Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 January 4

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 3 January	5 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 redirect to Bambi, a Life in the Woods. Sandstein 10:31, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Faline[edit]

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

Fails WP:PLOT and WP:GNG from what I can see. Minor character in the first film, second film was direct-to-video. Previous discussion was closed in 2008 as "no consensus" with "keep" !vote rationales like "there is a source" and "is a notable character". Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:34, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:34, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:34, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:34, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: She's the love interest in the first novel and the film, and a main character in the second novel. I added information on her appearances in Disney comics, with a reference to the book Disney Comics: The Whole Story, an independent secondary source. I also added information from the book The Queens of Animation about the first female animator at Disney, who got her start by animating a scene with hunting dogs chasing Faline. Toughpigs (talk) 20:19, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I also just added some information from the Encyclopedia of Walt Disney's Animated Characters, which spends about a page on an analysis of Faline's character from an out-of-universe, real world perspective. -- Toughpigs (talk) 06:34, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the original novel. Current sourcing is insufficient to establish notability. The sentence about the animator really has nothing at all to do with this character. TTN (talk) 12:08, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bambi, a Life in the Woods per TTN. The non-primary sources regarding the character herself are brief and do not support much beyond simple plot summary. The one on the animator, while interesting, is really not about the character, who is barely mentioned in it. Rorshacma (talk) 22:57, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 04:04, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MTV Roadies (season 17)[edit]

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

Repeatedly escaped AfC, via author moving to mainspace as an attempt to WP:GAME. Not currently notable, as it is premature. Perhaps when it airs it might be notable, but that seems to still be some ways off. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:32, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:32, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:32, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject isn't notable. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:38, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hasn't even aired yet Dartslilly (talk) 02:47, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 04:04, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dance bar (worldwide)[edit]

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

Unlike the Indian dance bar, I do not see on Google how this worldwide usage could be notable. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 21:27, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 21:27, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTDICT Lightburst (talk) 23:23, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What the creator of this article was thinking of was a nightclub, and we already have a much better article about that topic. Since it's unlikely that users will be looking for this topic under the title "dance bar (worldwide)", I recommend just deleting this article. The headnote at Dance bar (which pertains to the Indian counterpart of a strip club where the female dancers remain clothed) should just refer users to Nightclub for the topic that Dance bar (worldwide) is currently about. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:46, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing here indicating WP:GNG.Jokejust1000 (talk) 04:27, 9 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 10:31, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Transparency Market Research[edit]

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

Non-notable market research firm. No reliable in-depth coverage about the firm itself found. Their so-called research is primarily used as reference for questionable economic forecasts by trade associations, trade magazines and other PR publications. GermanJoe (talk) 19:44, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:47, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:47, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:CORPSPAM, WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:08, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails general notability guidelines. Missvain (talk) 01:48, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Scope creep's source analysis has not been rebutted. Sandstein 10:32, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ratehub.ca[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Non-notable org. Brochure article. scope_creep^Talk 18:19, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:23, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:23, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:23, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I would say that the subject is notable. Company has 112 employees, $8M in annual revenue, coverage in multiple news sources. FinanceManToo (talk) 02:05, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lets look at the refs:
1. Company overview, own site, primary, can't be used to establish notability.
2. Linkedin. non-rs.
3. Crunchbase profile. primary. can't be used to establish notability.
4. More advertising. Fails WP:ORGCRIT
5. Press release. Fails WP:ORGIND. The company supplies their domain. Not independent of the company.
6. Appearance on Canadian dragons den. Could be notable on its own.
7. Marketing will be critical to getting the RateHub name out there.” More advertising.
8. Press release. Funding news, visitor numbers. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, standard notices.
9. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, standard notices.
10. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, standard notices.
11. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, standard notices.
12. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. of the expansions, acquisitions, mergers, sale, or closure of the business
13. Press release. Fails WP:ORGIND
14, 15, 16 all the same. Funding news and incidental on another company.

Seems to have only single viable reference, appearing on Canadian version of Dragons Den. scope_creep^Talk 09:39, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had another look. It is the founder of the company that appeared on the Canadian version of Dragons Den. So it is non-specific as at that point as the company was not created. scope_creep^Talk 10:29, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete with thanks to scope_creep for nominating as this was on my list of future articles to nominate for AfD. Nearly all of the press coverage, to the extent it exists and is either from non-qualifying reliable sources, is non-qualifying trivial coverage thus failing WP:SIGCOV. Crucially, though, there are no, reliable independent sources covering this company in a notable and substantive way to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Thus, it fails both tests—WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Doug Mehus T·C 02:17, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 04:05, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Missvain, why do you delete this page as soon as the athlete passes away?

He was signed to San Diego chargers and Cleveland Browns.

I want to know who the person is that immediately wanted to delete Alvin's legacy months after he passed away. I am watching 184.186.20.223 (talk) 14:32, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alvin Smith (American football)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NGRIDIRON, having only played professionally for minor league NFL Europe. The only coverage I can find is from the Corvallis Gazette-Times, not enough to pass WP:GNG. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:19, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:19, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:19, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:19, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:19, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:19, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete small contribution in college, and cut before action with the pros. Fails WP:N. Lightburst (talk) 18:09, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~Borderline/undecided~~. No professional play of type needed under WP:NGRIDIRON. Nor are there accomplishments of the type required under WP:NCOLLATH -- he was a one-year starter at Oregon State with only eight career solo tackles and 16 assists (see here). There is some significant coverage in Oregon newspapers, including (1) this (pt 1)/pt 2, (2) this (pt 1)/pt 2, (3) this (pt 1)/ pt 2, and (4) "Smith 'Ready To Step Up' for Beavers", The Oregonian, 12/25/05 (788 words available via NewsLibrary.com). Cbl62 (talk) 21:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC) On balance, one could argue that the coverage is borderline or adequate under WP:GNG, but the overwhelming absence of notable accomplishments tips me slightly to a "delete" result. Cbl62 (talk) 00:48, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete His college record does not meet our inclusion criteria. We do not have the broad base of coverage we expect for people to show actual notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:41, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 03:37, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Seems to meet GNG per the sources from Cbl62, albeit barely. Played in Europe, which should count for something though not an automatic notability pass. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:53, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:32, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Banuba[edit]

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

startups are almost never notable as startups and Banuba does not appear to be the outlier. All of the sources are funding announcements or otherwise WP:MILL/PR. Praxidicae (talk) 16:53, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:02, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:02, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:02, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:51, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:51, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - creator is an SPA with insider information about the industry. As the nom suggested, we usually delete articles about start-ups, especially those without significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 20:31, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. Matthew hk (talk) 08:17, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged the company with Belarus delsort instead. No google hit from the domain scmp.com, indictaed that no one know the company in HK. Probably Belarus based according to the article. Matthew hk (talk) 08:17, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ~~ OxonAlex - talk 14:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shehnaaz Kaur Gill[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. They've had minor parts in a few movies and appeared in a reality TV show, plus a song. Ravensfire (talk) 16:16, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 16:51, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 16:51, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 16:51, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 16:51, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG.-Splinemath (talk) 17:27, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: Passes WP:GNG, but WP:NACTOR is borderline. (Also, two different years of birth are provided.) Dflaw4 (talk) 08:35, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes general notability guidelines, including in Hindi. Missvain (talk) 01:52, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 04:06, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delia Steinberg Guzmán[edit]

