvain) for nominating/spotting the article. It was already on my watchlist and I was considering to nominate it. Störm (talk) 13:27, 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 Procedural close. This was the right suggestion even though it didn't happen initially and then the situation of the nominated page changed. No prejudice against a clean speedy renomination. RL0919 (talk) 04:41, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Group of Five conferences[edit]

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

Redirect created with intention to cause conflict with an existing draft. PhanChavez (talk) 21:24, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Page	Creation Date	User	Action
Draft:Group_of_Five_conferences	27 December 2019	User:Theroadislong	AfC: Lack of Notability
Group of Five conferences (redirect)	4 January 2020	User:Cardsplayer4life_2ndverse	Redirect created
Draft:Group_of_Five_conferences	16 January 2020	User:Robert_McClenon	AfC: Splitting

In fact, Draft: Group of Five used Power Five as a template, and was not in fact "split" from "Mid-major."

Specific details can be found on my talk page: User talk:PhanChavez

It appears that User:Cardsplayer4life_2ndverse first created the redirect, then updated numerous pages, around 20 edits, pointing to Mid-major.

On the other hand, User:Cardsplayer4life_2ndverse could have notified the draft created, started a talk page, explained the reasons for this action, instead of causing conflict. None of that was undertaken. But other edits were performed without notification of the in-progress draft having the same name.

I have submitted the redirect for deletion, and I would suggest the Draft be reviewed and approved for creation.

PhanChavez (talk) 21:40, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, they system emailed me saying my name was used in a comment so I came to investigate. I apologize if my redirect edit caused any conflict. I just did a search for "Group of Five Conference" in the search bar at the top and noticed that there was not an article or information on that, so I made a redirect to the information I found helpful. If there is a better spot for it to redirect to, then feel free to change it to a different location. I was just trying to be helpful for anyone searching in the future for the same thing as me. No harm intended and I apologize. Cardsplayer4life 2ndverse (talk) 02:29, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Close - This is a redirect that has been tagged for AFD. The proper forum is Redirects for Discussion. Either Twinkle has failed to recognize a redirect, or a new editor has made the good-faith errors both of not using Twinkle and of nominating this in the wrong forum. Take this to RFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:56, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I made a mistake. I took the above Procedural Close by User:Robert McClenon as a literal "This AfD is now closed." Followed the directions on the main page (redirect, proposed for deletion), added the keep note to the Talk page, then removed the delete note from the main page, and I've got Peachy (bot) crawling all over me. Apparently Procedural Close isn't the end of the discussion, and it is not actually closed. (More fun with confusion and lacking explanations for what needs to happen, when, where, in what order, etc.) The previous redirect was turned into an article and does not need to be deleted, per the WP:BB suggestion provided by removal to WP:RFD. PhanChavez (talk) 05:13, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have no idea what is going on above in this AfD, but, much like the Power Five conferences, the Group of Five conferences is a notable college football concept that meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Ejgreen77 (talk) 18:15, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It still appears that this AFD should be closed procedurally. I now understand how User:PhanChavez thought that I was closing the AFD procedurally. I will leave it to an administrator to figure out what to do. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:56, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:46, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2023 in the Philippines[edit]

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

It isn't normal to have future "XXX in the country" articles. At most it has a single link to the FIBA basketball WC, which is scheduled. If we allow this one, where does it end? Are we going to make a "2027 in North Korea" too? It's all WP:CRYSTAL. Note there is also a 2022 in the Philippines article as well. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 21:09, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:17, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article is simply WP:TOOSOON. _SUPER ^ASTIG 23:52, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:18, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The scheduled sporting event is already notable enough to warrant in keeping the article. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 15:12, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is similar to 2023 FIBA Basketball World Cup and really there is no policy to delete, it is blindly notable. Shashanksinghvi334 (talk) 16:52, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Shashanksinghvi334, that even is a scheduled event, this page merely mentions that event. That event does not alone justify keeping this page. If people are interested in what year the world cup will happen in the Philippines, they will find their way to that page, not to this one. Setting a precedent here of keeping this page will result in a de-facto consensus that WP:CRYSTAL articles on future years for countries is fine. Where it ends is anyone's guess. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 20:56, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft until at least 2021. BD2412 T 04:18, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too soon, we don't need an article just to mention a single event. Reywas92^Talk 06:34, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the 2023 page as too speculative and only one certain event, but keep 2022, which has national elections and many other fairly certain events. Bearian (talk) 19:08, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:11, 27 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. Closing this as a delete due to the struggle to find sources to establish GNG. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 18:18, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Noctivagus[edit]

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

Repeatedly moved out of draft by creator in an attempt to WP:GAME. Current article sourcing is atrocious, with 9 refs attributed to their facebook page, the rest being mostly videos, or blog posts. A BEFORE confirmed that no better sources existed online, so I conclude that this fails WP:BAND. Its saving grace could be the two books that are cited, but I couldn't find a copy of either. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:03, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:03, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:03, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the second book "Marasmo a Cismar" is a poetry book written by one of the band members so no notability there. Music To Die For is legit but I can't check its contents. I had some hope for the Blitz link because Blitz is a prestigious music magazine in Portugal but that reference is only a blog post in their old site. I can't find good sources on them. RetiredDuke (talk) 22:32, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I looked through all of the other language Wikipedia pages and found exactly one source that appeared reliable and which had significant coverage: [6]. Tragically, despite having an editorial board and including independent coverage prior to launching into an interview with the band, they make what appears to be an error (or is it, given the lack of other reliable sources), claiming in a 2011 interview that Noctivagus was about to release its first album. I don't think we can consider this reliable, leaving us far short of GNG even if the second cited book has significant coverage. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:57, 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 redirect to Not Here to Please You. Sandstein 09:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bounce (Hadouken! song)[edit]

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

No evidence of notability for this download-only single. The cited source in the article is to a sales website, and the only coverage I can find is in Spotify, sales sites, and lyrics databases. WP:GNG fail. Hog Farm (talk) 21:02, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 21:02, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 21:02, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Not Here to Please You due to a lack of coverage from third-party, reliable sources, but this could be a viable search term. Aoba47 (talk) 01:59, 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. Sandstein 09:25, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Swietenia Puspa Lestari[edit]

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

The only thing thesubject has atually done, her environmental action, is relatively minor and possibly BLP1E; There does not seem to be any other possible basis for notability. The placement of the list alone is just like any other "100 ...people"--a publicity gimmickThe three BBC items are publicity for their own placement on their list of people whom they want to promote --they all refer to each other. . DGG ( talk ) 20:15, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:19, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:15, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:15, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - while her work is laudable, she's basically been in the news for one thing. Bearian (talk) 19:10, 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. I'd say there is a very weak consensus to keep, or likely a stronger argument that this results in no consensus. However, because its a biography of a living person, I'm going to err on the side of delete until additional sources are available to support an article on a living person. v/r - T P 13:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reggie Arnold[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NGRIDIRON, having never played professionally. Cannot find significant coverage, only routine game recaps and minor mentions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:14, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:14, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:14, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:14, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable college runningback.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:44, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NGRIDIRON. Best, GPL93 (talk) 01:01, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not appear to have played pro football, fails GNG. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 14:55, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Played four years at Division I FBS level, and ranks as one of the top players in Arkansas State history (second in school history with 3,933 rushing yards - see here). He gained over 1,000 yards for three consecutive seasons (see here), was a first-team pick on the FWAA's 2006 Freshman All-America team (here), and a Doak Walker Award candidate in 2007, 2008 and 2009. Finding a lot of significant coverage, including (1) "Record within reach for A-State’s Arnold", Jonesboro Sun, 12/3/09 (1,093 words), (2) "Arnold eager to play his type of game again", Jonesboro Sun, 11/5/09 (869 words), (3) "ASU's Arnold Ready and Waiting", Jonesboro Sun, 10/12/09 (926 words), (4) "Arnold hopes to follow father’s example", Jonesboro Sun, 10/1/09 (898 words), (5) "Arnold makes Doak Walker Award list", Jonesboro Sun, 8/5/09, (6) "ASU's Arnold close to career milestone", Jonesboro Sun, 11/20/08, (7) "Arnold added to Doak Walker Award list", Jonesboro Sun, 8/29/08; (8) "Arnold wants more spring in step", Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, 8/13/08 (952 words), (9) "Arnold mainstay in ASU backfield", Jonesboro Sun, 8/5/08 (760 words); (10) "Arnold looking to 'roll up' more big numbers in 07", Paragould Daily Press, 8/13/07 (576 words); (11) "Full speed ahead for ASU's Arnold", Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, 8/10/07 (632 words); (12) "A-State's Arnold ready to run", Jonesboro Sun, 7/23/07 (771 words); (13) "ASU's Arnold watching, healing", Jonesboro Sun, 4/3/07; (14) "Arnold getting big push, Competition keeps ASU back on toes", Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (852 words), 9/14/07, (15) Reggie Arnold Named SBC's Freshman Of The Year", KAIT, 12/6/06; (16) "Arnold surpasses 1,000-yard mark", Jonesboro Sun, 11/20/06; and (17) "Blue-collar effort has Arnold leading SBC", Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, 9/30/06 (945 words). Cbl62 (talk) 23:00, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This season there were about 80 candidates for the Doak Walker Award ([7]), so I don't think that is a notable achievement. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree that being a Doak Walker candidate is not in itself enough to satisfy WP:NCOLLATH. For me, it's the combination of accomplishments (3x 1,000 yard seasons, 2nd all-time in school history, 1st-team freshman All-American, 3x Doak Walker candidate) and abundant coverage in multiple Arkansas media outlets that tips me to finding him notable. Cbl62 (talk) 00:24, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, per Cbl62's sources. Ejgreen77 (talk) 20:24, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:31, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment all of the source coverage above is from the state of Arkansas, which means he fails WP:NCOLLATH, and I'm extremely skeptical of calling amateur players notable who only received local coverage from their hometown, the region surrounding where they played in college, or routine coverage from the team they were drafted from, as local coverage does not necessarily imply notability. In this instance, though, it seems as if he was one of the best players ever to play at this particular program. My difficulty here is that I think best possible scenario is this gets kept and turned into an article which clearly demonstrates his notability, while the worst possible scenario is if this gets kept and it stays as this terrible stub, which barely satisfies the "sourced BLP requirement." I understand notability is a property of the subject and not the article, and I would say Jones is marginally notable, so a very weak keep from me, but please, someone develop this article a little bit and give this kid the credit he deserves. SportingFlyer T·C 01:48, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
keep coverage shows a pass of WP:GNG. I agree it needs more development, but that's an editing issue and not a deletion issue.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:18, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 20:06, 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 no consensus. This very much appears to be an individual that roughly falls into a grey area in certain notability guidelines, given that he's clearly an important part of a highly notable project, and has received some coverage in reliable sources only in that context, while also receiving some moderately significant coverage (primarily in obituary form) in other sources of less certain reliability. Many calls for improvement have been made, though actual improvement from sources has so far been somewhat limited. This is certainly an individual that could be notable under our guidelines, but there is significant opinion in this discussion that as it stands it may fail the general notability guideline, and more evidence is needed to show he passes it. Reliably-sourced improvement is likely required if this article is to stay around long term, but there is not a consensus to delete it in this discussion. ~ mazca ^talk 17:16, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Karr O’Connor[edit]

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

Non notable computer scientist who does not satisfy WP:GNG & WP:ANYBIO. Celestina007 (talk) 13:02, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't know if this is the right place to do this, but I think I've demonstrated "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field."

I'm not sure how to best demonstrate this in a way that will satisfy wikipedia, but certainly on Twitter there has been a global acknowledgement of his contribution. Lots of folks have testified about his contribution to their work in the last week on Twitter @AccessibleJoe - he had a big impact on a sector of the accessibility community for sure. I can't link to it here because Twitter seems to be blacklisted by Wikipedia.

I've pulled from several independent sources so the ""Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.[4]" doesn't seem to apply either. I'm not sure what is missing. I've reviewed the links you sent and do not see what is missing. Mgifford (talk) 15:56, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve being a major contributor to WordPress's accessibility seems like a biggish deal. Worth trying to find more secondary sources that point to his achievements and wrangling the article more into a wiki-style format.Jessamyn (talk) 00:00, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Joseph was a very notable figure in web accessibility for over a decade. His effect and reputation affected a generation of developers. Digital accessibility as a whole is a field that hasn't gotten as much attention relative to its contribution to the development of technology, and O'Connor was influential in that community. There are existing Wikipedia pages for other people who similarly participated in W3C or web standards who don't seem to meet the criteria for WP:ANYBIO. Perhaps rather than deletion, we could work a bit more on the article to make the case for inclusion? Shepazu (talk) 02:03, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm all up for improving this piece.. I am uncomfortable with it still being marked under Articles for deletion. I've added references from IMDB, from the official journal from the California State University, Northridge as well as an acknowledgement from a book. Certainly it can be improved to be closer to the Wikipedia guidelines, but there are a lot of references already to indicate that this is someone who contributed. And yes, for folks outside of the web industry, contributing to WordPress's accessibility is a big deal. It affects 30% of the entire web. Celestina007 can you look at this again? Mgifford (talk) 04:49, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:02, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:02, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:02, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:02, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:02, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands. There appears to be a clear conflict of interest here, and some apparent advertising intent. Deb (talk) 10:32, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry Deb advertising for what? I'm a bit confused here. Also unsure where there is a conflict of interest. Mgifford (talk) 14:11, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - You keep calling him "Joseph", which people don't normally do with someone they don't know. If you were closely connected with him, that would be a COI. Also, you've included two external links in the text, which people generally do for advertising purposes - for example, referring readers to an Amazon page where they can buy one of his books or to a site where they can sign up to a conference. Deb (talk) 14:14, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - I call lots of people by their first name. That said, I've already said I probably met him once. In no way would I say I was closely connected with him. I am happy to remove the external links. I was just trying to add references in a different way. I do not know that anyone will financially benefit from any of the links. I certainly didn't think it was a big deal to link them one way or another. I will change it though if it makes a difference. Mgifford (talk) 02:01, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- You've offered zero evidence of conflict of interest; and the CoI you allege is far from "clear". Do you have any evidence, or would you like to retract the allegation? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:51, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — Mgifford What Deb is saying & what I’m voicing very loudly is that your article is quite promotional & that you may have a possible conflict of interest with the subject of your article.Celestina007 (talk) 01:36, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, what is it promoting? It may be badly written, but I do not understand what it is a promotion of? I do not have a COI. I did meet him once (I think), but am pretty confident that this is not sufficient to block me editing the article. I am stubborn, but that again isn't a reason to block participation. Mgifford (talk) 01:49, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject fails WP:GNG. A Google search of the subject doesn't show him being discussed in reliable sources. None of the sources in the article are reliable. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 01:45, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Not notable. Very poor sourcing. IMDb and various blogs (including wordpress) are not reliable sources. Rusf10 (talk) 04:09, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- WordPress's own blog is a valid source for the voice of WordPress; and permissible under Wikipedia policies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:47, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - while it may be permissible to use some content from wordpress as a source, it is still a primary source. We need multiple secondary (not primary) sources to establish notability. Wordpress cannot be used to establish notability. Rusf10 (talk) 22:43, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Since when was a company, writing about one of its former employees, in an official company organ, not valid for establishing notability? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:07, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Since always. Otherwise every time a company hires someone and issues an official press release, that person would gain auto-notability. We need sources from outside the company where the person used to work.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:36, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve Since Wordpress is 35% of the web https://kinsta.com/wordpress-market-share/ his focus on getting accessible templates definitely improved the web. As well, a podcast is roughly equivalent to a newspaper column and appearing in as many as he did as well as running them? Keep this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.67.77.241 (talk) 17:29, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment — It should be noted by the closing administrator & all fellow editors that the IP address above has its first edit as the “Keep & Improve” !vote and as of this comment hasn’t contributed anything outside this. Preety strange. sock puppetry at work here?Celestina007 (talk) 18:16, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - ...or Dynamic IP address allocation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:43, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm an Accessibility Contributor to WordPress: this request for deletion was pointed out during our last week meeting and I'm writing because I'm probably the only one in the group with some knowledge of Wikipedia policies.

The problem with this request for deletion is twofold: there is a problem of possible conflict of interest and a problem with the content of the article.

- Possible conflict ot interest

I started contributing to WordPress a couple of years ago and I didn't know about Joseph Karr O’Connor himself before his death, since he left the group in 2016. As such, my point of view is not biased by having known him personally.

Mgifford is a Drupal Core Accessibility Maintainer; he has a profile on WordPress website, but he doesn't contribute to WordPress. As such, I don't think there's a conflict of interest because WordPress and Drupal are independent projects. Instead, the fact that Joseph Karr O’Connor contributions to web accessibility are recognized outside the WordPress community may be an indication that "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field."