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

Lack of notability and lack of sourced material in the little information that it has. Self-published writer whose works have near zero critical coverage in academia, 90% of the article is about her involvement in New Acropolis which, by itself, hardly justify a biography, her musical, writing and philosophical carere has nearly inexistent impact outside of NA and has no coverage in academic circles. Dereck Camacho (talk) 15:54, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 16:47, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 16:47, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 16:47, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:46, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG per this.-Splinemath (talk) 23:36, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment just for the record, New Acropolis is not an academic source of any kind, the fact that is only referenced by NA's sites I don't think it applies, considering that she presides over the organization, it's the equivalent of a guy having a series of blogs made by himself and use such blogs as reference to justify his notability. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 00:50, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment': Splinemath, to apply the criterion you are linking, she should at least be highly cited in indexed journals. Is she?. --MarioGom (talk) 22:27, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I couldn't find independent reliable sources, only routine coverage of International Competition of Piano Delia Steinberg or sources affiliated with the subject and New Acropolis. --MarioGom (talk) 22:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per un-notability. --TV Guy (talk) 03:46, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Perhaps renominate in a year or so, to better evaluate this event's lasting importance. Sandstein 15:00, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Villejuif stabbing[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS This story rated three column inches in today's Guardian, and I verymuch doubt that it will have any lasting significance. TheLongTone (talk) 14:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the attack has been covered in-depth in France, Germany and the UK thus amounting to WP:SIGCOV Since there is a suspected ideological motive, the attack will likely analyzed by Europol and included in their reports. Most similar attacks easily pass WP:SIGCOV. A Thousand Words (talk) 14:41, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The secretary of state has commented upon the attack. It is therefore at the national level of French government, not a neighbourhood crime. A Thousand Words (talk) 14:57, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If this is just a random stabbing without any motive like many others, you can delete it. But I think that we have to wait the investigation. If this is stabbing is terror-related, with a religious or a political background, the article is necessary. User:Gianluigi02

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 15:12, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 15:12, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is an example of why we have WP:NOTNEWS, also trying to predict what may or may not happen falls under WP:CRYSTAL. I do not see coverage in this article that meets WP:DEPTH other than routine reporting. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTAL applies to article content, not discussions. A Thousand Words (talk) 09:52, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say that? It mentions a passage in regards to articles, but also states "It is not appropriate for editors to insert their own opinions or analyses. Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view." We also have WP:ATA#CRYSTAL in arguments to avoid for deletion discussions regarding predictions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:21, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there is enough coverage in enough countries to fit the notability criteria. Jim Michael (talk) 21:27, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but are they parroting the same narrative? This isn't called extensive coverage if one news source is saying the exact same thing as another news source. You also have to keep in mind that groups of news organizations are owned by the same parent company. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:48, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the coverage is extensive & thorough enough considering how recently this happened. You'll need to show evidence of your suggestion about media companies with the same owner repeating the same things in order to demonstrate that. Jim Michael (talk) 22:14, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - At the end of the day France is now investigating it as an act of terror. It also involves a death so this is a big terror case. So I think it's an easy answer as "yes, we should keep" - 11S117 (talk) 3:13 , 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Delete, as another example of WP:NOTNEWS, when did this attack/police response occur? 3 January, and when was this article created? 3 January, how can it/its impact possibly be significant/long lasting? Coolabahapple (talk) 06:57, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many of our articles about attacks were created on the day they occurred. Are you saying that we should always wait at least a fixed minimum number of days or weeks after an attack before creating an article about it? Jim Michael (talk) 13:07, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

i don't understand that some wikieditors have this apparent obsession with reporting on certain events, like this attack, so soon after they occur, and before their long term affects have been ascertained, as if Wikipedia is a news service, it is not, for that there is Wikinews. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:49, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's significant evidence that this murder, which took place in public, against strangers, & had an apparent Islamist motive, will have long-term significance & notability. Jim Michael (talk) 16:08, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No there isn't, and your statement amounts to WP:CRYSTAL balling. The facts are leading this to not be an Islamic motive, and there is no in depth coverage of the attack other than WP:ROUTINE news reporting. Have there been any significant impacts? How does this pass WP:LASTING? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:57, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's in the news in a lot of countries, so it's notable. And it's being investigated as a terrorist attack. I agree with Jim Michael.Lukasvdb99 (talk) 15:27 , 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Keep per WP:RAPID. The case is still developing, there's no reason to rush to delete right now. The widespread international coverage seems to prove notability. Surachit (talk) 18:56, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but there is also WP:DELAY which states "It is wise to delay writing an article about a breaking news event until the significance of the event is clearer as early coverage may lack perspective and be subject to factual errors. Writing about breaking news may be recentism, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. It is recommended that editors start a section about the event within an existing article on a related topic if possible, which may later be split into its own article if the coverage suggests that the event is independently notable." ......... There is already crystal balling going on regarding if this event is going to be a terrorist attack or not. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:06, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a notable event, much coverage in France and internationally. Tiphareth (talk) 19:20, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A big terror event???? One person dead. Hardly in the same class as, say, the Bataclan incident. Significant coverage? Yes it made the news. As I said, it rated three column inches in The Guardian. I would advise all those saying 'keep' to actually read WP:NOTNEWS. At most this merits a line in another page.TheLongTone (talk) 14:25, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No-one's saying that this was a big event. However, we don't have a minimum death toll requirement for crime articles - many of our articles about crimes had 1 or 0 fatalities. The coverage is in the mainstream media of several countries. Jim Michael (talk) 17:11, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SeeWP:NOTNEWS.TheLongTone (talk) 14:22, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

enWP is in no way beholden to the publication habits of The Guardian. A Thousand Words (talk) 06:24, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was using the Guardian as an (I believe) typical example of the coverage this insignificant event received. And since the initial article, there has been no more coverage. Coverage needs to be both significant and ongoing This fails both criteria..TheLongTone (talk) 14:22, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I dispute that. The mainstream media mentioned this attack again during their coverage of the similar attacks which took place soon after in Metz & Gelsenkirchen. Jim Michael (talk) 22:42, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A mention on the back of another story is, to say the least, unconvincing. Read WP:NOTNEWS again, please.TheLongTone (talk) 14:36, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mentions by several mainstream media orgs in relation to 2 other stabbings. There's also the arrest & investigation of the attacker's partner. What more would you expect in relation to a random attack on strangers in which the attacker was killed at the scene? Jim Michael (talk) 15:48, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It still does not pass our notability standards. The event had a splash in the news and everyone moved onto other things, you cant make connections to other things without the reliable sourcing to back the claim up. If this is indeed linked to terrorism and other events then it should be merged into Terrorism in France as a long running larger issue. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:23, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The attacker's alleged links to Islamist terrorism/extremism are still being investigated. The media coverage is continuing with his partner's arrest. The fact that world events of greater importance - especially those in Iran & Iraq - are taking far more media coverage, doesn't mean this isn't a notable attack. Jim Michael (talk) 17:15, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing? There has not been any media coverage about the subject in at least 3 days [1]. If these notable investigations were ongoing then we would see in depth lasting coverage about that aspect, but there is none. I'm sorry but this is why we have WP:LASTING, and why things that are part of a larger notable event are mentioned in those articles. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:40, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There has been more recent coverage, including ref 17, in the Investigation section of the article. That Le Parisien article was published yesterday & updated today. Jim Michael (talk) 19:15, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:58, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jannatul Nayeem Avril[edit]