Also, when talking about WordPress, there is a difference between WordPress and WordPress.com: the latter is a blogging/hosting platform managed by Automattic Inc., the former is an open source project/software (naming can be really confusing, if you don't know the difference). Joseph Karr O’Connor was a contributor to WordPress open source project (as I am), not a former employee of WordPress.com. I know Wikipedia doesn't consider commercial promotion as the only form of promotion, but I don't think there's any form of promotion.

If there's a conflict of interest, it's about web accessibility (Mgifford also added the accessibility section to the WordPress article), but in this case I would like contributors that claim about a possible conflict of interest to better explain that, as requested by Mgifford.

- Article content

Here there are two problems.

Web accessibility experts are widely recognized as such inside the field, but work is generally done in groups and personal contributions are very difficult to register: as such, apart from personal blogs and social medias, it's very difficult to find sources to support the relevance of a single person. Also, Joseph Karr O’Connor was an expert on cognitive and learning disabilities, which is an even more specialized field inside web accessibility. Making a quick search, the only independent, but solid source I was able to find is the draft of this document on the World Wide Web Consortium website, where he is indicated as an "Invited Expert". I would say that this might be a good starting point and that with time it'll be possible to find more independent sources about him.
The article was first written a few days after Joseph Karr O’Connor's death, probably in the attept to honour his memory and his contributions to web accessibility in general and WordPress accessibility in particular. There have been some improvements since, they are probably not sufficient at the moment, but consider that this article is the work of a single person. I'd be happy to help with rewriting this article, so that it meets Wikipedia standards, but there's very little time left before the deletion will take place (if it takes place) and I can't do that in the next few hours.

In the end, I think that the article can stay on Wikipedia after some cleanup and adding more sources. I would suggest not to delete this article in the first place, but I explained at the beginning that I am involved in the same project Joseph Karr O’Connor was involved in and I don't want this to be considered as a potential conflict of interest. — Ryokuhi (talk) 11:13, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did try to do some rewrites on the article when this AfD first came in. I did not know the subject so those edits should be okay. Would love to help with a rewrite with more sources, I do think the subject is noteworthy (and I voted keep above) Jessamyn (talk) 03:16, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I would like to see some further input here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 20:03, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Still on team Keep and Improve I feel like the criteria this article could meet is

The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. (Joe is cited by all WordPress accessibility people)
The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique. (Joe was a pioneer in accessible themes for WordPress)

I feel like the problem we're getting into is whether "WordPress accessibility" is a field in and of itself or "important" enough to merit independent acknowledgement of the people who work within it. Secondary issue is that the sources for this sort of accomplishment are largely online and not, say, in major news media or print media. My argument is that they should be and this article has gotten significant enough rewrites that claims of promotion or conflict of interest are no longer relevant (fwiw, I didn't know Joe until helping with the article rewrite, in case that's relevant to my opinions here) Jessamyn (talk) 20:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve I made revisions to help clarify the significance of the activities and accomplishments that were cited in the article when considering the subject’s notability. I knew the subject of the article, as did many involved in disability inclusion and technology accessibility. I vote to keep and improve the article so that others have the opportunity to further document his vital role in advancing accessibility. Glacialgrandeur
Comment — It should be noted that the account above Glacialgrandeur was merely created three hours ago(from the time I am making this comment) & came directly to this AFD to !vote a keep. Quite a precocious talent if you ask me.Celestina007 (talk) 21:29, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin — An SPI has been opened here — Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mgifford. Celestina007 (talk) 00:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - He seems to be a notable part of a major project- wordpress may not be popular with netizens, but the normie blogger types still use it by the millions. Still, the keep is weak and there's not a lot of coverage for him.Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 21:11, 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 delete. RL0919 (talk) 19:44, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fahad Abdullah Alasaus[edit]

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

These sources are a far cry from anything I'd consider reliable. They're mostly churnalism (using that word a lot today) and spammy unreliable sources. Doing an independent search brought nothing better. The IBTimes article looks convincing at first but their editorial standards are not what we expect. I also find it strange that there are almost no sources out of Saudi Arabia or in arabic. Praxidicae (talk) 19:43, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable! I don't found any reliable sources about him on Arabic Language, all results about him related to his accounts on the social media only --Alaa :)..! 19:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:47, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:47, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NACTOR. Through my own searches on the topic, I see a clear lack of independent reliable sources for the topic. --DBig Xrayᗙ 20:00, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources.Celestina007 (talk) 20:02, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Norm. Lapablo (talk) 20:36, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; if a source references social media statistics then that is a good indication of unreliability; there does not seem to be many reliable news media in the Saudi film industry. Fails GNG. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 01:10, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hyperbolick (talk) 16:28, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – no claim of actual notability made in the article, the sources are far from showing that WP:GNG is met, and I can't find any independent sources. --bonadea contributions talk 20:44, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, the six sources that are currently in the article all have the same text (slightly rearranged or pruned in some cases, but it's still the same text) – so all we have in terms of sources is one single press release, published in six different places. That includes the IBT piece. As the nom says, churnalism. --bonadea contributions talk 09:05, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. These are several sources about the same set of events, often thinly plagiarized from the same source. Bearian (talk) 19:14, 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) 19:30, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Turki AlMohsen[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to be notable, all the sources are churnalism/gossipy cruft and a search under his arabic name gives only 8 hits, none of which are particularly useful to establish notability. This was also previously deleted as Telfaz11 and it appears that someone has engaged in PR shopping to get his name out there. Praxidicae (talk) 19:30, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:34, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:34, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:35, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable! I don't found any reliable sources about him on Arabic Language, also as Ref. NO.6 (in Arabic) not mean anything, all results about him related to his accounts on the social media. His article on arwiki translated from this enwiki version before few days (8 Jan. 2020) in competition about Saudi Arabia in arwiki. Now I deleted arwiki article as under non-notability reason --Alaa :)..! 19:36, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:37, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another nonsense article for a non notable individual who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources.Celestina007 (talk) 20:05, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Verna Magazine and Resident Weekly are two of at least 60 fake news sites that are all operated from the same address as apstersmedia.com, coveragelog.com, curiousdesk.com, fabworldtoday.com, globestats.com, newsdistinct.com, newsheadline.us, residentweekly.com and openthenews.com. Fake sources all, operated by a black hat publicity firm. Compare http://www.residentweekly.com/contact-us/ and http://www.vernamagazine.com/contact-us/ Vexations (talk) 20:24, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Vexations That is awesome! Do you have a list anywhere on Wiki so I can run a coiBot report? Praxidicae (talk) 20:29, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Praxidicae, I'll post a list at User:Vexations/Fake sources. I'm working through all the articles that use any of these sources. I'm looking at [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] It's going to busy at AfD. Or maybe we should just G11 the whole bunch and save us all a lot of time. Vexations (talk) 20:42, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Vexations I think perhaps once we get the reports done (see here for what I've started) we should make a thread...somewhere and perhaps get a CU involved because I suspect this is going to have a plethora of various UPE editing groups and then yeah, I'd say g11/g5 the lot where no other sources exist and the rest we AFD. Praxidicae (talk) 20:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non- notable person and probably created by a WP:UPE. They're only two outstanding sources which have been spotted by an editor as fake. Fails WP:RS. Lapablo (talk) 20:34, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with thanks to Praxidicae for starting the AfD – I was going to, but had to leave my computer for a bit. As curious as I am about the place that is known for circumstances, it is very clear that none of the sources is any good. Also clear COI/UPE editing (none of the sources mentions a birthdate, yet the article creator somehow knew it...) --bonadea contributions talk 23:53, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; the non-fake news articles (these four "news" articles) seem to all be paid promotions. They also reference his youtube channel's statistics to a major extent, which is not very indicative of a source that heralds some contributions towards GNG given that his youtubing career isn't his main profession. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 01:03, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - editors, producers, and writers for comedy shows are run of the mill, unless they win a major award or garner significant coverage, but reliable sources are lacking here. Bearian (talk) 19:19, 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 nomination withdrawn and no others supporting deletion. (non-admin closure) ansh.666 20:13, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 VCDL Lobby day[edit]

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

Per WP:CRYSTALBALL. If the protests happened then we can have an article about it SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:25, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:25, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:25, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment I believed that the article needs clean up rather than delete it and we'd better waiting for the rally happens. Mariogoods (talk) 02:35, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There was national coverage in the lead-up to this political rally, and intense coverage on the day of the rally. massive national coverage = notability.IceFishing (talk) 17:50, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's all over the news in the US. I agree that the article should be cleaned up though. --Deansfa (talk) 19:05, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although as a resident of the DC area I may be getting more of it in the press than others, so my view of the circumstance may be skewed to begin with. Needs work, but it should be kept. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 19:06, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:11, 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. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:25, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fatma Chamakh-Haddad[edit]

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

per WP:PROF, no awards or honours, no notable works or researchs, and no substantial impact outside academia, just a high professor in university. Ibrahim.ID ✪ 19:23, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:38, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:38, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:38, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:39, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources already in the article include at least three works directly about her, and another with in-depth coverage of her (I can't tell about the remaining reference, as it is unlinked and doesn't have her name on the title, but my guess is that it is also non-trivial, based on how much it is used as a source in the article). This shows a clear pass of WP:GNG. I don't think the low citation counts on Google Scholar are a concern, given that (1) we can use a different notability criterion, GNG, (2) citation counts in the humanities are often low; they are not a good way to measure impact in the humanities; (3) she wrote in French, several decades ago, and both of those factors are also likely to make her representation in databases of online English-language literature more sparse. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:38, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- PS I found and added to the article two more sources, in-depth published reviews of her dissertation. And I found an online copy of the fifth reference, which is as expected also in-depth. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:59, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:BASIC per sources already in the article. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:40, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:BASIC as noted above, from preamble of peeps Additional criteria - "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, ...". Coolabahapple (talk)
Keep There's a good case for meeting the general wiki-notability guideline. XOR'easter (talk) 21:48, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely meets GNG. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:04, 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 redirect to List of Benidorm characters. RL0919 (talk) 04:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Janice Garvey[edit]

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

Article does not meet WP:NFICTION/WP:GNG. DarkGlow (talk) 18:47, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:48, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:37, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:38, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to either Benidorm (TV series) or List of Benidorm characters where the character is already mentioned. There does not appear to be enough coverage from third-party, reliable sources to meet the WP:GNG requirements, but this could be a viable search term so a redirect may be helpful. Aoba47 (talk) 01:23, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect because it's WP:ALLPLOT. No-one ever put in the work to make proper (and due-weight) character summaries, and it's doubtful someone ever will, so I am unsure if it's even wise to keep the redirect around. – sgeureka ^t•c 22:46, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability is not established. TTN (talk) 11:47, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:25, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Claire Desjardins[edit]

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

WP:ARTIST fail. Notability for WP:GNG is quite weak, so bringing it here. The exhibitions section looks well sourced, but each item is actually an event announcement. If this is a page on a notable artist, one might ask why there are no art reviews to be found-- just puffy profile pieces. Notable artists have reviews and/or are in collections.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:44, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:44, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:47, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:47, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the lack of actual reviews suggests that she is not in fact a notable artist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:09, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom, and no substantial improvement since my previous AfD nom of this article. Worth noting that the creator's contribs appear to be quite SPA and/or UPE -ish. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 01:36, 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 merge to Mount Jiuhua. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dabeilou Temple[edit]

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

Doesn't meet wp:notability. Boleyn (talk) 18:32, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:33, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:33, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Mount Jiuhua. According to the Mount Jiuhua article on Chinese Wikipedia, there are 93 temples on the mountain, including several which are historic and might merit their own articles. This one doesn't appear to be one of those, but might merit a passing in the mention in the Mount Jiuhua article per sources such as this etc ----Pontificalibus 12:21, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Pontificalibus.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:29, 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. RL0919 (talk) 19:15, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost Light (band)[edit]

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

Non notable musical band that lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. A before i conducted shows no evidence of true notability as they are merely discussed in passing when they release new music. Each member of the band fail WP:GNG & WP:BASIC. Celestina007 (talk) 18:28, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 18:28, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 18:28, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 18:28, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 18:28, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:03, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since the AfD notice, I've added more references and expanded the article. Also note that 2 members of the band have existing pages. Jfricker (talk) 21:21, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

keep Nom appears to have missed the fact that two established musicians are in this band. Beyond that, the album and shows have been reviewed,and the band - its formation, members - has gotten reported coverage, some of which I just added to the page.IceFishing (talk) 12:55, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has reliable sources coverage that has been added to the article such as Dallas Observer, PopMatters and Mint newspaper so therefore pass WP:GNG and deserve to be included, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:56, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per IceFishing and Atlantic306. — Hunter Kahn 02:26, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:22, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Arnaboldi[edit]

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

V successful, but doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 18:27, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:29, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:53, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:22, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amjad Majid Al-Saboory[edit]

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

this appears to be a puffed up resume for a non-notable editor. It's sourced to unreliable sources that engage in churnalism and vanity spam, such as those sources found here. A search in Arabic returns no results and the same for English. Praxidicae (talk) 18:18, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:25, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an overly promotional article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:47, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:23, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mia Scozzafave[edit]

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

Non-notable actress, sourced to vanity publications and unreliable sources. A search of Scozzafave shows nothing beyond the normal rehashed PR ad unreliable sources pointed out here. The rest are casting announcements which are meaningless. Praxidicae (talk) 18:08, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:14, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:14, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NACTOR as no criterion is met/satisfied.Celestina007 (talk) 20:12, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough sources for a page at the moment. Fails WP:RS. Lapablo (talk) 20:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:56, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see a lot of enthusiasm to delete my article - it was my very first significant contribution for Wikipedia and I had less experience back then. But I really don't understand now how it works as my article had been reviewed and accepted by three other editors including Onel5969 (that guy retired already), Robby and Sagotreespirit. Those editors didn't ask an questions and didn't dispute that article. Now, it the other way around and someone already cut the links just to show the article is even less notable. I understand it is a free community, but it just makes no sense to me and it puzzles me how Wikipedia has any articles when all the new Wikipedians are discouraged to contribute. --Parksbows (talk) 20:36, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry you feel that way however the requirements are made very clear when publishing articles particularly about BLPs and the WP:ONUS is on the creator to make sure it's appropriately sourced and notable but also do your due diligence in assessing the sources for reliability and making sure that their editorial standards are clear. this is completely unreliable, so is this with an added dash of gossipy spam, also completely unreliable and fake per this considering "Claudia Pasos" is actually Regina Casé. Would you like me to continue? Because there are several more identical fake sources like this. Praxidicae (talk) 20:52, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt - All new Wikipedians aren't discouraged from contributing, but all public relations spammers are. This article needs to be removed ~~and the creator blocked unless they disclose their clear paid editing ties~~. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 23:45, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Hello, Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans. No paid editing was involved and I clearly declared it on my page. As you could see by my previous comment, I asked the community how it happens that the editors first accept the article (3 editors) and then comes a new team and vote on deletion and also accuse the new comer in all the Wikipedia sins. Kafka would write a great story about Wikipedia, it is a pity he is not alive and I'm afraid if I did any changes to his page, I would be blocked. For now I can only say this: the first editors (who accepted the page) could just have moved the page to the draft (or delete) and explain what was wrong with it. Now, it looks like a circus. And one more thing - just to make everyone feel better - I do not object the deletion if the community finds the article not fit for Wikipedia. It was really nice to meet you all warm and nice people here.--Parksbows (talk) 02:18, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Parksbows: We are dealing with a large breadth of spam on our site, so it would be wonderful if you could explain what motivated you to write this article, and to use fake/spam sources such as Soul Brazil? — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:26, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans: Wikipedia welcomes new contributions but has thousand of rules that take a lifetime to learn. I came with the best intentions and curiosity was my only motivation to start as I had no experience in good and bad references and couldn’t see why the article was poor (that cannot be said about those who reviewed and accepted it) . You’ve been on Wikipedia for how long? Since 2006? When I created the page, I was here just a few days and I didn’t know much about good or bad links. See, the websites flood Internet with articles and most of them are spam — covert advertising and promotion is just everywhere. Only when I started writing encyclopedia articles and search for good sources, I began to realize how many promotional articles are everywhere and how hard it is to find a neutral, reliable source. It takes time and experience to acquire this knowledge and I’m sure that everyone at the beginning made some errors. Furthermore, I think the problem wasn’t so big back in 2004 when Wikipedia came to life. What is more interesting is that the Wikipedia community puts all the «burden of guilt» on the shoulders of the inexperienced editor when it was much easier to explain it from the beginning when it was reviewed and accepted. It seems like that I spend more time on explaining my actions than on editing. --Parksbows (talk) 23:14, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Parksbows: Many new users that start articles using spam sources are here being paid by blackhat SEO firms to increase people's visibility. I'm not trying to be a hardass on you... I just want to make sure you're clearly aware we don't allow paid editing without disclosure on our site. I understand it may have been frustrating to go through this process, and to have your actions so severely questioned. But part of the job of keeping this site maintained involves looking deeply into suspicious actions that may be influenced by outside special interests. As long as you ensure to hold to our sourcing policies here on out, and are being honest about how you used that source, I think you'll be a positive asset to the project. Thank you for explaining your actions. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 10:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Parksbows:, I understand the dejected feeling you are probably experiencing given that you have put in time and effort to creating an article and it is already being considered for deletion. I, too, have experienced the exact same thing with an article I wrote; my article was deleted. What I have done, however, is to create a "draft" of the article, and I'd suggest that you do too—that is, Draft:Mia Scozzafave. That will allow you to continue to work on the article. It seems that the actress may become more notable in the near future (as I stated below), and so I would encourage you to keep working on it and adding to it with the aim of getting it up to the standards required. I wish you the best. Dflaw4 (talk) 13:48, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: It's good to see that sources have at least been provided (regardless of their reliability), but the article seems WP:TOOSOON to me. The actress appears to have several upcoming roles and may become notable in the near future, but I don't think she quite meets the notability standards for actresses yet. Dflaw4 (talk) 07:45, 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. RL0919 (talk) 18:53, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dj ILJANO[edit]