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

Non-notable model. She was crowned Miss Bangladesh 2017 but shortly afterward she was declared ineligible (disqualified) due to previously being married.Jessia Islam then became Miss Bangladesh 2017. Currently she is not holding any beauty pageant title. Failed WP:NMODEL WP:ANYBIO . Bbemoni (talk) 12:53, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Bbemoni (talk) 12:53, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:55, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:56, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:43, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The decision on this nomination is very difficult to make, but at this moment I'm agree with who nomination this article. Since she wasn't crowned Miss Bangladesh on 2017. Even, She is Dethroned from Miss Bangladesh 2017. this is the main of issue on this article. I didn't not see any significant work except Miss world Bangladesh. So, Failed WP:NMODEL and here's a reference to just one event so, WP:BLP1E. But maybe She is likely to be significant later. Fail WP:GNG. Thanks~ Nocturnal^talk 18:38, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I also was wishy washy on how to feel about this one, but, I think it fails a mix of things - it's a not news situation mixed with a single news situation (she got famous briefly for failing in a beauty pageant). Now, maybe in Bangladesh this was an epic story and she's very famous, but, aside from a rather gossipy mix of sources, I think it might be WP:TOOSOON for her. Missvain (talk) 02:02, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:45, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Barkow[edit]

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

I'm afraid this person is simply is not notable. There is no significant, independent coverage of him. Cannot redirect because his studio does not have an article, and may not be notable either. b uidhe 12:10, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. b uidhe 12:10, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. b uidhe 12:10, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. b uidhe 12:10, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:21, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and any other notability criterion that one might care to choose. Could easily have been speedily deleted as it was in November, so perhaps we should salt it. Edwardx (talk) 16:00, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Barkow doesn't meet WP:BIO as I am unable to find multiple significant coverage in reliable sources. Prime Publisher reference does not mention him in detail, and the rest are the game pages. Also, the article seems like a WP:COATRACK for his upcoming game Grim Sight. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:34, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This appears to be an attempt to promote a Steam game that, honestly, is very likely to never be released. The Person, the studio, and the game all turn up no hits on google besides the Steam Page for the game. (Release date : 2021) The article itself is full of trivia. (Sleeping Giant is a lovely hike, but unless you've got no legs, it's not really worth mentioning in your bio.) ApLundell (talk) 21:09, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG,NBIO Dartslilly (talk) 02:50, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - just doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 19:55, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No signs of signficant coverage from reliable sources hence fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 20:44, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: a vanity page and possible WP:PROMO for a person who created games that nobody ever played. Wm335td (talk) 18:44, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The "delete" arguments are stronger because Rsrikanth05 does not cite or discuss the sources that in their view establish notability. Sandstein 10:34, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SRM transports[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Spam created by UPE sockmaster. Cabayi (talk) 21:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 21:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 21:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 21:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can't soft delete due to previous AfD
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:18, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article content describes a firm going about its business, without claim to notability. Aside from routine announcement and Q&A pieces, the text references investigation of the parent SRM Group (which has no article so is not a plausible redirect target). While taking note of the industry source also in the previous AfD discussion, I am not seeing sufficient significant coverage for WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 10:37, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article actually passes WP:GNG. SRM Transports has received significant coverage (you might want to check Google News), and also runs a few universities in India and is run by a prominent politician. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:05, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Perhaps, it can be Merged into an article on the SRM Group itself. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:11, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited from T. R. Pachamuthu and his other activities. Is it SRM Transports which runs these universities (such as SRM Institute of Science and Technology) or is it the SRM Group? (Edit conflict to this point) I would agree that if there were an SRM Group article, then redirect of this article on the bus company could be done. AllyD (talk) 12:15, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:10, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There are no reasons given to keep this article, and there's no consensus about a merge or redirect target. Sandstein 14:57, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Psychomusicology: Music, Mind and Brain[edit]

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

Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases (see MIAR), no independent sources. Tagged for notability since almost 2 years with no improvement forthcoming. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 10:55, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 10:55, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 10:55, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merging to American Psychological Association would be preferable. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:24, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment APA publishes many journals. We can't include all of those in that article and it would be kind of weird only to merge the non-notable ones and not cover the notable ones... --Randykitty (talk) 16:15, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To a list article then. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:53, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:05, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:05, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There isn't a list article either, so we have no sources and no merge/redirect target... --Randykitty (talk) 12:08, 4 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. Consensus is that the in-depth sources are either not reliable, not independent, or both, and there is no other criteria by which notability should be assessed. The name-calling within the discussion is highly unfortunate, it truly weakens the argument. Article rescuing attempts should be lauded, not laughed at, even when they fall short of demonstrating notability. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sarita Shrestha[edit]

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO. Interviews or coverage in niche special-interest publications are not considered to be authoritative nor do they show general notability. No coverage in reliable secondary scholarship, either. ∯WBG^converse 16:28, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 16:28, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:44, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:44, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:46, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The subject is notable as a doctor founding a hospital for low-income women in Nepal and for working in U.S. hospitals focusing on women's healthcare, with coverage including in Prevention Magazine. The subject has received national awards in Nepal, which are sourced in the article. I cleaned up the article, RMV'd puffery and added content with reliable sources. The subject is clearly a notable physician and passes WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 18:41, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Common sense is that an Ayurveda practitioner can't usually be a sports-journalist and that there can be two persons in a country, with the same name. Then I note that you are from ARS and I am not surprised. ∯WBG^converse 17:41, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The awards section User:AuthorAuthor added was about a different Sarita Shrestha, so I deleted it. I had a look at the previous deletion discussion, and it seems like the exact same arguments still apply, so it eventually comes down to whether the sources are reliable and enough to establish notability. Achaea (talk) 20:35, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. ∯WBG^converse 17:41, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:49, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- based on what I've seen. "In search of the medicine Buddha" appears to have SIGCOV, however the author seems to be a quack as well, and the book and author appear non-notable, so I would not consider that an independent source, it's to be expected that if a naturopath or whatever comes to Nepal, they'd seek another practicing similarly. Metroactive looks like a paid placement to promote the then upcoming seminar, nothing in there gives confidence that this is a source that ought to add towards notability. Being one of a half dozen practitioners featured by that NBC piece is impressive, as is the claim "Mother of Ayurveda in the west", I would consider that one a very weak contributor to notability. YogaChicago probably qualifies as another very weak contributor. Other sources, I don't think need discussing. The final sentence of this one is another very weak contributor to notability. That's somewhere between 2/3 and 3/4 of one significant coverage by my reckoning. If our subject worked exclusively in Nepal, 3/2 of a SIGCOV and I would vote keep appealing to systemic bias. As most of our subject's claim to notability comes from the USA, it shouldn't be too much ask to ask for 5/2 or even 3 SIGCOVs. Her impact/notability in Nepal seems to be grossly exaggerated, as I couldn't find any evidence of notice for her work in fertility or ayurveda or teaching or community healthcare work in Nepal or any mention of the fact that she's the first woman Ayurvedic physician of Nepal. From what I can tell, it's most likely the subject herself who's claimed she's the first. She probably actually is but there's no Nepali reliable sources that I can find saying that. She seems to be accomplished, but that has not made her Wikipedia notable as often is the case. Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:11, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is significant coverage in In search of the medicine Buddha (published by Jeremy P. Tarcher/Putnam, 2001), already in the article (unfortunately not much is accessible on Google Books, so that will need access to a print copy); and in Three Fruits: Nepali Ayurvedic Doctors on Health, Nature, and Social Change (published by Rowman & Littlefield, 2019) [2] (the first search result in this book says "Dr. Shrestha, the main woman doctor of chapter 6" - not all of chapter 6 is viewable, though). There is also some coverage in Tantric Healing in the Kathmandu Valley: A Comparative Study of Hindu and Buddhist Spiritual Healing Traditions in Urban Nepalese Society (published by Book Faith India, 1998) [3] and Culture and the Environment in the Himalaya (published by Routledge, 2009) [4]. These sources include additional information, including that she was made a supervisor of another hospital in Kathmandu, the Dhanawantari Ayurveda Hospital. The Himalayan Times mention found by the previous editor could also be added. Many of the sources in the article are not independent, being interviews, announcements or from places she works, but independent coverage does exist - most of it about her work in Nepal, rather than in the West. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:50, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The first book of highly questionable merit is already in the article. Now, neither Angela Dietrich is a scholar nor Book Faith India is a publication house of repute, effectively rendering the source unreliable. And in the Routledge book, there is a mere name-drop about Sarita (being put to the charge of a hospital); please read WP:SIGCOV. The one from Rowman Littlefield profiles 6 doctors in the 6th chapter, of which she is one. ∯WBG^converse 14:09, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did say that the first book is already in the article: I consider it SIGCOV, and I would not say that it is "of highly questionable merit". As for another author not being a scholar: I am not aware of a requirement for authors of books to be scholars, and I am not sure how you know that this author does not meet whatever definition of "scholar" you are using. Book Faith India seems now to be Pilgrims Book House, and it does seem reputable. I didn't say that Culture and the Environment in the Himalaya has SIGCOV; I said that it had "some" coverage, including additional information. Per WP:BASIC, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". I would not consider the information there "trivial", even though it's not in depth. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:43, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Crow is a TrueBeliever and much of his works will fall under the purview of WP:PSCI. [Placeholder for more stuff about David Crow]

By scholar, I mean someone who has a track record of publication in peer-reviewed media or is employed as a faculty in a relevant field or has academic training in relevant fields. Please prove the same, in your case.

As to BFI, my source mentions it to be a foreign branch of PBH (which seem to have been puchased from The Order of Pilgrims Book Shop, by some Rama Tiwari). At any case, quoting the relevant parts:- ....Pilgrims Book House utilized the opportunity to expand its offices in Nepal and then took to a market, which was a perennial favorite of the spiritually inclined....Thus, Book Faith India (BFI) was founded in Delhi in a non-descript street, with some help from a local publisher and, yes, a cook.... However, the quality of the publications varied across the two countries. In a bid to quickly gain hold over a saturated sector, BFI was forced to sacrifice with much of its planned editorial process. An extraordinarily large amount of pilgrim-tales were published but failed to be much economical. Sudha tells me that it was around this time, PBH aggressively pursued the handicrafts and postcard business, to make up for the loss in revenues.... "Nepal -- pilgrims, tales and a publisher", The Hindu, 7 Sep. 1994, Rema Bhaskar, Pg-undetermined.

∯WBG^converse 16:16, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:05, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Response- ∯WBG, there are numerous and ample published research papers that have been cited and were done by the subject with her peers that can be found here on Google Scholar. I will add to the article any that are relevant to further show notability. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 02:11, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AuthorAuthor, different Sarita 1. Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:10, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will verify that. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 07:15, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KeepWP:SIGCOV is established when the subject is reviewed in a more cursory manner.Catorce2016 (talk) 10:35, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete page is mere promotion for a healer. Persuasive, reliable sources are lacking.NotButtigieg (talk) 10:17, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I really struggled to find multiple reliable secondary sources about the subject, even looking in Engish-language Nepali sources. Most sources seem to be primary sources or event announcements, or from new age publications in which sourcing can be...questionable. I did find this one from Metroactive, but, aside from a brief mention in Prevention magazine (a major source but if we had a Wikipedia article for every medical professional mentioned in their magazine we'd run out of bandwidth) about eggs, I can't see how she passes GNG for inclusion in English Wikipedia at this time. I'm all ears if we have Nepali sources!! Missvain (talk) 02:07, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and Missvain. Tidyied up this text and some refs, however, best I could find was the Prevention (magazine) piece which is not really about her, and feels like a press-release (e.g she calls hereself "Mother of Ayurveda"; a term I could not find elsewhere). There is nothing approaching WP:SIGCOV here? I have an additional concern of a WP:PROMO and even a WP:WALLEDGARDEN in this topic area – E.g this BLP Vasant Lad, and his now AfD'ed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mount Madonna Institute. There is no WP:PRESERVE or WP:NOTPAPER here as her works are so little recognised outside of "trade books"/"trade blogs" in her topic area. I get an uneasy feeling that Wikipedia is being used here by followers of this topic to build their credibility? Few of these US-active practioners, Sarita Shrestha included, are reaching any form of mainstream US national/regional media, and yet we have so many WP articles? Britishfinance (talk) 16:20, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Seeing the subject - an author and a ~~medical doctor and OB/GYN~~ physician who also ~~practices~~ teaches in the United States - referred to as a "healer" and a "quack" in an AFd is not only inaccurate but also disconcerting. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 23:19, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Know what is even more disconcerting? Your mind-boggling incompetence. ∯WBG^converse 06:28, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
AuthorAuthor, she's not allowed to practice in the US, and the fact that you'd confuse her profession with the real OB-GYN all the more justifies my use of the word "quack".¹ Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:47, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

She is not a licenced medical doctor in the US. Britishfinance (talk) 14:26, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

She teaches in the U.S. I corrected the word "practices" to "teaches" in my comment above. Calling me "incompetent" by another editor (not you) is disruptive and unproductive. Thus, I will no longer be participating in this AFd discussion. I stand by my !vote to keep. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 17:53, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Deletion is not cleanup, and the consensus is is that the individual is notable. (non-admin closure) ~~ OxonAlex - talk 14:27, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian Doggart[edit]

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

Non-notable actor and filmmaker that seem to be using this page as a promotional piece. jps (talk) 17:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 17:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 17:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a poorly-written, badly-sourced puff-piece of a WP:BLP. It needs to be completely re-written to stay in Wikipedia but the subject does seem to be notable. I have no desire to re-write it but I disagree that it should be deleted. Shearonink (talk) 17:44, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm having a hard time identifying the sources which indicate this person is notable. Sometimes WP:TNT is appropriate. This may be such a case. jps (talk) 17:48, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:56, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:56, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:56, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak KeepDoes seem to be notable, but the article is way over long for such a minor celebrity.Slatersteven (talk) 18:03, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong KeepDoes seem to be notable, with 64 verified sources cited. CitizenKane7 (talk) 18:49, 27 December 2019 (UTC) Struck per WP:SOCK and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Oxford2008.[reply]