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

Only sources are vanity publishers and completely unreliable. He doesn't appear to have done anything to warrant any significant coverage, so the claims of notability here are pretty meaningless in the absence of sources to back it up. Praxidicae (talk) 18:06, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:15, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:15, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete as Praxidicae notes. It would also seem that the subject uploaded the image to Commons. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:56, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable DJ.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:13, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT all possible variations of the guy's name. When you see weird capitalization in the article title, that is an indication of previous deletions under different titles, and this guy has already been deleted at least twice. See first nomination and second nomination, and there could be more under even more titles. His notability has not magically appeared since his last try. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 23:21, 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. RL0919 (talk) 18:32, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DJ WilSAF[edit]

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

Similar to the reasons in this afd, there are virtually no actual reliable sources to support any statements in this article nor has he received any significant coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 18:03, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:15, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:15, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We work with reliable sources to verify notability claims but subject of our discussion lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources.Celestina007 (talk) 20:09, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The source currently at footnote #3 in the article (Tribune Byte) looks to be fairly reliable, as he has received a little media notice in his home country, but that is the only source that I would consider to be even partially useful for establishing his notability. Everything else to be found are basic retail/streaming entries and directory-like introductions, and the article overall appears to be an attempted promotion. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 23:26, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’m mobile so unfortunately can link but tribunebyte is not even a real news site. Praxidicae (talk) 01:22, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Quite a sock draw we have here. PR, did sources. Delete this spam. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:47, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable and very probably self promotion. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 05:48, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He is notable here in Sierra Leone which is why I decided to work on his page if you all read the sources currently at footnote #1 and #4 you can see that these are two reliable sources from the country WikiShr3dda (talk) 06:06, 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. RL0919 (talk) 18:55, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Jens[edit]

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

GNG fail. Over at the AfD for Baggio White, we discovered the use of a sort of publicity farm of websites such as the One World Herald and the American Reporter. These sites have identical editorial policies and fake head office addresses. Seeing these sources are in use here, I checked notability and it seems to be all based on paid placement publicity on sites like the above. Another of the sources, isstories.com is obviously paid publicity. A search could not find any reliable coverage. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:56, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:59, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:59, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete [[18]] claims that "Jatina Group Miami ... has been one of the fastest growing businesses for the last two years." It also mentions that the company has four employees.
[[19]] is actually an article from popdiaries.com, a blog
[[20]] This post has not been vetted or endorsed by BuzzFeed's editorial staff.
[[21]]
openthenews.com or is it The Open News? (they seem confused is a fake source. Their office is supposedly at 445 E Ohio Street, Unit 2708 Chicago, IL 60611. They share that address with Champions Buzz, Fir Curious, [Data Source Hub, Apsters Media,Tech News Vison, [Verna Magazine, US times now and a bunch of others, that I'll look at later. This ought to be enough. This is one article of a (large?) number that have been created by undisclosed paid editors who operate a network of fake sources to produce fake citations for their paid articles. A sockpuppet investigation may be in order. Vexations (talk) 19:38, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

these sites also list the above address:ustimesnow.com precisejournal.com vernamagazine.com globestats.com technewsvision.com newsmono.com fabworldtoday.com entertainmentpaper.com. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:46, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a minor person in business. Just starting up a company does not make you notable, especially when it has under 10 employees.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:27, 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. BD2412 T 04:42, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Christian History Institute[edit]

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

This article reads like an advertisement. The references are mainly affiliated with the group. There are references to non-notable awards, but no third party coverage of these awards. Google shows lots of sales pages, a few namechecks, but no substantive coverage in reliable independent secondary sources that I can use to tone down the article. Guy (help!) 08:26, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 08:31, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 08:31, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 08:31, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep -- It appears to be a small Christian publishing house, which has continued since the retirement of the founder. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:04, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 17:14, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep long-established Christian publishing house. Lots of sources available over the decades in newspaper archives.IceFishing (talk) 23:38, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The comment below was entered on this discussion's talk page. I have copied it.IceFishing (talk) 18:26, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note, among Christian entertainment producers, some of the awards dismissed as insignificant are highly regarded. Should the Christian Post 2017 article about Christian History Institute's CHI Torchlighter series be cited? Christian Post is in no way connected with CHI ^[1] Would the article be improved if it mentioned that the Evangelical Press Association has given several awards to CHI's magazine Christian History. EPA is a pretty well-known organization. Two 2019 awards were ^[2] ^[3] PastPicker4tA (talk) 16:43, 13 January 2020 (UTC). (this ends the copy of the incorrectly placed comment).[reply]



^ https://www.christianpost.com/news/torchlighters-heroes-of-the-faith-cartoons-prove-21st-century-kids-enjoy-church-history.html

^ https://www.evangelicalpress.com/2019-awards-of-excellence/ 

^ https://www.evangelicalpress.com/2019-higher-goals-awards/

Keep per IceFishing - long established publisher - looks to have been around for decades and there are sources about it available. Bookscale (talk) 12:29, 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. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 18:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SCAN (auditory processing disorders)[edit]

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

As this is a copy of an email (see [22]), it is a copyright violation as it copies another’s work without their permission. I previously PRODed this article, and the evidence that it was an email was removed, but this still doesn’t remove the fact that this is an email. And besides, it is wholly comprised of someone’s views expressed through an email. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 10:20, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 10:20, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am new to this process so I hope these comments are appropriate. I understand there is a discussion by some group to keep or delete this discussion of the SCAN auditory processing test battery. I hope that the group does not delete it. My reasons are that I attempted, hopefully successfully, to write a discussion of SCAN using impartial language, simply discussing it, and presenting references that support whatever was written in the entry about the test.

Secondly, the SCAN auditory processing test battery is an important tool in the armamentarium of people interested in diagnosing auditory processing disorders, and the proposed entry is a helpful way for individuals who do not read the audiology literature to become aware of and familiar with this tool.

The test battery has been available since the late 1980s with two revisions that improve the measure in multiple ways. The refereed peer review literature includes articles that describe the SCAN battery as the most used test for auditory processing in the USA, so the audiology profession is generally familiar with the test and feel it is valid and reliable with acceptable sensitivity and specificity.

Thank you for considering these comments as you review the submission. If I can add any information that would be helpful I would be happy to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UIowagrad (talk • contribs) 20:06, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 17:14, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as copyvio and possibly as recreation of previously-deleted material (could someone with the appropriate access check on that?). XOR'easter (talk) 17:30, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the first revision if this page is identical to the deleted version (I was the one who requested the speedy), Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 17:44, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:47, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clinic management system[edit]

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

Unreferenced essay Rathfelder (talk) 10:31, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 10:31, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above - though would also be okay with a redirect to Medical practice management software. Jmertel23 (talk) 12:31, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 17:13, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:33, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Medical practice management software per Jmertel23

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Participants provide some decent sources of lists, and group articles, discussing various people as recluses. This supports the existence of the list on purely notability grounds via WP:LISTN, and I do not think the critiques raised about some of those sources reach the point of invalidating them as a whole. Those arguing to delete do raise some understandable problems with the article - "recluse" is frequently a negative term, and so BLP concerns absolutely must be paramount - but good sourcing solves the issue of negative information about living persons, making this overall a content and sourcing issue for the list rather than an existence issue. Ultimately this article needs to be improved with a more specific set of inclusion criteria, and a better introduction that details exactly what those criteria are. Good arguments have been made that a list like this can exist based on WP:LISTN, but very valid criticisms are made that the list as it stands is dangerous from a BLP perspective, potentially somewhat arbitrary, and is struggling to demonstrate why it's better than a category. All of these concerns are technically content issues that could be solved by editing, but if they aren't, I think there's a strong argument that the list is not helpful and it could validly be re-nominated in future. ~ mazca ^talk 17:42, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of recluses[edit]

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

I can't see any logical reason to list people who supposedly share a somewhat trivial and subjective personality trait such as reclusion. Additionally, I have this gut feeling there may be a WP:BLP issue regarding some of the people listed here. Vaporgaze (talk) 20:19, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Vaporgaze (talk) 20:19, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Vaporgaze (talk) 20:19, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the list's creator. Rolling Stone, Esquire, The Daily Telegraph, The Independent, HuffPost, Times Union, etc. etc. all discuss recluses as a group. To paraphrase Greta Garbo, this list vants to be let alone. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:38, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Understandably the creator is going to defend their work. But while it's a nice bit of information, it's trivial at best and an article is not really needed as it's fueled off listicles such as above, all of which are based on someone's personal interpretation of the term. It has the potential to get out of control quickly with editors' varying opinions of the word and consequential namedropping whenever (insert name here) and "recluse" are spotted in the same paragraph of some random article. Not worth the inevitable headache. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 20:40, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Being a recluse is not "a somewhat trivial and subjective personality trait". Greta Garbo and Howard Hughes, just to name two, are extremely well-known for their reclusiveness, and their bios would be fatally incomplete without it. As for Beemer69's objections, the list satisfies WP:LISTPEOPLE. It is covered by reliable sources and consists of notable individuals. It goes well beyond "someone's personal interpretation" when many journalists, writers, etc. all agree. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:34, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets our criteria for WP:NLIST and WP:LISTN and the article has WP:RSs. We keep such lists to serve the readers and to aide in navigation. There is no BLP issue; also many on the list are deceased. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a good rationale to delete. Also WP:PRESERVE is a policy on Wikipedia. Wm335td (talk) 21:39, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Arbitrary, vague, and subjective list criteria and concerns over WP:BLP are valid -- we wouldn't have a list of people with mental/physical health issues or a list of eccentric people and there would be a lot of overlap with people added to this.Citing (talk) 18:54, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:24, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal. BLP states "contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced" (bolding mine) should be removed. I've vetted the more questionable references, and all the people (dead or alive) are well-sourced. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:57, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I removed some more. An important thing to note is that in labelling someone a recluse, journalists often only mean that person is exhibiting some aspects of reclusive behaviour for a period. Note the quote in the Telegraph source you gave above "My belief is that ‘recluse' is a code word generated by journalists ... meaning, ‘doesn't like to talk to reporters.'" Labelling someone a recluse because they don't talk to reporters or stop working after retirement is not something we should be doing. Looking at non-journalistic reliable sources, a Google Books search reveals the term is used principally to refer to hermits, where we already have a list of notable religious recluses.----Pontificalibus 06:39, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The word can be used to describe a hermit who willingly spends their entire adult life in isolation. It seems it can also be used to describe someone in public life who declines a few interviews in retirement. Listing both with no distinction simply because a source uses the word does not make an encyclopedia article. It would be like having a List of angry people, and claiming that every entry is ok because it's supported by a source stating that the person was angry. ----Pontificalibus 21:44, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Clarityfiend, an experienced editor who knows what they are doing. The delete votes seem to be of the slippery slope type. Bearian (talk) 16:53, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG DELETE per WP:NOTCATALOG and objections raised above. The page for recluse already provides examples, which do not need to be complete in order to be valid. But attempting to maintain a running list of notable people requires efforts toward both accuracy and completeness, something not only difficult but also privacy-invasive toward living persons. Also, a list regarding character traits or behaviors should be given sensitivity similar to how religion or sexual orientation are regarded in WP:LISTPEOPLE and WP:BLPCAT. As demonstrated in this AfD discussion, even agreeing on what is a reliable source for whether a person is genuinely a “recluse” would be difficult. I second User:Pontificalibus, it would be like having a List of angry people, and using sources where someone else claimed that person was angry. Inappropriate for a Wikipedia article, both for being a catalog, and for being a catalog of perceived personality traits. Cannot see how it wouldn’t be arbitrary and subjective, unless it’s kept so short it can just be a list of examples on the recluses page. Shelbystripes (talk) 20:41, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal. It is not the same as List of angry people, unless those people were described as angry over the course of decades of media coverage. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:01, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So it’s okay to put someone on a “list of angry people” if I can find news articles describing them as angry over an extended period of time? One might be during a contentious divorce, another after slander that led to a lawsuit, and a third not long after they’ve been fired... but hey, they’ve been described as “angry” several times by journalists over several years, so of course they belong on a list of angry people! (This is sarcasm to illustrate how horrible this entire idea is.) Shelbystripes (talk) 03:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be silly. If you can find people who are well-known for being consistently angry over a long period of time, not just intermittently, AND journalists who've discussed them as a group, then maybe, just maybe you'd have an argument. But there aren't, and you don't. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You seriously want to argue there’s no such thing as people who are well-known for being consistently angry? You really want to seem that naive? Regardless, such a list would end up populated with false positives—the intermittent examples falsely interpreted as “being angry,” which you agree would exist—just like this list would. It’s not possible to objectively create a complete list like this, not without inherently including false positives and violating WP:BLP in the process. And if it’s not meant to be a comprehensive list, it’s not objective and complete to the entry title, and therefore it’s not encyclopedic. All you’re describing there are notable examples, which already exist on the Recluse page itself. Shelbystripes (talk) 07:09, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since when is completeness a reason not to have a list? Also, it doesn't violate BLP; the sourcing is strong. As WP:LISTPEOPLE states, a list has to meet the following requirements (1) The person meets the Wikipedia notability requirement, and (2) The person's membership in the list's group is established by reliable sources. Check, check, and checkmate. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That’s the criteria for whether to list an individual person on a list, not whether the list itself is appropriate. You seem to be missing the obvious concept just a little further up the page, which clearly applies here: “Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value.” If something is too general or broad, then it’s difficult to maintain a complete and accurate list. Shelbystripes (talk) 07:20, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

28 people and 3 fictional characters are too general? Clarityfiend (talk) 20:15, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another sign that being a recluse is a notable trait: List of people known as the Recluse, which I've just created. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, you created a list page with a clearly definable criteria for people who should and should not be listed. And that specific list page makes deletion of this one even more appropriate, since the two overlap in purpose and this one has overly vague inclusion criteria. Shelbystripes (talk) 07:25, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LISTOVERLAP isn't a valid reason for deletion. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:17, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Pontificalibus. It's too vague and thus raises WP:BLP concerns. Recluse may cover a few notable examples and comment on them. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:14, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. If I alone call Donald Trump the most prolific liar in the known universe, that's a BLP violation. When the press en masse does it (Fox News excepted), it isn't. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:02, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 17:13, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: listing people (and characters) that already have articles devoted to them is pointless. What might be preferable is to create a category for such articles. Sweetpool50 (talk) 11:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal. So all Category:Lists of people and Category:Lists of fictional characters should be deleted? Clarityfiend (talk) 20:24, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but article needs a proper introduction and specific rules need to defined for inclusion that don't violate WP:BLP.Igbo (talk) 13:28, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there are sufficient sources linked above (and which I'm seeing in my own search) to show that this passes WP:LISTN. All of the other issues raised here can be hashed out on the talk page (if there are BLP issues, limit it to dead people, for example). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:29, 25 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 "recluses" has been treated as a "a group or set by independent reliable sources".