— CitizenKane7 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. jps (talk) 20:17, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read wp:overcite, its quality not quantity that matters, and blogs are not RS.Slatersteven (talk) 20:32, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/True Bromance, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Courting Condi, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Faust: From Condi to Neo-Condi. jps (talk) 19:49, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, along with the three associated articles. Had promotion been an undue concern, then Nike Doggart (Sebastian's sister, a biologist in Africa, after whom a species is named) might have been noted. Nike Doggart is another article at AfD, nominated by jps, but not mentioned here or at the current AfDs for American Faust: From Condi to Neo-Condi, Courting Condi, or True Bromance, also by jps. Anarchangel (talk) 01:39, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOAP argument fails the two tests of the Self Promotion section: NPOV, and "Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical sources", which incidentally is the weakness of Slatersteven's retort as well. There are no deletion arguments that can not be refuted, here. We'll see what relisting does. Anarchangel (talk) 02:41, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The self-promotion has been established through the sockpuppet investigation, but in the interest of keeping things sanitary, I ask that you do your own research about this. There are indeed overly abundant links and references to autobiographical sources in this and the related articles (e.g. Facebook!). I'm having a hard time deciding whether you actually looked at this situation as it presents itself or you are just !voting from the hip. jps (talk) 18:24, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Having already looked at the sockpuppet investigations, I can safely say that in practice, Wikipedia's definition of "abuse of two accounts" might be better served by the wording, "use of two accounts". Any "establishment" of self-promotion was entirely absent from that discussion. I am grown tired of your repeated misrepresentations and abuse of arguments from ignorance. Anarchangel (talk) 01:51, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is your contention that promotion is not a concern because I did not mention Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nike Doggart here or at the articles about SD's films? I also nominated a number of other BLPs that were created by the sockfarm of people who worked on the films, but did not mention them here in order to keep discussions contained. I really do not follow what your argument is here. jps (talk) 15:28, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2nd and 3rd sentences are different arguments. Anarchangel (talk) 01:48, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could spell them out and explain how they conform to Wikipedia's WP:Deletion policy because I cannot understand what you are trying to say. jps (talk) 15:31, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I trust that the closer can comprehend my arguments. Containment is not established Deletion practice. Noting that similar articles have been nominated is. Anarchangel (talk) 02:28, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: In my opinion, he does pass notability standards, but the article needs to be worked on, with non-reliable sources (like links to Facebook) deleted. Dflaw4 (talk) 14:46, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:49, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I reviewed the page and discovered that a good number of the sources cited made the subject to pass WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV clearly. The subject is featured in this Telegraph.co.uk piece and other citations as given on the page

Also, the subject passes WP:NACADEMIC as the author of three books published, he has also written for major newspapers including the Guardian, Telegraph, Independent, Observer, and Huffington Post.

The subject also passes WP:BIO as further research reveals

He has received an Emmy nomination for the seminal show Project Runway,
He has directed and wrote three feature films, all of which won awards
He has also collaborated with the newly appointed director of the Cuban National Ballet, Viengsay Valdes;
He is also a director of an independent arts center in Havana Cuba

I also noticed that this page was created way back in 2007 and has stood for years. Wondering why the sudden nomination for deletion. It certainly has encyclopedic value having been updated severally by multiple notable editors in good standing since 2007 till date.10:46, 8 January 2020 (UTC)Catorce2016 (talk)

Keep. There has been an effort at including highly promotional articles on the individual's films, being used as a coatrack for attacks on a politician, but the filmaker is nonetheless notable, and the films can be mentioned here and discussed briefly in neutral terms. Removing all mention is excessive. We remove promotional content, we don't penalize people for whom promotional content is written when theyareactually notable and a NPOV article is possible. . DGG ( talk ) 06:08, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG. This guy really is into Condaleeza Rice. Missvain (talk) 02:12, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:55, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Meshael Alayban[edit]

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

Not notable. Zigzig20s (talk) 11:42, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:27, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:27, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This does not rise above routine news coverage. Also fails the notability guidelines for crimes and criminals.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:17, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:27, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:27, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because this is a possible WP:BLP issue. Human trafficking accusation but charges were dropped. Also WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E applies. Lightburst (talk) 23:30, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Notability is not shown. This is a one-paragraph, four-sentence article with four news stories and one press release used as inline citations that are about criminal charges against the subject in 2013 that were dismissed two months later without going to trial. The sources do not show notability. This clearly falls under WP:BLP1E and fails WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 00:31, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - For now. If notability is shown in the future please re-create.BabbaQ (talk) 19:10, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to be a stub. Has WP:BLP issues. A re-write may be necessary with further content and references.Catorce2016 (talk) 10:50, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we deleted by a huge consensus an article about a school superintendent who was an un-indicted co-conspirator of his janitor convicted of a mail bombing, which is much worst in my book. The only notability is a single arrest and no conviction. How is this in any way notable? Bearian (talk) 20:40, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 10:02, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kinfra Apparel Park[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-noteworthy company. Entirely unreferenced. Does not appear to meet criteria. Adam Black GB (talk) 06:59, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Adam Black GB (talk) 06:59, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:02, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: The present article text is often promotional in tone, boasting of infrastructure links but omitting reported local concerns about water (Times of India, 2017), and without mentioning controversy about appointments (Indian Express, 2016). However article balance is a matter for clean-up rather than AfD. In the previous AfD, Phil Bridger identified two further news sources (still accessible) plus a book study describing the project's development (in "Selling to India's Consumer Market", Quorum Books, 1997). A case study does not in itself confer notability, and I note the WP:NBUILD comments, but while I would like to see much more solid sourcing for the article content and do not want to overplay the sporadic coverage which I have identified, I think there is enough overall coverage for notability. AllyD (talk) 08:48, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd argue that "... commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." (from WP:NBUILD) means that a couple of sources (or 5, by my count at the moment) is insufficient to establish notability. Also, of the two online articles you've highlighted, the first names Kinfra almost as an aside in the last paragraph only and the second is very similar. I wouldn't class either articles, really, as "coverage" of Kinfra Apparel Park. There's a textiles factory in my hometown which has existed since the late 19th century. It certainly meets the historic criteria, being the only remnant of the town centre's industrial heritage, it's economically important as a major employer in the area, it is of architectural importance being one of few examples of Victorian architecture in town, and has received significant coverage from articles in the local and national papers to repeated mentions in books about the town and its history - I could probably dig up 40 reliable sources for an article. I wouldn't create one, though, because (much like this article, in my mind) those are all flimsy and tenuous justifications for something that just isn't noteworthy. Adam Black GB (talk) 18:19, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As evident from available links, this is not a private company but a government establishment to bring in several apparel companies under one roof. The article has got valid citations and do not deserve to be deleted. Rather, the article could be expanded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.90.36.50 (talk) 04:09, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Nahal^(T) 18:40, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:39, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I came here as this AfD is listed under company/organization deletions, but this appears to be a business park and not a company. But then I notice that the "homepage" links to the KINFRA International Apparel Parks Ltd website. Hmmm ... on the basis that this topic falls under WP:NCORP, not a single reference meets the criteria for establishing notability. The Book Reference relies entirely on information provided by connected sources and therefore is not Independent Content and fails WP:ORGIND. The references in Financial Express and The Hindu Business Line are based on announcements and rely entirely on quotations/information provided by the company, also failing WP:ORGIND. If we look at this topic as a place, it fails WP:NBUILDING for the same reasons - there are no references that contain Independent Content, all of the content has been provided by the company or sources connected with the company. That's marketing and promotion folks! Other articles are mere mentions-in-passing such as reporting on water quality or appointments, these are neither significant nor in-depth. For this park to meet the criteria for notability, then there should exist references written by third-parties containing original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I can't find any. Topic fails GNG/NCORP/NBUILDING. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:33, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV by every means. Needs more citations and rewrite Catorce2016 (talk) 10:52, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Few mentions in passing, nothing that raises between rewritten press releases or routine events coverage. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:26, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 10:01, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UIML College[edit]