Sources

"Encounter article". Encounter. Vol. 70. 1988. Retrieved 2020-01-25.
Trachtenberg, Robert (November 1989). "A Who's Who of Great American Recluses — and a Visit With the Richest, Wackiest Hermit of Them All". Spy. Retrieved 2020-01-25.
Fu, Li-tsui Flora (2009). Framing Famous Mountains: Grand Tour and Mingshan Paintings in Sixteenth-century China. Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press. p. 18. ISBN 978-962-996-329-3. Retrieved 2020-01-25.
Shirane, Haruo, ed. (2011). The Demon at Agi Bridge and Other Japanese Tales. Translated by Watson, Burton. New York: Columbia University Press. ISBN 978-0-231-15244-0. Retrieved 2020-01-25.
Yampolsky, Philip B., ed. (1990). Selected Writings of Nichiren. Translated by Watson, Burton. New York: Columbia University Press. p. 391. ISBN 0-231-07260-0. Retrieved 2020-01-25.
Sadler, Arthur Lindsay (1962). A Short History of Japan. Sydney: Angus & Robertson. p. 109. Retrieved 2020-01-25.
"Journal of Japanese Studies article". Journal of Japanese Studies. 21. 1995. Retrieved 2020-01-25.
Tanner, Norman (2009). The Ages of Faith: Popular Religion in Late Medieval England and Western Europe. London: I.B. Tauris. p. 124. ISBN 978-1-84511-760-3. Retrieved 2020-01-25.
Jones, John B. (1976). Offa's Dyke Path. London: Office of Public Sector Information. p. 92. ISBN 978-0-11-700350-7. Retrieved 2020-01-25.
Collis, Louise (1983). Memoirs of a Medieval Woman. New York: HarperCollins. p. 27. ISBN 0-06-090992-7. Retrieved 2020-01-25.
Jackson, Samuel Macauley (1889). The Concise Dictionary of Religious Knowledge and Gazetteer. New York: Christian Literature Company. p. 736. Retrieved 2020-01-25.
Parsons, Alice Beal (1946). I Know What I'd Do. Boston: E. P. Dutton. p. 16. Retrieved 2020-01-25.
Hartmann, Sieglinde (2013). "Bridal Mysticism and the Politics of the Anchorhold: Dorothy of Montau". In Innes-Parker, Catherine; Yoshikawa, Naoë Kukita (eds.). Anchoritism in the Middle Ages: Texts and Traditions. Cardiff: University of Wales Press. p. 101. ISBN 978-0-7083-2601-5. Retrieved 2020-01-25.

Sources with quotes

"Encounter article". Encounter. Vol. 70. 1988. Retrieved 2020-01-25.
The article notes:
Of 42 leading French intellectuals listed by Lire in 1981, only 14 have never appeared on the programme, and only a very few have turned Pivot down: they include such notable recluses as Samuel Beckett, E. M. Cioran, René Char, and Henri Michaux.
Trachtenberg, Robert (November 1989). "A Who's Who of Great American Recluses — and a Visit With the Richest, Wackiest Hermit of Them All". Spy. Retrieved 2020-01-25.
The book notes:
The classical pianist Glenn Gould may have had the dramatic integrity to drop dead before his comeback, but other notable recluses have been less selfish with their presence. Brian Wilson resurfaced as a thinner, better-groomed nut; Marlene Dietrich narrated a movie about herself (and followed up with an autobiography); and then came the rumor that former first lady turned career girl Jacqueline Onassis was trying to sign ultra-recluse Greta Garbo to write an autobiography for Doubleday.
Fu, Li-tsui Flora (2009). Framing Famous Mountains: Grand Tour and Mingshan Paintings in Sixteenth-century China. Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press. p. 18. ISBN 978-962-996-329-3. Retrieved 2020-01-25.
The book notes:
At the same time as the Daoists and Buddhists were charting their sacred geography, famous mountains began to feature in mountain records (shanji) composed by resident recluses, both Buddhist and Daoist. Huiyuan, for instance, was credited with writing the first record of Mount Lu. The first two records of Mount Heng were written by the famous Daoist Xu Lingqi (?–474) and Zong Ce, a recluse who refused office toward the beginning of the Southern Qi dynasty (479–502).
Shirane, Haruo, ed. (2011). The Demon at Agi Bridge and Other Japanese Tales. Translated by Watson, Burton. New York: Columbia University Press. ISBN 978-0-231-15244-0. Retrieved 2020-01-25.
The book notes:
A Companion in Solitude (Kankyo no tomo, ca. 1222) is a two-volume collection of Buddhist setsuwa written by Priest Keisei (1189–1268). The twenty-one stories in volume 1 are about noted recluses and priests such as Kūya (903–972).
Yampolsky, Philip B., ed. (1990). Selected Writings of Nichiren. Translated by Watson, Burton. New York: Columbia University Press. p. 391. ISBN 0-231-07260-0. Retrieved 2020-01-25.
The book notes:
Hui's mother, Empress Lu, persuaded four eminent recluses who lived on Mt. Shang to become his advisors. They were known as Master Tung-yuan, Scholar Lu-li, Ch'i Li- chi, and Master Hsia-huang.
Sadler, Arthur Lindsay (1962). A Short History of Japan. Sydney: Angus & Robertson. p. 109. Retrieved 2020-01-25.
The book notes:
To this period belong three eminent recluses: Saigyo Hoshi, author of some famous verses; Kamo Chomei, who wrote the Hojoki; and Yoshida Kenko, who penned those entertaining essays and comments on life called the Tsure-zure- gusa or
"Journal of Japanese Studies article". Journal of Japanese Studies. 21. 1995. Retrieved 2020-01-25.
The article notes:
In the inscription Taihaku alludes to two famous recluses from the Chinese poetic tradition, T'ao Ch'ien and Wang Wei (701 -61).
Tanner, Norman (2009). The Ages of Faith: Popular Religion in Late Medieval England and Western Europe. London: I.B. Tauris. p. 124. ISBN 978-1-84511-760-3. Retrieved 2020-01-25.
The book notes:
Attention has concentrated on the writings of the two most famous recluses - Richard Rolle (c. 1300-1349), who lived as a hermit in various places and wrote extensive spiritual works in both Latin and English, and Julian of Norwich - and upon the three most important rules written for recluses:
Jones, John B. (1976). Offa's Dyke Path. London: Office of Public Sector Information. p. 92. ISBN 978-0-11-700350-7. Retrieved 2020-01-25.
The article notes:
A little above the town is Plas Newydd, the black and white timbered home of Eleanor Butler and Sarah Ponsonby, the Ladies of Llangollen, two famous recluses from the Irish aristocracy who settled here in 1791.
Collis, Louise (1983). Memoirs of a Medieval Woman. New York: HarperCollins. p. 27. ISBN 0-06-090992-7. Retrieved 2020-01-25.
The book notes:
She had had read to her a number of books written by famous recluses, such as Hilton's Scale of Perfection, Rolle's Stimulus Amoris and Incendium Amoris, and St Bridget of Sweden's Celestial Revelations.
Jackson, Samuel Macauley (1889). The Concise Dictionary of Religious Knowledge and Gazetteer. New York: Christian Literature Company. p. 736. Retrieved 2020-01-25.
The book notes:
Port Koyal des Champs now became known principally as the refuge of a great number of famous recluses, among whom were I'alla the physician, Fontaine the historian, Arnauld d'Audilly, the translator of the fathers, the Duke de Luynes, Pascal, etc.
Parsons, Alice Beal (1946). I Know What I'd Do. Boston: E. P. Dutton. p. 16. Retrieved 2020-01-25.
The book notes:
So she signed a contract for a book on America's two most famous recluses, Hawthorne and Emily Dickinson, bought a lot with her advance royalty, and took out a Building and Loan mortgage to build a house on the lot.
Hartmann, Sieglinde (2013). "Bridal Mysticism and the Politics of the Anchorhold: Dorothy of Montau". In Innes-Parker, Catherine; Yoshikawa, Naoë Kukita (eds.). Anchoritism in the Middle Ages: Texts and Traditions. Cardiff: University of Wales Press. p. 101. ISBN 978-0-7083-2601-5. Retrieved 2020-01-25.
The book notes:
Dorothy of Montau belongs among the most notable recluses of medieval Europe.

General notability guideline

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".

WP:BLPCAT concerns can be addressed by modifying the inclusion criteria to exclude living people

Editors have raised valid BLP concerns about labeling a living person as a "recluse". WP:BLPCAT says, "Caution should be used with content categories that suggest a person has a poor reputation" and "These principles apply equally to lists ... that ... suggest that any living person has a poor reputation."

Recluse#Causes says:

There are many potential reasons for becoming a recluse, including, but are not limited to: a personal philosophy may reject consumer society; a mystical religious outlook may involve becoming a hermit or an anchorite; a survivalist may be practicing self-sufficiency; a criminal might hide away from people to avoid detection by police; or a misanthrope may be unable to tolerate human society.

The first three causes do not "suggest a person has a poor reputation". The last two causes (saying someone may be a criminal or a misanthrope) do "suggest a person has a poor reputation". So it is likely that including living people on this list violates WP:BLPCAT.

But that would not require deletion of the entire list. It would only require that we modify the inclusion criteria to exclude living people. This modification of the list's inclusion criteria is permitted by Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Lists of people, which says:

In other cases, editors choose even more stringent requirements, such as already having an article written (not just qualifying for one), or being notable specifically for reasons related to membership in this group. This is commonly used to control the size of lists that could otherwise run to hundreds or thousands of people, such as the List of American film actresses.

The list's inclusion criteria is a content decision that can be made through an RfC on the article's talk page.

Cunard (talk) 02:14, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But all these texts are, without exception, only sources for the use of the word 'recluse'. They don't demonstrate that the various people about whom that word has been used form a coherent group that can be the subject of a list. – Uanfala (talk) 14:37, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I provided six reliable sources that discuss recluses as a group. Bottom line There are at least five or six people who are pretty much universally labelled recluses: Garbo, Hughes, Dickinson, Salinger and Harper Lee. The Unabomber, the trio who stayed in a hotel suite for decades, and the inspiration for Miss Havisham are also solid entries. That's more than enough for a list. You could argue about the rest, but AFD is not for cleanup. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:26, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an indiscriminate collection of information. While we can all find sources of people describing them as a recluse (eg: Scott Walker), I can't see any evidence that there are sources about lists of notable recluses as a whole. In particular, the sources produced by Cunard seem to be passing mentions of recluses as part of other subjects as opposed to sources that document recluses directly, while the ones from Clarityfiend appear to be a bit of light humour such as "How much of the Syd Barrett factor has John Deacon got?" which isn't really suitable for a general article. Perhaps a category would be more appropriate? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:18, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep* Facially meets NList with multiple pop culture publications on it. The BLP issue is real though, and that makes it weak. Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 21:24, 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. No agreement about whether to delete outright or to reduce to a list of notable synthesizers. Sandstein 13:52, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of classic synthesizers[edit]

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

Completely uncited (and has been for many years, possibly since it was created in 2008). No criteria for what constitutes a "classic" synthesizer. Seems to be a dump of original research based on what various editors reckon are classic synths. Popcornduff (talk) 08:48, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 10:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:39, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:47, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no clear inclusion criteria, no sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:18, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SYNTHESIS (oh, the irony). Clarityfiend (talk) 20:13, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to List of synthesizers and do the usual things to narrow the scope of the list to those in the article, which already follow the rule of being not merely notable but influential. The lede addresses this distinction already: <synthesizers> "which marked a turning point in musical sound or style". "Classic" is of course objectionable, but I am quite sure we all agree for the most part on "notable", which has not been raised as an objection by anyone including the nominator, probably because almost all of the scores of synthesizers listed have articles. I would accept List of influential synthesizers but I doubt anyone else would, and I admit it suffers from the same problems as "classic", only less so. Anarchangel (talk) 00:29, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think having a "List of synthesizers" page might be a good idea, and I hadn't thought of that. If the outcome of this nom is to delete then I might make a new, sourced "List of synthesizers" page myself. Popcornduff (talk) 11:31, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 17:12, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to List of synthesizers as proposed by Anarchangel. If List of synthesizers is desireable content, List of classic synthesizers is a good leg up and these contributions should be attributed by preserving revision history of the list through move. ~Kvng (talk) 16:55, 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) 18:39, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Globasa[edit]

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

A non-notable, nascent personal project. The only sources provided are the project's own website. A web search only returns WP:UGC on reddit, fandom, and its own wiki. WP:CRYSTAL - the opening line says it all, "Globasa is a planned international auxiliary language devised by Hector Ortega", it embodies ambition but is only as yet a personal project. Cabayi (talk) 12:55, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 12:55, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 12:55, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hardly any independent coverage for this constructed language. See also here what happened to the article on Pandunia. Robin van der Vliet (talk) (contribs) 21:48, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 17:08, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SPS. No independent sources found.--Darius (talk) 20:29, 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. Sandstein 13:53, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New ICT[edit]

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

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

Advertising. Rathfelder (talk) 13:58, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 13:58, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 10:41, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A proposal does not make it notable until some technological breakthrough is realized. PenulisHantu (talk) 05:37, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 17:08, 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. RL0919 (talk) 19:11, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blitz Magazine[edit]

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

My WP:BEFORE search on this folded karate magazine was unable to turn up any references other than references from its own publisher. Wolfson5 (talk) 21:12, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Wolfson5 (talk) 21:12, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Wolfson5 (talk) 21:12, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Wolfson5 (talk) 21:12, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a magazine which never achieved notability. WP:PUBLISHER was a failed proposal, but I agree with the criteria: A publisher is notable if they have published a notable individual publication or a series of publications that are collectively notable. Reviews of publications count towards the notability of the publisher. We should develop that proposal so that we have more guidance. But I digress. The magazine was not notable. Lightburst (talk) 22:49, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unless I am missing something there are references to be found very easily. I found the following without trying:

https://www.personalprotectiontraining.com.au/single-post/2018/07/27/The-Man-The-Legend-Interview-with-Richard-Dimitri
https://seishinjuku.com/blitz-magazine-feature-article-kaicho-watanabe/
https://www.usadojo.com/blitz-magazine/
https://etana.com.au/about/founder-mick-nicholls/
http://www.kenkyukai.com.au/streeton-vic/

no longer published but back issues still available it seems:

https://www.magzter.com/AU/Blitz-Publications/Blitz-Martial-Arts-Magazine/Sports/215202

The above are by no means earth shattering, but given that I found these in less than a minute it would seem that there will be sufficient to write more than a stub article? Aoziwe (talk) 11:01, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are these WP:RS? Wolfson5 (talk) 05:44, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:44, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 17:04, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The references listed above do not meet WP:GNG because they are primarily about martial artists that have received awards or coverage by the magazine. That is not "significant independent coverage" of the magazine itself. Those are passing mentions of it. Papaursa (talk) 18:33, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neither the article nor the sources mentioned above provide significant independent coverage of this defunct magazine. A few passing mentions do not meet the GNG.Sandals1 (talk) 17:34, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacking reliable sources that are independent. LibStar (talk) 16:10, 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) 18:41, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Centennial, Arizona[edit]

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

Fails GNG due to lack of significant coverage. No evidence that this is or was a populated place. –dlthewave ☎ 21:43, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 21:43, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 21:43, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if it weren't actually a locale, there's nothing establishing notability. Reywas92^Talk 22:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet our criteria for inclusion. Lightburst (talk) 22:30, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. There is some usage of this name such as this, so I would add a mention in La Paz County, Arizona as a named location in the county. No evidence it is/was a populated place of any kind or meets GNG to have a separate article. GNIS picked this up from a county road map. It's hard to track down any history of the name since it is common (Centennial High School, etc). It's clearly an exit on I-10, but the exit in Interstate 10 in Arizona is just labeled "Avenue 75E". This section of I-10 was opened in 1973, and the county highway map is dated 1986???, so not sure if the name precedes I-10. MB 23:44, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The 1990 topo shows the Centennial Wash (Maricopa County), they likely copied the name of that on the highway map, and then the DOT used that name about this crash. Reywas92^Talk 02:37, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I didn't find the connection to Centennial Wash - that explains where the name of the highway exit came from. The wash does seem to be the closest thing to the exit that had a name. But the entry in GNIS says 1984, so the name had been associated with the exit way before this crash. I still think merge is appropriate, either to La Paz County, Arizona or maybe to Interstate 10 in Arizona. MB 05:37, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looking at historical topos, there has never been anything here except a freeway interchange. Fails WP:V. SportingFlyer T·C 06:45, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Unsure about this one. More research is needed. Bearian (talk) 17:55, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note It is located at the point where the Centennial Wash crosses the Interstate 10 via the Centennial Wash Siphon, the "world's largest pre-stressed concrete pipe". This crossing is discussed in multiple sources e.g. [23], but there is no mention of a settlement there in 1975.----Pontificalibus 18:56, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Listing a place does not make it notable. PenulisHantu (talk) 05:21, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 17:00, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in the absence of any supporting evidence that this is or was a populated place. I can't see how a merge is possible, it would be unfeasible for the La Paz County, Arizona article to mention all named locations in the county other than communities.----Pontificalibus 17:34, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't see any sources except being on a handful of maps. Bearian (talk) 19:21, 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 no consensus. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:58, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rose Tan[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Nominating for deletion under User:Jmertel23's reasoning which is: "Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR" GPL93 (talk) 22:52, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 22:52, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 22:52, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per my reasoning listed above from the PROD nomination. I can't find any independent, reliable sources regarding this author. Jmertel23 (talk)
Weak keep: A few passing mentions (e.g. ABS-CBN (connected to subject) and Lifestyle.inq) but no WP:GNG-worthy coverage. She seems to pass WP:AUTHOR#3 though, with her book The Bud Brothers Series becoming the television series Bud Brothers Series (TV series). — MarkH₂₁^talk 01:30, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:35, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coolabahapple If it isn't notable, then it doesn't belong on Wikipedia, unfortunately. Minecrafter0271 (talk) 04:10, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

thanks Minecrafter0271, but i just added this afd to a list, have not looked at this article notability-wise. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:18, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Minecrafter0271 (talk) 04:20, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:57, 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 keep. RL0919 (talk) 18:44, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mani (actor)[edit]