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

No coverage found, fails WP:GNG, WP:NORG. Störm (talk) 19:24, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:40, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:40, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:40, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I tried my usual approach with subjects that are unlikely to have coverage in English. No other language wikis to reference, and no results except basic listings found through Pakistani sources known to me. School appears to be non-accredited and non-notable. Skeletor3000 (talk) 19:33, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 10:01, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GSPCT-Gujrat[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG, WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 19:26, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No coverage found, no wikis in other languages to check for sources. Skeletor3000 (talk) 19:38, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Punjab College of Business Administration. (non-admin closure) Störm (talk) 08:39, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Punjab Institute of Computer Science[edit]

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

No coverage found in WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 19:28, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:34, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:34, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:34, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Punjab College of Business Administration, although I'm not sure the target is notable, either. Best coverage I found for this subject was a news blurb announcing scholarships to be offered from its parent group of colleges, which is not significant coverage. Skeletor3000 (talk) 20:01, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Punjab Group of Colleges. (non-admin closure) Störm (talk) 08:41, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Punjab College (Bahawalpur)[edit]

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

Promotional. No coverage found in WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 19:28, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:33, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:33, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:33, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Punjab Group of Colleges. Institution does not appear to be independently notable.Skeletor3000 (talk) 20:04, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Punjab Group of Colleges. (non-admin closure) Störm (talk) 08:42, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Punjab College (Gujrat)[edit]

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

No coverage found in WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 19:29, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:32, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:32, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:32, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Punjab Group of Colleges. Institution does not appear to be independently notable. Skeletor3000 (talk) 20:05, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 10:00, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Din College[edit]

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

No significant coverage found in WP:RS. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 19:30, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:29, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:30, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:30, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:30, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No coverage found outside standard school listings. Skeletor3000 (talk) 20:13, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 10:00, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Johar College of Science and Commerce[edit]

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

No coverage found in WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 19:32, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:29, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:29, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:29, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No sources found, no sources present in Urdu wiki article. Skeletor3000 (talk) 20:20, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 10:00, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Allama Iqbal College of Commerce Bahawalpur[edit]

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

No coverage found in WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 19:33, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No sources found except standard school listings. Skeletor3000 (talk) 20:22, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Hafizabad District#Education. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:27, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

District Public School Hafizabad[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NORG. Störm (talk) 19:36, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:24, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:25, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:25, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:30, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - run of the mill high school with ordinary local coverage. Bearian (talk) 20:42, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hafizabad District#Education, for reasons outlined above. Skeletor3000 (talk) 20:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep (WP:SNOW). It's WP:COMMONSENSE that this list will have many entries over the next decade (starting a few days ago), and it's already gotten its first entry by now. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:52, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of dramatic television series with LGBT characters: 2020s[edit]

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

This is a list with no items to date. As per WP:CRYSTAL we should not have articles about things which have not yet happened. Although it is likely, there is no way to know for sure if there will in fact be any such shows during the 2020s. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 08:36, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 08:36, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject LGBT studies has been notified of this discussion. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 10:50, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Although it is likely, there is no way to know for sure if there will in fact be any such shows during the 2020s."
Keep. We do not need a "crystal ball" to know that in the 2020s there will be dramatic television series that include Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Non-binary, Pansexual, etc., characters. Some will be lead (main), some will be supporting (recurring), some will be guests -- but there will, indeed, be LGBT+ characters in dramatic television series. There were in the 1970s-2000s, there were in the 2010s, there will be in the 2020s (of which today is just its fourth day out of 3,650 days and in its first week two American dramatic series have premiered, with more to come, including non-American). In this matter, Wikipedia bureaucracy is a chokehold. (P.S. I just added its first entry.) Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 10:40, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per common sense (WP:IAR). Pyxis Solitary is right that bureaucracy will do us no good here. Perhaps this isn't the right place to note this, but per WP:IINFO and as the list of LGBT+ characters hopefully becomes increasingly numerous, I wonder if we should restrict the criteria of this list to, say, main cast members (with exceptions where sensible e.g. episodes of anthology series like San Junipero where there is no main cast). This wouldn't affect the current entry in the list. — Bilorv (talk) 12:25, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The frequency of an LGBT+ character being a lead in a TV series is rare compared to that of an LGBT+ character being a recurring (supporting) one in it. There is no widespread acceptance of LGBT+ people on television, regardless of the few that may appear in American, Canadian, and British shows. In 2018 there were 495 original scripted broadcast, cable, and streaming series premieres. But if you look at the 2010s list, of the dramatic series that premiered in 2018 only 56 series included an LGBT+ character — and they weren't all main. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 03:36, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I understand this, but if you extrapolate that, at 2018's rate this list will be over 500 entries long and I think that's too much. If we could restrict it a bit by raising the bar for inclusion in the list, then it seems to me that we'll have a more manageable and meaningful list. — Bilorv (talk) 11:57, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It will probably be as long as the list for the 2010s. Considering that an editor has to have seen a character in a network and web television series to include it in the list, I don't think there will be "500 entries" or more in it. Adding a series to the list happens after someone interested in the list has watched a series and seen an LGBT+ character in it. Besides, if the list were to become too long it can be split, as done with the original list in September 2019, which was one single list titled List of dramatic television series with LGBT characters (split into two lists: 1970s–2000s and 2010s). Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 23:28, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a series to the list happens after someone interested in the list has watched a series and seen an LGBT+ character in it. This fails WP:LISTCRITERIA, but it's also just not true. If I found an RS which listed the "50 Best LGBT Characters of the 2020s" then I could add them all to the list, with a reference. If the list is so large in scope that we will not come close to including most of the content which fits its criteria then this is more evidence that the scope is a problem. But more importantly, the list is not for our editors but for our readers. It seems to me that a list including only main cast would filter out a lot of less significant cases, and yield a list that it is actually possible for us to create in full. A list should have some purpose and if the purpose is to document LGBT history or list significant media representation then we should be trying to create a list with the most significant representation, not a lengthy list in many parts created at the whim of our editorial selection bias, which no reader would read in full. — Bilorv (talk) 01:00, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should put a little more trust in the editors who have faithfully edited and maintained the first two versions of this list. The list's purpose is obvious. We provide readers information about content in television series that they may not be aware of if they did not, themselves, watch those series. "Significant representation" is in the eye of the beholder, and if all you focus on is what's platinum, you miss the importance of the other minerals that contribute to making it special. In any event, this discussion is about deleting/keeping the list. It is not about personal opinions about what the list should reflect. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 04:27, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Seems like common sense to me. In fact, the list is already starting to be populated... — Hunter Kahn 13:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per previous comments. = paul2520 (talk) 14:55, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep, per above, it takes some tricky mental ingenuity to imagine a landscape suddenly devoid of LGBTQ characters. Gleeanon409 (talk) 23:20, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'm sure there will be plenty more examples to add as the decade progresses. I added some see also pages of programs debuting in 2020 and 2021 if anyone wants to dig through them and see if there's any more characters that fit the criteria. TomCat4680 (talk) 01:37, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nom thinking there will be no LGBTQ+ characters existing in any show airing from 2020-2029 is bewildering, to say the least. We already have one four days in, and we're not even halfway through the first season of The L Word: Generation Q, which will likely introduce some new characters in the next four episodes and destroy the nom's hypothesis rather easily. Nate • (chatter) 02:46, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all the above. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:01, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 10:03, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Mathews[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:PERSON or WP:GNG, appears to have been created by someone associated with The Veronicas (see here, and here) as according to this article Mathews has drummed for them, but that is not enough for wikinotability, and The Veronicas article does not/has never(?) mentioned this. A gsearch has not revealed anything useable (i know google is not the beall/endall but for someone who has been active since 2004 this is of concern. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:48, 4 January 2020 (UTC) (categories)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:52, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:52, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Quick Google searches revealed nothing, but discogs.com indicates he released one album as "Tony Mathews", but that was no help as it's also the name of a guitarist born in 1941 in Oklahoma. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:59, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A ProQuest search of all Aust and NZ newspapers found 1 300-word article from 21 October 2009 in The Queensland Times 'FROM sitting behind a St Edmund's College school table to standing behind a live sound-mixing desk in front of 80,000 screaming punters - welcome to the world of Anthony Mathews'. I would not consider this article substantive, and certainly not the keystone of multiple WP:IRS. Fails WP:NOTE.Cabrils (talk) 06:13, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sourcing is MySpace. Let me repeat that, MySpace. Do we need to say more? Oh wait, any dude can buy a mult box. Bearian (talk) 20:44, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 10:03, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong New Year Countdown Celebrations[edit]