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

Subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources hence falls short of WP:GNG. Subject does not seem to Fulfill any criterion from WP:NACTOR & almost all references provided ironically does not discuss him but rather discuss his wife in trivial non encyclopedic issues. Celestina007 (talk) 16:28, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:28, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:28, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:28, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:28, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:42, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NACTOR. He has had significant roles in multiple television shows, including Meri Teri Kahani, Bandish, Hum Sab Ajeeb Se Hain and Yaqeen Ka Safar. -- Toughpigs (talk) 17:55, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes criteria 1 of WP:NACTOR with prominent roles in notable national television series as confirmed in the references in the article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:38, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Added some more categories which the article needed. It already has plenty of references (12 of them) – mostly from major newspapers of Pakistan. The article mentions that most of this husband-wife team's TV projects are done together as a team, so the newspapers also tend to discuss them together.Ngrewal1 (talk) 02:17, 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 speedy keep. I am going to WP:BEBOLD and close this early. I even did a Google search and was like "whoa" when I saw the number of reliable secondary sources covering the subject significantly. Missvain (talk) 17:17, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alison Lang (basketball)[edit]

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

Did not establish WP:GNG PenulisHantu (talk) 16:13, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:22, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:22, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:22, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Competed at the Olympics, so passes per WP:NOLY. I assume you did a WP:BEFORE, right? Because I found a ton of sources in about 30 seconds, and added some to the article. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:00, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep (nomination withdrawn) (non-admin closure) –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:49, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Tomlinson III[edit]

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

~~Coverage isn't enough to meet WP:GNG and doesn't meet WP:BIO.~~ Boleyn (talk) 16:09, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:43, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:43, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:44, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've made some major changes to about half the article. Inline citations to unbiased, third-party sources that do not make trivial mentions. At least one source says Tomlinson was one of the best known bridge engineers of the last half of the 1800s (notability). More are coming. - Tim1965 (talk) 06:15, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The person in question was associated with a significant railroad disaster and was deemed worthy of a several page obituary by the Canadian Society of Civil Engineers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karlwk (talk • contribs) 16:00, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability and depth-of-coverage issues appear to be satisfied. Thanks to Tim1965 for the improvements. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:15, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination per ll the good work above. hanks to everyone involved, Boleyn (talk) 07:02, 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 delete. RL0919 (talk) 18:46, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Magic-O-Metal[edit]

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

I may be missing something but I couldn't establish it meets WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 16:07, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:23, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:23, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Bizarrely, this article does not even describe the project correctly. It is actually a comic book about a fictional metal band, created by real musicians to teach kids about the music. See this: [24] (which may require you to click through a warning about cookies/security). It appears that the musicians involved created an actual music album to go with the comic book. None of this is explained in the article. With that out of the way, while searching for comic book, band, or album only the project's self-promotions come up and the project gained no reliable and significant coverage that I can find. The sources listed in the article are simply more basic introductions to the project in various music and educational forums, and are almost certainly promotional only. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 23:11, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:TNT as a misleading entry without the backing of reliable sources coverage, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:48, 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) 18:35, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bagio White[edit]

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

spammy paid for pr piece about a non-notable person. All of the pieces are interviews or press releases and otherwise not coverage of White. The sources I could find are almost all exclusively based off of this release. Praxidicae (talk) 15:29, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:35, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:35, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there is something funny going on witht he sources in the article. Almost all of them have the same format: same image at top, same glowing coverage of an up and coming person. They are also all in publications I have never heard of. The last source, the ~~American~~ California Herald, mentions in their editorial policy that they take outside content, and really try to verify, but if they can't they rely on the provider: "Our editorial staff reviews most content from outside sources for accuracy, balance, completeness and timeliness before we make it available on our sites. In the cases where a complete review is not possible, we rely on spot-checking and our previous evaluation of possible sources of information and of the editorial procedures used by the information provider (for example, in the case of the use of government agency news releases). In most cases, the content we obtain from others has also been reviewed by the provider’s own in-house staff or subjected to review by independent authorities in the field." Not my idea of a good source.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:44, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ThatMontrealIP I was writing up a source table in case this became contentious but yes, that's part of the problem. It's all PR based on the yahoo press release. And almost every single one is from a user generated site (similar to Medium.) Praxidicae (talk) 15:46, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also while I know we don't consider follower counts, I have a hard time believing that someone who claims to have so much social capital only has 115k followers. Praxidicae (talk) 15:50, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You know, when I hear "follower count", I just think of one numerical entry in a large SQL database and do not give it much credenceThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:52, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible that it is a publicity farm. The editorial policy for the American Reporter is identical to the California Herald policy above. They list Boston offices but their contact phone number starts with +91, the country code for India. The London Daily Post uses the same editorial policy, word for word. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:55, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete source coverage cannot be reliably verified. Much of it seems to be self-generated, the product of a publicity farm of web sites.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:02, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ThatMontrealIP, I have no doubt they're fake sources. The office location for the theamericanreporter doesn't exist. There is no 2512 Cedar Lane Boston MA 02114. https://www.theamericanreporter.com/editorial-policy/ is just like https://londondailypost.com/editorial-policy/

tricitydaily.com is only used as a source for one other article: the spammy [TalkSpace] and look at https://tricitydaily.com/editorial-policy/, it's the same editorial policy again. californiaherald.com isn't much better. Two other articles cite it: Yusof Mutahar and Jeff Colhoun (director) and look, there's that same https://www.californiaherald.com/editorial-policy/ again and in case you were wondering where their office is: 2464 Norman Street Los Angeles CA 90017. There's no office there. So what about oneworldherald? That source is used on articles: DJ WilSAF, Jan Jens, Luke Bakhuizen, Dj ILJANO, and Mia Scozzafave curious about their editorial policy? So was I: https://oneworldherald.com/editorial-policy/ Delete and salt. Enough is enough. Vexations (talk) 17:36, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It would be good if someone who knows about the WP edit filter could add these, to prevent them from being used as sources. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:38, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ThatMontrealIP running a coibot report now and will request blacklisting. Praxidicae (talk) 17:46, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete does not meet the notability standard, and the sources are definitely suspect. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:00, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Praxidicae: I had started to see some other referencing coming through in the past couple of months, and had been lightly following and today we had intersect. I think that there is some nasty unreliable sources in play that has been faked news into articles. Time to cull, and to blacklist. Build me a list here, and I will look to see about getting it more globally analysed and possible blocked. Here is my list and your list combined. They are all not the same media farms, though they are similar shite.

list of dodgy fake news blogs/sites as discussed

californiaherald.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

oneworldherald.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

tricitydaily.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

vernamagazine.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

thriveglobal.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

fabworldtoday.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

usaherald.online: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

ustimesnow.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

iwmbuzz.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

apstersmedia.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

bestmediainfo.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

openthenews.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

londondailypost.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

australiantimes.co.uk: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

london-post.co.uk: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

residentweekly.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

championsbuzz.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

datasourcehub.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

fitcurious.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

technewsvision.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

facetmail.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

businessheralds.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

sanfordphilosopher.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

scottishopinion.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

theeuronews.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

acumendigest.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

newsdistinct.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

statsobserver.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

globestats.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

newsmono.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

curiousdesk.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

caubvickmail.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

euro-newz.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

medicinsider.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

entertainmentpaper.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

allnewsbuzz.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

coveragelog.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

automobileherald.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

independentecho.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

fortunetabloid.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

I am sure that there are plenty more

other dodgy shite

asianage.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

theodysseyonline.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

foreignpolicyi.org: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

articleify.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

already blacklisted

theamericanreporter.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

californiaherald.us: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Delete and SALT per the discussion about fake sources above. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:58, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We should not let PR pushing fool us into thinking someone is notable who in fact is not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:00, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:NOTPROMOTION. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I nominated this at AfD in August 2016 and I am still having to request deletion. They must be pretty expensive PR agents to be so very very persistent. This is probably not a good use of my time so please, please salt this one. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 05:53, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per everything said so far. And how does someone have the time, effort and energy to make a bunch of fake publicity for oneself, but not to actually make themselves notable. Bizare.★Trekker (talk) 22:57, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. RL0919 (talk) 19:08, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mifos X[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSOFTWARE and WP:GNG. Offered references are self-published. Mikeblas (talk) 15:18, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:24, 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. RL0919 (talk) 19:06, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Denis Frajerman[edit]

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

Article about a French composer which does not seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:COMPOSER. The French Wikipedia article is in no better shape. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:15, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:15, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:15, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:15, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:15, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. I nominated the article on fr-wiki for G11 speedy and it was deleted. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:10, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self-promotional autobiography, and written in such a way that WP:TNT would apply even if the subject were notable. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:13, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:COMPOSER. Even if Fraherman was notable this article would have to be TNTed. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:44, 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. RL0919 (talk) 18:47, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

July 14 Island[edit]

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

Appears to be a non-notable island; only source offered is a Google map which does not label the island, and gives no indication that it is a recognised populated place. This is a translation of the French Wikipedia article, which offers no other source. Was previously PRODded with no reason specified (half an hour after creation, when it was in a shambles), and dePRODded on basis of "no stated reason to delete" (by which time the original editor had tidied it up). PamD 13:08, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The substantial French wikipedia article about the town of Civray appears to make no mention of this island ( I searched it for "juillet"). PamD 13:19, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. PamD 13:08, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete Zooming in on Google Maps I see an island which has a "Place du 14 Juillet" on it, but the island itself is unnamed on the sources I have. Searching the French name produces almost nothing, an much of that is obviously WP mirrors. Mangoe (talk) 01:25, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:23, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability, not sure why the creator chose this to merely translate without source from frwiki. Reywas92^Talk 04:03, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:V, no reliable source for this name. I checked the aquatic centre out of interest but it just says it's on an island without naming it.----Pontificalibus 06:55, 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 keep. RL0919 (talk) 18:47, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of historical maps[edit]

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

Topic is not specific enough. We don't have List of historical books or List of historical coins for the same reason. All the maps shown are already included in existing list articles (along with a huge number of highly notable maps missing from this list), which themselves are included in the template Cartography topics or the article History of cartography. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:49, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:00, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:00, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:LISTN, specifically "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept"; it serves as a navigation aid. The nom's comparison to books and coins is spurious; there are far fewer significant maps. Incompleteness is also not a valid argument. ~~The title, however, could be shortened to List of maps.~~ Clarityfiend (talk) 19:48, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The corresponding category is Category:Historic maps, FWIW. postdlf (talk) 20:17, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This aids in navigation for similar things. Perfect list article. Dream Focus 12:25, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:23, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:LISTN as above, re "along with a huge number of highly notable maps missing from this list": WP:NOTFINISHED, and these "missing maps" can be included along with appropriate sources. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:43, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- It is a harmless list. If it is incomplete, more can be added. In my view, list articles are better without too many references: the reference is having a blue-linked article, which will provide detail and references. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:38, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:LISTN, specifically "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept". Lightburst (talk) 23:58, 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. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 18:25, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welding software[edit]

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

The article reads more like a list of SEO terms than an encyclopedia entry; if indeed there are competitors in this industry, this article does not cover them well at all. No references. Raymie (t • c) 07:49, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 07:49, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion due previous prod.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 10:56, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too trivial to keep here. Orientls (talk) 09:45, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. Schwede 66 05:32, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Working dog[edit]

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

Fails GNG. Only one of the cited sources on the page actually mentions "working dogs" ("Working Dogs". dogtime.com. Archived from the original on 2015-10-21.), it is not RS given its own terms of service states it does "not warrant that the content is accurate, reliable or correct". A google search revealed a number of books from Australia, but in Australia the term "working dog" only refers to sheep and cattle dogs, which is reflected in the sources. I suspect the page is a good faith creation because a number of kennel clubs have a "working group".

Additionally nominating the following redirects that relate solely to this page:

Working Dog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Working dogs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Cavalryman (talk) 10:33, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - RS supporting the term has been presented below. Cavalryman (talk) 14:08, 20 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:18, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This can't be serious. Sourcing of the present article could be improved, but it is trivial to locate sources. BBC: [25], The New York Times: [26], [27], The Washington Post: [28], [29]... Journal articles: [30], [31], [32]. Working dogs assist the blind, sniff drugs, served in armed forces, herd sheep, and many other tasks. Eostrix (talk) 12:12, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep – Working dogs are a core article in the wiki world of dogs. Not only did Eostrix layout a lot of great sources for GNG, but the subject can also qualify through WP:BASIC. Missvain (talk) 17:18, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - op. cit. Eostrix's comment. Elf | Talk 20:16, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep -Working dog(s) is a "must be" in any encyclopedia, improve sources if the current ones are unreliable.--Darius (talk) 20:35, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - of the eight sources provided by Eostrix, one uses the term "working dog" exclusively about military working dogs, two about herding dogs and two about drug detection dogs. Of the remaining three, one opens it to "any purebred dogs that are 16 inches at the withers", one makes mention of explosive detection dogs, guide dogs and military working dogs without further expansion and the last is a study about a population of military working dogs. None come close to actually defining working dogs as "a canine working animal, i.e., a type of dog that is not merely a pet but learns and performs tasks to assist and/or entertain its human companions, or a breed of such origin".

I accept this proposal appears to be unpopular and so should probably be closed as keep, but it was whilst conducting research to attempt to improve the page I discovered I could find no reliable secondary sources that define "working dogs" as the broad type described in the article, and despite some sensationalist language none have been presented here. Cavalryman (talk) 10:26, 20 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]

It is not surprising that sources often focus on particular subsets of working dogs, such as military working dogs. In journal articles I provided, I selected some from the first page of results on google scholar. Here is one from the second page: The modern working dog—a call for interdisciplinary collaboration, which describes working dogs (in a non-exhaustive manner) as: "Thus, in the United States today, working dogs may include guide dogs, service dogs, assistance dogs, therapy dogs, or dogs that search airplanes for explosives, monitor our borders for the entry of illegal drugs and plants, or search for people who are lost in avalanches, the wilderness, and in natural or man-made disasters.". Here is a book chapter: Evolution of working dogs, covering sled dogs and herding dogs as case studies for the wider class. A book: Canine Ergonomics: The Science of Working Dogs covering the interdisciplinary science of working dogs. Eostrix (talk) 10:50, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eostrix, thank you for finally finding some usable RS, now I think we have the basis for an article. I cannot read any of the second link but the first clearly articulates a broad definition of the term, whilst it specifies this interpretation of the term to be American, in time this may be expanded upon. Here in Australia the term is very much confined to sheep and cattle dogs ([33] & [34]) and apparently the editors of the Oxford Dictionary think likewise, the papers you presented earlier demonstrate that in Britain the term may also be used to describe military working dogs. I have withdrawn the nomination above. Regards, Cavalryman (talk) 14:08, 20 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]

My understanding is that "Working dog" these days is any trained dog that is used in a non-pet or hobby context. I am not sure just how American this is, or whether it is just the favored term. I don't recall hearing this term when I was younger, though Merriam Webster thinks this dates back to 1885. Eostrix (talk) 14:12, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, it’s a shame they don’t provide the context it was used in. Cavalryman (talk) 09:27, 21 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Keep -- this is an overview article and is suitable for inclusion. I search google books for "working dogs" and the book titles that come up show that "working dog" is not just for military working dogs. For example: Ranch Dog: A Tribute to the Working Dog in the American West; Working Sheep Dogs: A Practical Guide to Breeding, Training...; Dog Behaviour, Evolution, and Cognition ("In addition, the term 'working dog' is often used very loosely because 'terriers', 'sheepdogs', 'protecting dogs', 'sledge dogs', or 'gundogs' are all working breeds,..."). Etc. --K.e.coffman (talk) 20:24, 20 January 2020 (UTC)‎[reply]
Keep but maybe clarify. It needs to be very clear to the reader (in the lead and throughout) that this is a role that various dogs are trained for and, to some extent, bred with the intention of. It is not a type of dog nor a breed of dog. I'm not sure how much work it may need in that regard, but probably some. The content needs to be more consistent with Dog sports (another role-not-type/breed article), even if "Dog work" might be an awkward article title. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:47, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:04, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pima Arizala[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that she meets WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 09:32, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:15, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:15, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:15, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:22, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not pass GNG. Missvain (talk) 17:20, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There are a couple more sources about her contributions, but not a single source about her. Therefore, it fails WP:GNG. _SUPER ^ASTIG 07:00, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:04, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kulna Sawa[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that they meet WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 08:48, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:20, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:21, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG. PenulisHantu (talk) 16:55, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Unless there are sources in Arabic? Jmertel23 (talk) 19:47, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the Arabic wikipedia article has only one references which is a bad sign for finding significant coverage. Please ping me if good sources are found, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:37, 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 redirect to List of locations of the DC Universe. Take merge discussion to talk. (non-admin closure) ミラ P 17:59, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fawcett City[edit]