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

Not notable? Large swaths of content were a copyvio, and what's left is mainly trivia. ViperSnake151 Talk 07:20, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:46, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:46, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The sources I looked up tend to be travel guides to the place rather than news articles about it. Interstellarity (talk) 15:14, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Hard to update as there are limited information. Also not a notable article. –Wefk423 (talk) 15:57, 5 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) 06:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate Collection (Burning Spear album)[edit]

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

No independent evidence of notability. All I can find in the way of potential sources are a number of places to buy this album, a discogs entry (user-generated, not reliable) and an entry on Allmusic that pretty much just proves that this album exists. Wikipedia:Notability (music) suggests a merge to the artist is recommended, but there's nothing here worth merging to the Burning Spear article. Either delete or redirect to Burning Spear makes the most sense. Hog Farm (talk) 05:23, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 05:23, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 05:23, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am familiar with this artist's discography, and the album is almost certainly an unauthorized quickie cash-in that was ignored by the public and the media. Should be deleted per WP:EXIST, and also the title is not a good redirect candidate because there are many albums called "Ultimate Collection". ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:17, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing to suggest this is a notable album. Mattg82 (talk) 01:43, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect to Burning Spear since those albums belongs to the artist.Jokejust1000 (talk) 04:16, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- What content would we merge? The article is one sentence stating that a minor album exists and a track listing? Hog Farm (talk) 05:33, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- And furthermore, this album's existence is listed at the musician's discography, and since there is nothing more to say about the album, then a merge is irrelevant. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:15, 9 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) 06:32, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nike Doggart[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:PROF and I see no other case for notability that is even close. jps (talk) 17:35, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 17:35, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Discovery of a frog and having that named after the scientist is indeed notable. Keep. 17:44, 27 December 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Citizenkane7 (talk • contribs) Struck per WP:SOCK and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Oxford2008.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:57, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:57, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete a presenter of a BBC program should be more notable than I have fond here to be. But she does not appear to be notable.Slatersteven (talk) 18:05, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Discovered a new species of frog, authored a paper about that. Also, see ResearchGate cites. Shearonink (talk) 03:15, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are over 4800 species of frogs. I am fairly sure every discoverer is not notable enough for a standalone article. jps (talk) 05:33, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete discovering a new species of frog is not a sign of notability and nothing else comes even close.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:03, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can see she has BBC mentions and appearances and has done notable scientific work, per [5], [6] and others; see also Arthroleptis nikeae. However, the article will need some improvements. Ambrosiawater (talk) 02:27, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:17, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Discovery of frog species alone does not pass WP:PROF, and don't see enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. Think this might be a case of WP:TOOSOON. For now, mention on Arthroleptis nikeae would be sufficient. Achaea (talk) 10:32, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:PROF: "Criterion 1 can also be satisfied if the person has pioneered or developed a significant new concept, technique or idea, <made a significant discovery> or solved a major problem in their academic discipline." Anarchangel (talk) 02:31, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is the discovery of a single species "significant"? jps (talk) 18:21, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep lots of article on google scholar with > 30 references. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment that a GS search for author:Doggart,N turns up an additional article of "N.H. Doggart" (who appears to be her) with 500+ citations, though that article also has a very high number of coauthors. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:15, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If not kept, redirect to Arthroleptis nikeae and maybe expand briefly there on who she is: always interesting to see derivation of a species name, especially one which might otherwise refer to a goddess or a make of footwear.Pam D 11:19, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:SIGCOV. I made an attempt to search "Nike Doggart news" in Google, it returned sizeable news-related results as indicated in this link below https://www.google.com/search?q=Nike+Doggart+news&newwindow=1&sxsrf=ACYBGNSxhrPcDWVZLZ4R3SR-VyuLZnwcwA:1578513461511&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi13JXx5PTmAhVGSsAKHf8bAvQQ_AUICSgA&biw=1242&bih=568&dpr=1.1 Also WP:GNG is established by the google link above. Page is old. Existing since 2007. Several well known editors have worked on it over the years. Found out that She's an environmentalist who discovered a tree frog in the Usambara mountains which, exceptionally, was then named after her by the Royal Geograhical Society. That's notable for me. She has also worked as a BBC presenter and helped to conserve hundreds of thousands of acres of Tanzanian rainforest. Let's keep this.Jokejust1000 (talk) 04:21, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. because the frog.NotButtigieg (talk) 10:26, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. on the principle that we have always considered the person discovering even a single new species as notable. Yes, there are a great many species., but WP is NOT PAPER, (that applies to the scientist, not necessarily to the person the species is named after, which can as here be the scientist, but can also be anywhere from another improtant scientist to a friend to an imaginary being)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:54, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah Smith Pegues[edit]

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

Promotional article by a declared paid editor. That wouldn't necessarily be a problem, but there is actually no evidence that this individual meets the WP:GNG despite the 28 sources the article has been packed with. A large number are the subject's own articles or videos, many others are primary sources of no value, and some are sources that relate to a trivial fact in the article but have nothing to do with Deborah Pegues. I have conducted a complete assessment on the talk page and I urge editors to refer to that, as this appears to be quite a deliberate attempt to make an article appear well-sourced to people who do not have time to go through the huge number of sources. Hug^syrup 11:31, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:36, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:36, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:36, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources are made up of passing mentions rather than sources about Pegues. – DarkGlow (talk) 13:19, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:NEXIST, worldcat shows 1600 library holdings so it is likely her books have reliable sources reviews, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 17:52, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We need to enforce our articles against promotional use of Wikipedia, this means deleting all articles with promotionalism as the reason for creation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:20, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:AUTHOR, the subject has written books that have been the "primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" (Beyond Today magazine and LifeandLeadership - Dr. Carlus Gupton). She also has independent coverage in The Virginian-Pilot. The article's primary sources have been reduced and the tone has been improved per WP:NOTPROMO. My paid contribution disclosure is noted on the article's talk page. E-Stylus (talk) 04:21, 2 January 2020 (UTC) [reply]

those are remarkly unimpressive placesfor reviews that might show notability .