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

Usual-variety comic trivia. Fails GNG/WP:NFICTION. BEFORE fails to find anything that's not a PRIMARY source of a WP:PLOT-like fictional bio summary. Deprodded with no rationale. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:10, 12 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} 12:10, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:10, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 03:58, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 13:51, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Let this page stay. It is a main setting for Captain Marvel and other characters from Fawcett Comics. If the unanimous decision is merge, perhaps it can be merged with the fictional cities section of List of locations of the DC Universe. --Rtkat3 (talk) 21:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of locations of the DC Universe. The article fails WP:GNG, being sourced entirely to primary sources and sources not actually about the subject. Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:22, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:44, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No reliable, secondary sources appear to discuss the city in any way that would allow it to pass the WP:GNG. The argument that it is notable in-universe are not valid in establishing real-world notability. The proposed merge/redirect target is another mess of cruft that is sourced only to primary sources, and I don't see how adding even more unreferenced cruft would improve matters. Rorshacma (talk) 16:28, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:32, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1325 Policy Group[edit]

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

This group appears to fail our general notability guidelines, even after an extensive search for sources in English. Of course, there could be Swedish reliable secondary sources covering the subject significantly, but I haven't seen anything with a quick glance. Thank you for your review and as always - assume good faith. Missvain (talk) 08:34, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Missvain (talk) 08:34, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Missvain (talk) 08:34, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:38, 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 keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:05, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

W.I.T.C.H. (video game)[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG and is non-notable. Perhaps could be mentioned in the series page, but does not merit its own article. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:03, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:03, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:08, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:09, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources from WP:VG/RS such as 4Players [35], Jeuxvideo.com [36] and es:Meristation [37] (per the Wiki page seems to be a game magazine since 1997) is just above the threshold, meeting WP:GNG. At worst, this should be merged to W.I.T.C.H#Video game, but deletion isn't the way to go here. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:57, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- 4Players wasn't mentioned in WP:VG/S at all, while Meristation is under "inconclusive" after a number of discussions, with consensus being that that site alone should not be enough to push an article over the edge to notability._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:02, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - @User:Zxcvbnm: Not being mentioned on Wikipedia is not a valid argument for excluding a source. We are not limited to using sources that have been vetted on some noticeboard. New sources for Wikipedia are being found literally every day. Modernponderer (talk) 07:18, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A source that has its own Wikipedia article is presumed to contribute to notability, absent a strong community consensus. Therefore, the 4Players and Jeuxvideo.com articles satisfy WP:GNG. While other citations provided may be questionable for various reasons, that's already enough for the "multiple independent reliable sources" requirement.

Also oppose invalid nomination as there is an obvious merger target and the material is obviously encyclopedic, so there is no valid rationale for deletion (as opposed to merging) here regardless of notability. Modernponderer (talk) 15:32, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:47, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jovanmilic97's sources. Toughpigs (talk) 15:40, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Agree with Jovanmilic97. Danny157 (talk) 21:10, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Jovanmilic97. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 22:40, 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 redirect to List of Middle-earth characters. Consensus is (still) divided between redirecting and deleting, but good points were made about preserving the incoming redirects. To avoid manual fixing and frustration, I'll close this as redirect and let the bots fix it. – sgeureka ^t•c 23:08, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Middle-earth dwarf characters[edit]

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

We have several different lists of Middle-earth characters. As reflected by the AfD for List of Middle-earth Elves, there seems to be a consensus to delete auxiliary lists like this in favor of the central List of Middle-earth characters. BenKuykendall (talk) 04:56, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. BenKuykendall (talk) 04:56, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. BenKuykendall (talk) 04:56, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. BenKuykendall (talk) 04:56, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Middle-earth characters per BenKuykendall. Goustien (talk) 06:11, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is way too much Tolkiencruft.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:32, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This list is a redundant content fork. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 11:30, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems like every day I'm seeing Tolkien character Wikipedia articles getting deleted. Most of those AFDs I haven't objected too, as the characters genuinely don't seem worthy or notable enough for their own standalone articles. But it seems to me that lists like this one are the alternative to have dozens of non-notable standalone articles like that. I think lists like this should be encouraged for that reason, not deleted. — Hunter Kahn 14:15, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom, but there are several incoming links named for members of Thorin's Company, as only Thorin Oakenshield and Balin appear to have articles. Redirect the other members of Thorin's company (Bifur, Bofur, Bombur, et al.) to List of The Hobbit characters, where they are prominently mentioned. Hog Farm (talk) 15:52, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:4360:C05F:77B6:F943:FAE5 (talk) 16:31, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Only Gimli of the dwarves not mentioned in the Hobbit is worth having an article on, and so I support sending those other redirects to List of The Hobbit characters. If only there had been equal restriint with other articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:51, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I imagine that only the members of Thorin's company and Dáin Ironfoot should be redirected to List of The Hobbit characters, as they're the only ones who are in that work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:4360:9DA6:9C0A:7E08:B7EB (talk) 21:10, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - No one else on the list is even remotely notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:19, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Redirect Hm, yes, we are getting very close to the limit of what should sensibly be deleted, and what should be kept to support navigation and provide "landing-sites" for likely searches: it seems that we basically agree that some lists of characters are reasonable, so the question is whether this should be one of those lists (i.e. several smaller lists or fewer bigger ones). I think we can sensibly lose this list, provided we keep List of The Hobbit characters and redirect each of its dwarves there. Gimli is a major character in Lord of the Rings and rightly has his own article. I'd have thought that Dain and Nain need to go somewhere, so they should be added to one or other of the surviving lists with redirects to their entries as John Pack Lambert suggests: that means that these lists can't be needlessly restricted to characters with articles - being decently cited to Tolkien should suffice. The alternative would be to keep a list of just the major dwarves here, cutting out the "noise" of sub-minor characters; either way, the redirects should point to brief descriptions.Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:28, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The dwarf list has a bit more support for redirecting than the orc list, so I'm relisting to get a clearer consensus for whether we should redirect or just delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:46, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Of this list, the dwarves appearing as main characters in The Hobbit, as well as Gimli (Middle Earth) are the only ones that can have any argument of notability. The rest of the information here is mostly just in-universe plot information on some very minor characters. And, all of those characters are already sufficiently covered in various other appropriate articles. There also does not appear to be any one place that would be appropriate to Redirect this to. That said, I would not be totally opposed to simply redirecting to List of Middle-earth characters, if only to preserve the history in case any of the non-primary sources being used would be useful to add elsewhere. Rorshacma (talk) 16:36, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Middle-earth characters. That list could be enhanced by sorting by species. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:52, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What should be done with the list of redirects? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:4360:996D:D27F:ED55:E2FC (talk) 04:46, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@2601:241:301:4360:996D:D27F:ED55:E2FC: as mentioned by Hog Farm above, some of the redirects can be retargeted to List of The Hobbit characters. The remainder should be deleted, unless we had good targets in mind. BenKuykendall (talk) 05:26, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One list of notable ME characters is all we need.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:44, 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. It's obvious there's a consensus to retain the content in some manner. The question of whether or not there should be a merge can be determined by a merge discussion, rather than leaving the AfD open. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:52, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Monosexuality[edit]

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

This term fails WP:NOTDIC and WP:SIGCOV, and in any case should not be a separate article per WP:NOPAGE. A look at the sources, both in this article already and out there, bears out that there is nothing encyclopedic to say about this term. There is no significant coverage in reliable sources; instead it's just used occasionally to draw a contrast to bisexuality and similar identities. Note that Michel Foucault used the term in his own way which has nothing to do with the topic of this article. The first AfD is just a bunch of WP:ITEXISTS.

I already merged this content to Sexual identity, but my redirect here was reverted. This can be deleted or redirected; but it should not be a separate article. -Crossroads- (talk) 04:53, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 04:53, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 04:53, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 04:53, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 04:53, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep [38][39][40][41][42][43]. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 08:31, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- All 6 of these bear out that there is nothing to say about monosexuality other than (1) as a DICDEF to distinguish it from bisexuality or (2) as a WP:CFORK of Bisexual erasure and Bisexuality. -Crossroads- (talk) 19:13, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  On the contrary, they offer more information on the use of the term. This source dedicates the entire introduction of the book on the relationship between bisexuality and ~~so called~~what the author refers to as "compulsory monosexuality". The rest of the book also continues to discuss the subject. There is enough here to pass GNG. Per WP:WORDISSUBJECT, the term itself is notable. There is significant scholarly discourse on the use of the term. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 11:51, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the Sexual identity article. Not enough on it to warrant its own page. WP:No page does apply. Not everything needs its own Wikipedia article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:12, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep i think it is a well-referenced page that provides a clear definition which will be a useful addition to sexuality content. (Lajmmoore (talk) 19:01, 12 January 2020 (UTC))[reply]
- See WP:ITSUSEFUL. -Crossroads- (talk) 19:21, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Sexual identity. Good info, but not as a standalone. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:53, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is more than just a dictionary term, and is a useful encyclopedic entry that I personally find to be helpful. If it's useful to the encyclopedia, keep it. Ambrosiawater (talk) 20:51, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is a lot of academic discussion of the term, lots of books devoted to the subject, and tons of discourse; it isn't some obscure word pulled out of nowhere. פֿינצטערניש (Fintsternish), she/her (talk) 22:37, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge largely just a definition; discourse is in the context of Sexual identity and bisexuality and can easily be covered with that. Reywas92^Talk 01:15, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Sexual identity, We are WP:NOTDICT Lightburst (talk) 01:34, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't see the need for merging. This is far more than just a dictionary definition, and is encyclopedic enough to have its own article. Ambrosiawater (talk) 02:24, 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) 19:04, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

French Bank of California v. First National Bank of Louisville[edit]

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

Not notable state appeals court decision. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:38, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:38, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:38, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article doesn't indicate why this case may be notable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:21, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't believe that "ever" being used as a precedent is enough to ensure notability for a case. If it was a frequently cited precedent that was often mentioned, that would signify notability to me, but this is just a state court case that's not even from Kentucky's highest court. Just one use, or just a few uses, as a precedent, does not imply notability to me. Part of this article deals with the fact that the case citation -- that is, the volume and page number among the hundreds of volumes of the South Western Reporter -- was mentioned in a movie ... in relation to a fictional case with a different name whose fictional holding had nothing to do with this case. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:56, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The notability claims have been restored with new sources. It is generally accepted that cases that become precedent are notable for inclusion. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:19, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree on two counts. First, I don't think "It is generally accepted that cases that become precedent are notable for inclusion" is correct. Second, since this is not the highest court of the state, the extent to which it is actually precedent is questionable. In the federal system, for example, a case decided at the appellate level, as this one is, is binding precedent only to trial courts within the circuit that decided the case; and some states follow this rule. In other states, a decision by an appellate court is binding on all lower courts, but not on other appellate courts of the state, and never to that state's highest court. I'm not sure what rule Kentucky follows, but given that this is merely an intermediate appellate case, and the rareness with which it is cited, it doesn't sound like it's much of a precedent. TJRC (talk) 16:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - While I believe this should be deleted (!vote is below), I disagree with TJRC's comment above on rationale. Generally for U.S. federal or state courts, intermediate appellate decisions are binding only on courts immediately below them, but such cases can still be so frequently cited as persuasive authority in other circuits, or analyzed in academic publications for articulating a new legal principle, that they become notable despite never being heard by the relevant highest court. The important thing is that neither of those things have happened here. There's only two new cases to be found that cite to this case as precedent, one of which just includes it in the middle of a string cite. Such strings of citations are common to lend weight to rulings, and don't magically imbue every case they cite to with notability. If Wikipedia had an article for every appellate decision that was cited more than once, it would fill with pages about non-notable cases. This decision is rather typical legal fare, which is why there's no academic interest focusing on it, and only one research article that appears to even mention it at all. It may be occasionally useful to lawyers practicing in the Commonwealth of Kentucky, but that's what legal research services are for; it fails WP:GNG. Shelbystripes (talk) 18:03, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't think we're really in disagreement; just a difference in terminology. Your usage is a bit more precise and clearer than mine, so thanks for that. TJRC (talk) 19:23, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It looks notable and well-sourced. --evrik ^(talk) 20:03, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While state appellate decisions are not automatically notable, this seems to have significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 18:07, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see any significant coverage in third-party sources. Yes, it's cited in two other cases, but that's pretty weak tea. First of all, two cases is practically nothing. There are damned few cases decided in any court that don't get cited sooner or later. If being cited in two cases is sufficient basis for notability, there are very few reported cases out of any court that would fail to pass the notability bar.

And the nature of the cites for this case are unimpressive. Lindley v. Paducah Bank Trust is the more extensive of the two, and even that is just a one-paragraph discussion with a two-paragraph pull-quote included at the very end of the opinion; not central to the decision at all. The other, Laskowski v. Spellings is even weaker. It's a throwaway reference in the middle of a string-cite to multiple authorities.

It's treated in one published law review article, Scott D. Benner, Commercial Law: Loss Allocation under U.C.C. Article 4A, 1990 Ann. Surv. Am. L. 239 (1990). French Bank is one of two cases discussed under the topic of "Erroneous Execution of Payment Orders."

For a case that's four decades old, this case is barely noticeable, let alone notable. A notable case would have been cited far more and gotten significant academic coverage.

The sole thing that makes this interesting is that the citation to the case -- "585 S.W.2d 431" -- was once used in a movie. That's not enough. TJRC (talk) 00:16, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:38, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There’s nothing notable about this case, it appears to boil down to an application of a state statue by an appeals court. The only thing people are citing for notability is a citation in a fictional story, that is not a cite to this case. It’s a cite to a fictional case with a made-up citation that happens to map to this case. That’s more appropriately addressed on a page for that story, it doesn’t give any notability to this case. The lack of academic discussion of this case, at its age, makes it clearly undeserving of encyclopedic inclusion. Shelbystripes (talk) 06:52, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are literally hundreds of thousands of non-terminal state-level appellate cases like these, so the mere existence of the case (with a handful of later cases citing it) is meaningless, even with the coincidental fictional tie-in. We should have a standard for cases, which for non-terminal state-level cases should at least require selection for usage in a casebook. BD2412 T 04:24, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BD2412: Like WP:CASES that was proposed? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:52, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The wording of that proposal is ignorant of how the law works. Even the millions of opinions generated by the trial courts can be used as precedent if any other court wants to cite one of them for its reasoning. The case at issue in this discussion is of no binding precedential value upon anyone except perhaps the lower court hearing a later phase of the same case between the same parties. BD2412 T 12:01, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there should be a law notability policy. I think that WP:CASES is an ok baseline to start from, but it should be looked at again and formally proposed @BD2412:. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:58, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A new notability policy would be a good effort, but in the meantime, WP:CASES failed because it was overly broad and would justify articles exactly like this one--a decades-old, generic state court case applying state law, cited briefly a couple of times in later cases, and otherwise not mentioned in any reliable sources. Even lawyers don't consider this case notable, given the lack of academic writings about it; I see no reason to give it an exception to WP:GNG, which it clearly fails. Shelbystripes (talk) 18:41, 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. Closing as keep. Please consider improving this list before nominating it. If upon improvement, there are problems and concerns about its inclusion in the encyclopedia we all know and love, feel free to renominate. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 18:29, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Twilight Zone (1959 TV series) guest stars[edit]

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

A list of actors who appeared once (or rarely twice) on a TV show, which happens to be cult now. Still, like many other now-deleted guest star lists, this fails WP:NOTDIR and WP:LISTN, and is redundant to the episode lists, e.g. The Twilight Zone (1959 TV series, season 1). – sgeureka ^t•c 13:06, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:06, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:06, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:06, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:28, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:28, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – unsourced, and thus no evidence of notability. Also, this is not how you do this – you would properly do a "[Cast or Characters] of The Twilight Zone" article, and then just talk about the important (i.e. notable ones). This version is WP:INDISCRIMINATE and not worth keeping. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:58, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cleary defined list, with a clear set of inclusion criteria. It is lacking sources, but AfD is not for cleanup. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:55, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:LISTN criteria is met Lightburst (talk) 01:05, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:34, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. LISTN is not really satisfied. True, MentalFloss and The New York Times (at least it seems so from the little snippet I can see without a subscription: "'Twilight Zone' featured a who's who of distinguished actors ...") discussed the guest stars as a group, but only the famous ones. I doubt that Mary Adams, for example, got any notice. The names an average person might recognize are listed in the main article. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:02, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but prune out the obscure non-stars (they should at least have articles; Mary Adams as Day Nurse has got to go). Clarityfiend (talk) 19:56, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed all the actors without articles, with one prolific exception. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Understandable that there are limited sources for something from 1959. Good historical piece for a notable production. PenulisHantu (talk) 16:59, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are probably some who could have articles but don't. I'll get to them at some point. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 20:33, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:OVERLAP still overrides WP:N (cf 1 and 2). ミラ P 02:48, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:59, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rise colleges[edit]

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

No coverage found in reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 13:39, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:43, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:43, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:43, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:55, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:33, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Which reliable sources have been checked? English? Urdu? ClemRutter (talk) 09:35, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Both, I can understand Urdu. Störm (talk) 19:42, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. qedk (t 桜 c) 13:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CFE Group of Colleges[edit]

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

Limited coverage in WP:RS. Fails WP:NCORP. Störm (talk) 13:41, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:43, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:43, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:43, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:54, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:33, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Which reliable sources have been checked? English? Urdu?ClemRutter (talk) 09:38, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Both, I can understand Urdu. Störm (talk) 19:43, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:07, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica De Nova[edit]

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

Non-notable journalist/anchor. She has received no in depth coverage, everything is usually her reporting or local pieces about her immigration and the award is an honorable mention, so not really worth much wrt notability.This is perhaps too soon. Praxidicae (talk) 13:43, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:52, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:52, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:52, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:52, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:52, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:52, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I concur, it might be TOOSOON for her to have an article. Nominator is 100%. Missvain (talk) 04:24, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm obviously for keeping this, so just thought I'd weigh in here. Cheers, --Caterpillar84 (talk) 00:15, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is some coverage of her by her own own employer, but not coverage by publications other than the one that employs her.NotButtigieg (talk) 22:20, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Journalist has been working nearly a decade, and has done so in multiple media markets in the U.S., which is significant.Rebelx24 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:22, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:33, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:NJOURNALIST. No significant coverage of her personally, and an honorable mention for a minor award doesn't help either. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:59, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NJOURNALIST. The bulk of the references simply show her doing her job; there seem to be no independent sources specifically about her as required by WP:RS. Possibly WP:TOOSOON; no prejudice against recreation. Narky Blert (talk) 12:01, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. qedk (t 桜 c) 13:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bangla Tribune[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I stand by my previous nomination. Unfortunately, Users did not show interest in commenting on the previous nomination (only a vague keep) despite being open for 15 days. I'm nominating the article again under the same rational. ~ Nahid ^Talk 14:21, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. ~ Nahid ^Talk 14:21, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ~ Nahid ^Talk 14:21, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. ~ Nahid ^Talk 14:21, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The first nomination was closed as Keep on 2nd January 2020. Isn't it a bit too soon to open a second nomination for the same article? Za-ari-masen (talk) 19:55, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

well, if there is a policy, I'm not familiar about it in which case I can withdraw. But I believe, it was kept because of no consensus or low participation. So if there is no policy regarding the time-frame then given the nature of the previous closing it is perfectly fine. ~ Nahid ^Talk 21:06, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:31, 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 merge to Brianne Berkson. Missvain (talk) 18:30, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BriGuel[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. The sources in the article don't qualify as trusted sources. This example of a sort-of good coverage is not enough to establish notability. Bbarmadillo (talk) 08:04, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It has been declined 2 times as a draft by CaptainEek and AngusWOOF and was moved to main space by the author in what can be seen as an effort to WP:GAME. --Bbarmadillo (talk) 08:46, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Alas, another article that has escaped AfC only to meet its doom. I would usually say to draftify AfC escapees so that reviewers can help, but this article appears to just not be notable. It may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. I would suggest the creator give it a few years and try again once more coverage exists. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 08:51, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:17, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:17, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Brianne Berkson as a section in her biography. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:33, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:54, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:31, 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 redirect to Yahoo. Barkeep49 (talk) 05:04, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

APT from Yahoo![edit]

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

All of the content on this page is already duplicated on Yahoo and I would argue is not notable enough for a standalone page Cardiffbear88 (talk) 15:03, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:28, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Yahoo - Discontinued advertising platform of unclear notability, while company behind the platform is clearly notable. There are mentions of this advertising system in Press gazette and Business Insider but they are thin and heavy on prediction about future potential. As there hasn't been additional coverage since 2009, and the coverage up to that point was limited, there is not enough RS sourcing for a standalone article.Dialectric (talk) 17:50, 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 merge to Hellhound#Fiction (a redirect without merging may be appropriate as well). – sgeureka ^t•c 23:01, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hell hound (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

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

This article fails to establish notability. The only source that has any real world info is a trivial, hyperfocused top ten list in a D&D-focused book. TTN (talk) 17:26, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:27, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:27, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 18:55, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters Lightburst (talk) 20:20, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. More DnD fancruft that fails GNG. Reception is a joke. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:43, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm finding nothing that would make this particular depiction of Hellhounds any more deserving of an independent article than any of the myriad of other examples found under Hellhound#Fiction. The incredibly brief "reception" source, that is the only non-primary source being used, is not nearly enough to passing the WP:GNG. I would not be opposed to a potential mention and redirect to the main Hellhound article, but that is about the best it can get. Rorshacma (talk) 23:29, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Hellhound - same entity. years apart Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:06, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Simply fancruft that fails GNG._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:07, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:19, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:28, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge as above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:11, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Hellhound#Fiction. I see no evidence how this is more notable than the numerous other fictional hellhounds listed there. Not a very active user (talk) 13:12, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hellhound. The article fails WP:GNG, as it is sourced entirely to primary sources. There is nothing of value to merge anywhere, and I do not think the other proposed target is suitable, as it is a bloated mess that I am not certain should actually exist on Wikipedia. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:03, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Hellhound. Sources that are primary for the AD&D article are secondary for this usage of the broader concept. BD2412 T 04:25, 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 no consensus to delete after extended time for discussion, and some improvement to the article. BD2412 T 04:39, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maira Khan[edit]

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

Non-notable model, actress. No significant coverage of her work. Even she haven’t receive any major award.

Failed WP:ANYBIO, WP:NMODEL, WP:GNG Bbemoni (talk) 17:31, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bbemoni (talk) 17:31, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Bbemoni (talk) 17:31, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bbemoni (talk) 17:31, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am not seeing that there is any non-trivial rs of her or her television roles. Her roles are not notable. In addition she only has 31k followers on instagram: which seems rather anemic for a star. Lightburst (talk) 20:50, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:15, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:15, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only thing I learned looking for reliable secondary sources was that she might have had plastic surgery. Missvain (talk) 04:18, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:28, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is there a language problem that is interfering with finding WP:RSs? This could be a wikipedia problem with systemic bias? Her filmography seems fairly extensive. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:06, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is no language problem at the article finding WP:RS references - 7&6=thirteen (☎) - as far as I could see. However, I found the previous referencing at the article to be somewhat confusing, which I took the time to fix and update all existing references and also added a new newspaper reference. Now there are 8 references at the article from 3 major English-language newspapers of Pakistan – Dawn (newspaper), The Express Tribune and Daily Pakistan plus 2 Archived websites supporting Maira Khan's notability as an actress. Ngrewal1 (talk) 23:00, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now I struck my delete !vote based on the article- here is a comparison from when nominated to now. 7&6 has done some sleuthing and I think seeing that also helped me take a second look. Lightburst (talk) 00:00, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:28, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR, with three main roles in notable films and other recurring roles and guest appearances in TV programs. Dflaw4 (talk) 07:57, 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. BD2412 T 04:03, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cartmel Masterplan[edit]

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

This is pure WP:FANCRUFT; this is Wikipedia, not The Doctor Who Wiki. Pahiy (talk) 18:41, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:49, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 20:10, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 22:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Decently sourced article. Dimadick (talk) 18:52, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. This is an important part of the real-world behind-the-scenes story of the last few seasons of Doctor Who. The article has multiple references to reliable secondary sources, including Script Doctor (the autobiography of Andrew Cartmel, the script editor of Doctor Who), AHistory and many issues of Doctor Who Magazine. I also know there's coverage of the topic in other books, including Tat Wood's About Time 6: The Unauthorized Guide to Doctor Who and Bookwyrm: An Unauthorized & Unconventional Guide to the Doctor Who Novels. These non-fiction, real-world sources are aimed at an audience of Doctor Who enthusiasts, but that's what literary & media criticism looks like when you're discussing the behind-the-scenes story of a modern television show. -- Toughpigs (talk) 18:59, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is very much FANDOM material and is even called "fan terminology" on the official Dr. Who wiki. Transwiki any relevant references to the article on FANDOM and delete as undue weight, indiscriminate fancruft sourced entirely to WP:PRIMARY sources._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:09, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to History of Doctor Who. The problem as a stand-alone article is that it focuses too much on plot and that "the proposed revelations never materialised on screen". It can be a nice background detail for the 1989->2005 development of the show though. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:24, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:27, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per the above. It makes more sense that all history of the show is gathered in one place. Even should that article become too long, splitting it by decade would be more sensible than little chunks like this floating about. TTN (talk) 12:05, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems well referenced. Needs some rewriting for style and encylopedicness but meets the notability criteria IMO. Amisom (talk) 20:59, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - referenced and sourced. Also potentially relevant with the new season. Web Warlock (talk) 22:01, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:06, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vermont Daily News[edit]

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

Defunct, apparently local, newspaper in Vermont. No sources except for an external link to the company website. I can't find information about this paper on the web, but the fact that the newspaper has apparently been defunct since at least 2011 (according to the article) may be making it hard to find valid sources. I can find no evidence that this paper passed GNG or the periodicals-specific notability guidelines at any point in time. Hog Farm (talk) 05:58, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 05:58, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 05:58, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 05:58, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. The only coverage I can find is from a local paper: [44] and [45]. Simply not enough to meet the notability requirements. Jmertel23 (talk) 12:36, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can find almost nothing about this. Fails WP:GNG. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:46, 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) 23:06, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DenseLight Semiconductors[edit]

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

all references are trivial notices. DGG ( talk ) 01:54, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support because not only is it a stub, but as DGG has mentioned, they are trivial notices. Minecrafter0271 (talk) 03:56, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 04:06, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 04:06, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support As per DGG. Note, I had requested for speedy deletion prior to this, only to be contested because someone said sources required scrutiny. robertsky (talk) 11:57, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Against The article in question was created because the company is one of the four companies of its nature worldwide which is a noteworthy thing. The writing is strictly informative and descriptive as per the guidelines of wikipedia, and is solely for the purpose of providing information. As a collaborative community, I urge everyone to try and contribute to the article instead of removing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shubham.yadavDL (talk • contribs) 01:18, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Nothing in the article highlights it being 'one of the four companies of its nature' though. robertsky (talk) 01:57, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That part was intentionally left out as it could be presumed as a promotional or advertising attempt which is against wikipedia norms for article writing.Shubham.yadavDL (talk) 03:00, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article created as the 11th edit by a new editor. Aside from the references in the article, which are routine listings and announcement coverage, I am finding only more coverage triggered by the ownership changes. This Compound Semiconductor article is probably the most detailed about the acquisitions during the past 4 years, but I don't see that as providing more than confirmation that this is a firm going about its business, insufficient to demonstrate notability. AllyD (talk) 09:59, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:06, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jovem Dex[edit]

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

I can't find any coverage in a source that is clearly reliable. Rap24Horas dedicates a fair amount of attention to the subject, but they don't disclose their editorial board or policies, and are listed by Google as a blog. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:42, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:42, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:42, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:42, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. Nothing ranked on the chart and yet to demonstrate WP:GNG. PenulisHantu (talk) 17:02, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:06, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of discoveries of the notable or famous dead[edit]

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

This does not make sense as a list -- the circumstances are very different, and in an case it is altogether to sketch. I've draftified a number of these attempted that might possibly make plausible lists, but I do not think that this one will. DGG ( talk ) 01:42, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 04:07, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If I'm not mistaken, this list literally covers every single time someone was discovered to be dead after they died? If so, that covers basically every death that didn't happen while someone else was nearby. Weird and way too broad. TheAwesome Hwyh 04:33, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per The AwesomeHwyh. "Weird" is okay (heck, it often supports notability), but "way too broad" is a big no no. I venture to guess that the majority of people, notable and unnotable, die unwitnessed. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:10, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with the above arguments. The assumed criteria for the list is far too broad and would be impossible to maintain. Rorshacma (talk) 16:43, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Information should be available in the biographies of those involved. PenulisHantu (talk) 17:04, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too broad to be an effective list. A bit indiscriminate, too. Hog Farm (talk) 18:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above commenters. What a bizarre list idea. Shelbystripes (talk) 06:57, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Delete certainly would be an awfully great amount of effort to add the deaths, but is now added to Lists of deaths by year (Deaths in 2019 was the 2nd most viewed page of 2019), perhaps the work to compile deaths would be worth the effort (although not every ones cup-of-tea, to have to do so); easily remedied by changing the direction of listing to "List of discoveries of dead notable or famous people (year of discovery)" Diametakomisi (talk) 23:23, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I think Deaths in 2020 is a somewhat meaningless list, but I personally was interested in the cause of death for each person, but going through each dead person (if I found a number of people who were engaged in activities that I found interesting) and thinking of how they are all dead isn't actually much use, and why anyone would want to simply peruse a list of dead people... (if the viewers were interested in health, the cause of death would be interesting, to find patterns (if similar causes exist) the writers of "2019" didn't include cause of death in all the entries...). Perhaps it would be better to move this article to draft space, and ask interested editors if they would like to commit the time to adding to the article (considering the amount of interest in "Deaths in 2019" (although the reason for the interest is seemingly unfathomable to all "Delete" editors (and that I haven't really the time to commit to improving this article), it would be a shame to delete if a great number of people (have a fringe, sub-culture interest); or whatever reason for the popularity of "2019" Diametakomisi (talk) 23:39, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:West.andrew.g/2019_Popular_pages, although, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Multiyear_ranking_of_most_viewed_pages Diametakomisi (talk) 23:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Note that this bizarre list is an attempt to split List of discoveries by disciplines preempting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of discoveries by disciplines (see also List of discoveries of writings and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of discoveries of dead notable or famous people among others). Reywas92^Talk 06:00, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Reywas92:I am accused of "attempting to split...prempting.." yes, yes I confess to this ... but surely ... the accusation does not take into account any argument on the subject of the actual value (or non-value) of the article "...it would be better to move this article to draft space, and ask interested editors if they would like to commit the time to adding to the article ..it would be a shame to delete if a great number of people ... the popularity of "2019"...", I would prefer editors to think more on the objective value (popularity of "2019" statistics indicating value) than subjective preference ("a bizarre list idea. Shelbystripes"); wikipedians are the servants of readers, any opinion that isn't made with neutrality as a guide should be un-included (discounted) In review of the delete contentions, my contraries to criticisms are sufficient to retain this article ".."way too broad".. is contraried effectively by the possible "List of discoveries of dead notable or famous people (year of discovery)" Diametakomisi (talk) 19:55, 22 January 2020 (UTC) (2 minor changes made after signature)[reply]
Keep/Draft I think the article would prove very popular with people. With respect to it being in a rather (altogether) sketchy state, I think it would soon full up with entries if retained, I myself am really warming to the idea of seeing others contributions to the article (I thought of moving the article to draft space...but this actually does stop others contributions, perhaps those others would like to contribute) I think contesting editors could give the thing a try to find how there could be some improvements (with enough linking to from other articles), no need to kill the whole thing off at this stage (the article is premature), perhaps allow a few months and if there isn't any sign of contribution then surely delete or draft, I agree Diametakomisi (talk) 15:55, 25 January 2020 (UTC) (minor change made after signature)[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 Rising (news show). It seems like we have three main stances here:

6 delete counting the nominator, with concerns about the lack of coverage by independent reliable sources and not meeting WP:GNG and that much of the sourcing is from low quality sources. And that many of the sources are from non-independent sources, including those authored by the subject.
8 keeps mostly with (however contested) cites towards sources about the subject and that more sources will arise with their book publications, and that they have online notoriety/are working with well known commentators/political candidates. Some don't give arguments at all or ask that others find sources.
4 redirect and some more who are OK with redirect as alternative to either keep or delete, mainly with similar arguments as the delete camp and pointers towards WP:TOOSOON. In addition there are 1-2 comments endorsing draftification.

This headcount does not make a clear consensus in either direction, so we need to give particular consideration to the arguments. It appears like the delete camp has the better arguments, as many keep arguments are not based in policy/guideline and all the sources have been contested on the grounds that they don't satisfy WP:SIGCOV (although some contestations are vague). On balance, this makes a rough consensus that the article cannot stay, but it's not clear whether it's delete or redirect that is the preferred outcome. Per the WP:ATD procedural policy and the fact that some people hint at the topic perhaps becoming more notable in the future, this is a "redirect" outcome. Further discussion on whether to keep the redirect should be handled at WP:RFD Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:57, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saagar Enjeti[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

No independent coverage in reliable secondary sources, does not meet WP:GNG. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:28, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:28, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:28, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:28, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:28, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. Yet to meet WP:GNG. PenulisHantu (talk) 17:06, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rising (news show). Enjeti does not presently satisfy the WP:GNG, but could in the future. Zingarese talk · contribs 06:32, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think that redirecting is reasonable. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:29, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. See Talk:Rising (news show) §Merge – wbm1058 (talk) 17:42, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant coverage is a subjective call, but:
Outside sources have written about him, e.g. Saagar Enjeti deserves better than Jim Acosta's scorn

Here's another source recently writing about his tweets

I suppose not as notable as his co-host Krystal Ball, but he does get mentioned in such articles.

FWIW, I'll bet that this is his father, Prasad Enjeti. (notable power electronics engineers don't get much notice from Wikipedians)

Might wait to see whether there are any reviews of his upcoming book, due for release on February 8, 2020. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:53, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think those listed sources contribute much toward GNG. If the discussion were leaning delete, your point about his upcoming book would make me lean toward draftify, but if the discussion closes as redirect then there's no need and the article can be restored once coverage is available. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:32, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per the above comment. Apart from articles written by Enjeti himself, there are a few more sources that this article could use. And I agree that the February book release is likely to lead to a few more. Wholesale deletion is a strange idea so I interpret this as an AfD to turn the article back into a redirect to The Hill. Connor Behan (talk) 15:07, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hah, "the Daily Caller's Saagar Enjeti captured evidence" of socks in the White House briefing room! Is this an indication that the room was infiltrated by a Wikipedia editor who wanted to remain anonymous?! wbm1058 (talk) 15:58, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The additional sources provided here appear to just quote Enjeti's Twitter without saying much of anything about him. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:53, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Along with co-hosting a program alongside a well-known commentator/fmr political candidate, Enjeti is progressively gaining in online notoriety. --- Evans1982 (talk) 20:56, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Evans1982, could you provide evidence of this notoriety in the form of significant coverage? _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:52, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (edit) Same as above. Rdzogschen (talk) 09:14, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Rdzogschen: you've got to provide a rationale, dude. Zingarese talk · contribs 14:08, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mr., Sir, friend, brother, etc. would be fine. Never dude. Rdzogschen (talk) 21:30, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rdzogschen, ok, my sincere apologies. Zingarese talk · contribs 18:06, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (edit) I agree with comments above to keep. Mark as stub. Fostrdv (talk) 21:52, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Stub done. Rdzogschen (talk) 13:33, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fostrdv, what is your argument to keep this article? Zingarese talk · contribs 18:07, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I still stand by my position to redirect this article to his show. Presently, Enjeti lacks the significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources to qualify for an article of his own. I have looked at the sources provided by Wbm1058 and Connor Behan and I am convinced that they are not enough; Washington Examiner is of questionable reliability and the Townhall source I don't believe qualifies as significant coverage (and Townhall is also of questionable reliability). Same with the Federalist source (a very partisan publication of dubious notability), Vice (not significant coverage at all) and Spectator (ditto). I'd say it's WP:TOOSOON at this stage. Enjeti may certainly be notable in the future; I regularly watch Rising and am fairly impressed by him. Its also true that he has a book coming out soon, but he co-wrote it with Ball and I want to wait to see if there will be any reviews. Zingarese talk · contribs 14:21, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: TOOSOON by days, Ball + Enjeti present the book in February (with Dore), and if it gets reviews in RS… €0.02: –84.46.52.79 (talk) 01:46, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We cannot do proper Wikipedia articles on subjects if there's no usable RS coverage, and if it has to be cobbled together from non-RS, primary sources and off-hand mentions in the lowest quality RS (e.g. there's one RS in the article and it's a Politico newsletter that has one sentence about a forthcoming book by Enjeti and Krystall Ball, the latter of whom is actually notable). Some commenters above cite rubbish sources as indicators of notability, such as The Federalist, the op-ed pages of the Washington Examiner and Townhall.com, which would never be accepted as RS in articles, and should thus not indicate notability. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:46, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Federalist would never be accepted except it has been on several high traffic articles. The reliability, from what I can see, is comparable to Fox. Connor Behan (talk) 23:19, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient RS coverage. KidAd (talk) 02:49, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft for potential improvement to the point where it is sustainable in mainspace. BD2412 T 04:36, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The Hill.TV has 231,000 subscribers on Youtube. The article proposed for deletion has had 14,500 views in the last month. "Rising" makes up the great majority of the Hill.TV's content making it one of the largest online news platforms in the world. Should we only use the metrics of outside coverage or does web presence have any pull? This may be outside the scope of low-level editors, but is it not ageist to ignore the metrics that are most important to young people? Mistipolis (talk) 23:14, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I won't try one of the largest online news platforms in the world on Kim Iversen when she has 231K subscribers (she reached 200K two days after The Hill.) AFAIK there is a consensus to not abuse stats for notability, cf. WT:Wikipedia doesn't care how many friends you have#What is a relevant number of social media followers in BLPs?. –84.46.53.84 (talk) 23:29, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We're talking about a news show started by a credible newspaper that regularly has on notable people including serious presidential candidates. This isn't some youtuber in their basement. That said even if you're disinclined to pay attention to social media numbers (a stance I disagree with) I think you should probably still pay attention to Wikipedia page views. The number of views of this page speaks to there being a public want. Mistipolis (talk) 00:45, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The question to ask when considering the deletion of an article isn't whether people want to find an article, it's whether there is enough coverage in sources to ensure that we can write a comprehensive and neutral article without resorting to original research. As it stands, the article is cobbled together from primary sources and trivial mentions of the subject (i.e. original research), such that we are actually doing a disservice to anyone trying to look up this subject, and we have thus far collectively failed to find any better coverage that would allow us to improve the article. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:54, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that clarification, Rosguill. Are you saying that bios from the Hudson and Steamboat Institutes don't count as credible sources for talking about the subject? This is an honest question. Mistipolis (talk) 01:28, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say that they're unreliable, as they may be usable for some claims, but I would say that they are not independent of the subject, and thus don't contribute toward meeting GNG. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:53, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rosguill, you instigated this AfD, I am the author of the original article. It seems to me that there's not a great consensus on deleting the article outright. I wonder what you would think of tabling this discussion until Saagar and Krystal's book comes out on Feb. 8? If at that point there isn't significant RS coverage I will be happy to concede to your greater experience on this issue. Mistipolis (talk) 05:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My vote is converting to a redirect, as I stated above. If more coverage is available in the future, any editor can retrieve it. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 05:52, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, from my perspective all the information presented in the article is backed up by credible citations and we're not in danger of misinforming Wikipedia readers. If we're worried about the subject being sufficiently notable, 600,000 views a day ^[1] should probably negate that. If we are going by simple vote "Keep" seems to be winning out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mistipolis (talk • contribs) 06:25, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Discussions are not votes, and are decided based on the strengths of arguments as well as their grounding in Wikipedia's policies. There's a plethora of weakly argued keeps, which is unsurprising for an article about someone who clearly has a fan following.

As for the dangers of original research, spreading strictly false information is not the only concern. We rely on coverage in secondary sources to assess due weight. In the absence of such coverage, there is no way to determine how much attention or emphasis should be given to various aspects of the subject. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 07:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well said and all. But what my fellow keepers are trying to say, without saying it, is we should avoid using rs and notability as smokescreens. Ex. Jamal Simmons is a progressive commentator at The Hill and his article is as equally vacant as Enjeti's. However that article has not been subject to AfD (as far as I know). So, I'm hopeful the "votes" versus "arguments" above was not intended to be read as "palpable personality versus not palpable." </comment> … Propose merging Enjeti's article with Rising. That may be the better solution, etc. Wanderer0 (talk) 07:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jamal Simmons appears to have been created before we started doing new page patrols, which is a more likely explanation for its survival thus far. If you think that it doesn't meet notability standards, by all means nominate it for deletion. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 07:48, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rosguill, the article is very short and is basically just a list of the subject's notable accomplishments. As far as I can tell it is the most comprehensive and well researched on the internet. It's up to you if you want to take it down, but it is clearly filling a role. As an aside I haven't seen a real consensus around credibility and likes, views, etc. There is an article by a random editor expounding their personal views on the subject, but I've had trouble finding policy or a consensus. If you could point me to such a policy I would appreciate it. Mistipolis (talk) 07:50, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mistipolis The only thing the Jamal Simmons article has going for it is the new york times writing about him and his marriage, whereas Saagar Enjeti has nothing like that about him. Notability can be established if there are interviews with him about him if he hasn’t done anything notable. Australianblackbelt (talk) 13:53, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW that kind of marriage coverage is trivial and doesn't count toward anything, even if it's in the NYTimes, but we really shouldn't be hashing out the minutiae of an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument here. Any further discussion of Jamal Simmons should be held on that article's talk page or in a deletion discussion for it. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:19, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I raised Simmons to make a simple comparison, to which Rosguill kindly made an appropriate suggestion. Let's focus on Saagar. With love, etc. Wanderer0 (talk) 22:32, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh well.^[46] –84.46.53.165 (talk) 04:33, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2019-12-12/sanders-and-the-left-media

Keep I agree with others. At the very least redirect to Rising. Wanderer0 (talk) 02:00, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It’s simple... This subject is using sources from where he has worked so those don’t apply. As a journalist he has done nothing that would make him notable. No news worthy sources which are national write about him. If this isn’t deleted then every journalist get an article about him or her. Australianblackbelt (talk) 10:57, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. Agree with Australianblack belt, this person is using his own articles as references and he only gets a passing mention in the others. Looks to me like the subject himself as desperately tried to create the article, his done nothing noteworthy he doesn’t even have a local rag writing about him. Jaxbrother (talk) 11:08, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The Los Angeles times is a passing mention as it also writes about Young Turks. I admit I like Saagar for supporting Bernie Sanders on his show but his Wikipedia article is far from meeting notability guidelines. Australianblackbelt (talk) 11:27, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the show's page. Almost all the claims of notability are primary sourced - there isn't independent third-party coverage to show that these claimed notable activities are actually notable or have been noted. If the primary sources were cut, this page would hardly exist - David Gerard (talk) 17:20, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the Rising (news show). It is a kind of WP:TOOSOON. I can see the article's content has some promotional wordings. Seems to have breached WP:NPOV. Abishe (talk) 06:27, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect As elucidated above.Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 21:31, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be deleted. It has merit. Seek additional sources and add the references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1004:B0C2:DBE3:EDA9:EB51:F880:E152 (talk) 03:08, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Folks here tried that, what did you find? I found a self-published video with the book on "Amazon rank 6", but independent reliable sources won't cover it before February 8. Andrew Yang is one of the three "official" Amazon reviewers. Putting all efforts into the book could end up as BLP1E (notable for so far only one event). –84.46.52.25 (talk) 11:35, 31 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) 00:21, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Luc Langlois[edit]

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

This entry does not meet the criteria of Wikipedia concerning the notability of academics or writers. He is not well known in philosophy and none of his works have been reviewed by philosophers in the media. The sources are poor or dead and do not display his notability. Therefore, I nominate this entry for deletion Sintiya (talk) 18:19, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I did not find any review on his works. So, I conclude that he is not notable.Amidewiki (talk) 20:51, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This discussion page was created without the {{afd2}} template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have no opinion on the nomination itself at this time. @Sintiya: If you wish to nominate other articles for deletion in the future, please fully follow the procedures at WP:AFDHOWTO. Thanks. --Finngall ^talk 15:03, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 15:03, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 15:03, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 15:04, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 15:07, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ACADEMIC as the past president of the Canadian Philosophical Association. TJMSmith (talk) 15:08, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There appears to be at least a decent argument for WP:PROF#C2 (the Ordre des Palmes académiques), #C6 (past president of the Canadian Philosophical Association) and #C8 (Francophone editor of Dialogue). XOR'easter (talk) 17:38, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although his citations do not indicate that his ideas have been so influential, Dialogue appears to be a well-established journal, and he appears to have been co-chief editor. That looks like WP:NPROF C8. The WP:NPROF C2 argument also looks solid. Beyond that, I find the C6 argument pretty plausible, and his citations (while not a C1 pass) are not bad. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 22:45, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as it appears to have not been properly logged until yesterday.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:08, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: on the balance of things. In addition to the above points, there's a plausible pass at WP:NAUTHOR with books published by university presses. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:46, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't think the case for WP:PROF#C1 or WP:AUTHOR are strong, but C2, C6, and C8 all look like passes. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:20, 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:59, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John Bazz[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG independent of The Blasters, I would propose redirecting to that article. Originally converted to a redirect by Onel5969, reverted by the initial editor. I wasn't able to find any more significant coverage on the internet; I searched Rock's Backpages as well and found a fair amount of coverage, all of it about The Blasters. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:35, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:35, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:35, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:35, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I note that Onel's redirect was reverted with the reasoning that Onel had retired, thus the decision was no longer valid? I don't buy that at all. Onel made the right decision to redirect, as redirects are WP:CHEAP. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:18, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The reason was not the reviewer's retirement. It was the unilateral nature of the redirect without a discussion, as is taking place now. If the reviewer had remained available, I'd have taken it up politely with that person. I note also that the previous decision was based on the subject not having notability outside his main band. I don't really see the validity of that reason, but nonetheless, I sought to address it by showing association with a variety of other notable musicians. Rory1262 (talk) 16:47, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just added another piece regarding Bazz and his association with the notable bluesman Charlie Musselwhite. Again, this goes to show that Bazz's career is not just about the Blasters. He's sought after by others and is recognized in his field as high-caliber. If more such material is wanted, I'll look for it. Rory1262 (talk) 17:58, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Added a line from Marc Ford for further breadth. Rory1262 (talk) 21:16, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have also established a page for Mike Eldred, who (in my view) is also a notable musician in his own right. If that's accepted, then that would make three additional and separate pillars of support for Bazz's notability. Thank you. Rory1262 (talk) 15:16, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A problem here is that while there's some fleeting coverage establishing that Bazz has played in Eldred and Ford's bands, I'm not sure it rises to the level of significant coverage of Bazz. It looks like this is the extent of such coverage as related to Eldred, unless I've missed something (I checked the coverage related to Ford last night and came to a similar conclusion, although I don't have the exact source link on me at the moment). We wouldn't create a Wikipedia article for a a session musician for whom we can only find brief mentions of playing in a half dozen notable bands, and this is almost the same scenario. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:52, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me see what else I can find, then. Sidemen do tend not to be the focus of articles, to be sure, but I wouldn't view Bazz as some faceless session guy. And I'll note again, the last line of the piece here, which summarizes a source that devoted a nice bit to Bazz. Rory1262 (talk) 17:30, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quote from notable peer bass player John Doe added. Rory1262 (talk) 18:04, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And another piece of the mosaic from Mike Eldred. A clear and broad-based picture has emerged, in my view. Rory1262 (talk) 20:05, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A core issue here is that notability is not a measure of importance, it's a measure of whether there is enough information written in reliable, independent sources such that we can write a full-fledged article without resorting to original research. Quotes from his friends and bandmates may be useful for music scholars conducting research, but I don't think it's enough for our purposes. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:09, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A full-fledged article without original research -- I do believe that's what I've gone to considerable lengths to provide, with support from an array of legitimate (non-blog) sources. If the same standards for which you're arguing here were to be applied elsewhere, I venture to say a whole lot of stubs would need to be deleted from Wikipedia. Rory1262 (talk) 20:47, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak Keep Sources that are normally necessary to merit a keep are slim, as correctly noted by Rosguill. But Rory1262 (talk) makes a persuasive argument of an example where multiple cases of tangential recognition add up, and has done the legwork to provide evidence. A bit unconventional i-vote from me, but at least worth a "weak" keep. ShelbyMarion (talk) 23:29, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you see it that way. Appreciated. Rory1262 (talk) 23:47, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also find ShelbyMarion's view significant in light of his explicitly stated interest in musicians' qualification for notability. Rory1262 (talk) 12:50, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another mosaic piece is in place. I found that Bruce Willis handpicked Bazz to be in his band the Accelerators in 2002-03. Rory1262 (talk) 18:35, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did some reorganization to sharpen focus. Rory1262 (talk) 20:58, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I get 822 hits on Newspapers.com, which is far above what a non-notable subject would typically return. BD2412 T 04:30, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttps://www.christianpost.com/news/torchlighters-heroes-of-the-faith-cartoons-prove-21st-century-kids-enjoy-church-history.html

[2] ttps://www.evangelicalpress.com/2019-awards-of-excellence/

[3] ttps://www.evangelicalpress.com/2019-higher-goals-awards/

[4] ttps://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2019-12-12/sanders-and-the-left-media

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]