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:02, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although Pegues gives a lot of workshops and book-promotion talks, every source I find is promoting such events, I cannot find soures that are about her or about her books. Just copy in local newspapers promoting some talk she is giving. NotButtigieg (talk) 23:59, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are 3 independent sources provided above that cover the subject and/or her books. E-Stylus (talk) 22:19, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Created by an SPA (with possibly paid editing), this subject is a run of the mill TV personality and writer. Literally anybody, I mean anybody, can walk into Trinity Broadcasting Network and get on air/cable. Does D. Ross Thompson, who used to appear regularly on TBN, deserve his own article? What about Valerie Saxion? Or Medina Pullings? Or Danielle Kincebach? Or David Demola? TBN is notable, as are some of its bigger shows, because it has over 5 million viewers and is the subject of extensive coverage, but not everyone who appears on their shows. In fact, we usually delete such articles. I don't see any change to that longstanding consensus. Bearian (talk) 20:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per WP:SPATG, "One must look at the editor’s complete edit history, not just recent edits." Approximately half of my edit history is paid and the other half isn't. As previously communicated in the initial discussion above, my paid contribution disclosure for this article is noted on the talk page. The subject's notability relative to Wikipedia's guidelines is based on WP:AUTHOR, not television hosting. There are 3 independent sources provided above that cover the subject and/or her books. In addition, she has received the Evangelical Christian Publishers Association's Platinum Book Award for one of her books that sold over a million copies. E-Stylus (talk) 01:32, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep scales through WP:AUTHOR clearly and also WP:GNG is covered.Jokejust1000 (talk) 04:26, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Her books sell, but that is not among the criteria for meeting the policy, WP:AUTHOR that you have cited.NotButtigieg (talk) 10:24, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional editing and dubious notability . The combination of borderline notability and clearly promotional editing is one of the best justifications for deletion. We can consider keeping and improving paid promotional editing when the subject is so notable that WP really does need an article on them; I can see keeping articles on borderline subjects when they're the earnest effort of a good faith volunteer in an under-covered field. But when the subject isn't really important and the writing is promotional ?

The least we can expect of a paid editor that know how to selectively accept jobs only from clearly notable subjects , and that they know how to write a non-promotional article--there have been a very few paid editors here who have been able to manage it.. But a paid editor who will accept a job on a borderline subject usually ends up writing a promotional article, because there generally isn't much else to say. (A good volunteer editor writing on a borderline subject will write a fairly minimal article, knowing not to include dubious material--but the client of a paid editor is very unlikely to accept such an article as value for money.

If half the jobs of a paid editor are unsatisfactory, as is the case here, and they do not quickly learn how to do better, as has unfortunately been the case here, and if they use up the time of good reviewers by trying at length to justify their inadequate work, they are not contributing usefully to WP. DGG ( talk ) 19:20, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The subject's references meet the notability guidelines for WP:AUTHOR. This article was created in accordance with Wikipedia's WP:PAID guidelines and approved for publishing via the Articles for Creation (AfC) process. In good faith, I have worked to improve the article's references and tone. The content does not meet the WP:DEL-REASON criteria of "advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content". Personal opinion should not override Wikipedia's guidelines. Between October 2018 and September 2019, I've contributed six paid articles which were approved for publishing by AfC editors. Between 12/18/19 and 12/25/19, five of these articles were tagged (1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 3, 4, 5). While I'm more than willing to improve my writing style relative to Wikipedia's guidelines, it is unreasonable to expect that these articles would reflect the tone preferences of one editor when the content was approved by multiple other AfC editors. The outcome of this article should be determined by its content and adherence to site guidelines. E-Stylus (talk) 03:21, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:53, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jonas Max Ferris[edit]

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

I did a check for sources after coming across this article and seeing it only uses primary references. I've found only found 3 passing mentions in published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. Those passing mentions have to do with Ferris' company MAXfunds.com, and do not go in depth into this person. If I'm missing a source I'd be happy to be shown it. As of now, appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:BIO as a non-notable TV personality. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 09:53, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 09:53, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 09:53, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 09:53, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lots of quotes and mentions as a pundit, but no actual WP:SIGCOV of the man himself. Fails WP:BASIC. FOARP (talk) 12:13, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we need more coverage to show notability. Just because you appear on TV does not mean you are notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. I added a little information. Searching is a little difficult since he has been a financial pundit since 2002.Patapsco913 (talk) 19:47, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need discussion on the article following Patapsco913's improvements
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:32, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He has been personally discussed in a number of sources beyond just being quoted. The sources added by Patapsco913 discuss a website which he operates which was mentioned at length in several independent secondary sources. He appears to have been a moderately high profile figure in the investment world for some time, beyond just being a pundit. Machetazic (talk) 15:01, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Yet not a single source added by you or Patapsco913 has been in-depth coverage of Ferris himself (merely more coverage of Maxfunds and now a Fox News story Ferris discussed on air once). MaxFunds.com potentially having some notability, and stories Ferris has covered on Fox News getting secondary coverage, are not justifications for Ferris having a stand-alone article himself. So, in no way has the article been improved to our standard of retention. And, I still do not see a path for that to happen here. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 10:18, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. ZXVZ (talk) 18:26, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked sock. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:56, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:58, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Agree with above commenter that the cited additional sources are not actually coverage of Ferris per se but instead of his website. As such my delete vote stands. FOARP (talk) 12:26, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is just not very much in the way of significant coverage coming up in my searches.NotButtigieg (talk) 15:33, 9 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 14:10, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Pless[edit]

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

There's an impressive amount of writing in this article, considering that it's entirely missing significant coverage in reliable sources. Other than local news and free newspapers I can't find anywhere that spends more than a paragraph on him (and the local news doesn't have much depth either). _signed,Rosguill ^talk 05:29, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 05:29, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 05:29, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 05:29, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 05:29, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, based on want of sourcing, although I could go along with a redirect to Occupy This Album. Bearian (talk) 19:06, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:54, 4 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. Whether the article deserves its GA status is a matter for WP:GAR, not here. RL0919 (talk) 06:36, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Send It Up[edit]

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

There is only one source, MTV, talking about the song directly the rest is either about the remix or album reviews, one doesn't establish notability since there needs to be multiple. It has not won one or more significant awards or honors, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury...or was independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands, or groups. Therefore it doesn't pass WP:NS. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 02:51, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:25, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:25, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:40, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I note that this article is a WP:GA. Could a non-notable article have gotten far enough to become a GA? Is not the fact that it is GA proof enough of its notability? There were clearly enough sources to write a GA. I also would find it extremely demoralizing to delete a good article. Perhaps that's a bad argument, but if so then its time to have village pump discussion about it. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:46, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:21, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- @CaptainEek:. GA criteria do not mention notability. Enough sources to write an article does not mean enough independent sources with significant coverage to demonstrate notability. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:47, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is currently a discussion regarding the recent slew of AfDs by this nominator at WT:SONGS#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whip It (Nicki Minaj song). —Ojorojo (talk) 18:27, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not a fan of deleting Good Articles before reassessment, nor do I think the GA review of this rather short music article demonstrated how it was Good. In looking at the sources it seems they are almost exclusively focused on Yeezus the album rather than Send It Up the song, so for that reason I vote to Merge. ⌚️ (talk) 19:56, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:GA, heaps of refs. Doctorhawkes (talk) 10:40, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there are plenty of sources. "Significant coverage" does not have to be primarily about a song, as long as the artist and his album and/or the tour are discussed in context. FWIW, not only am I not a fan, I don't like Kanye West, nor his wife, nor his music. Based on the discussion linked by Ojorojo, "charting" confers automatic notability only for "Top 10" songs on Billboard, and "supplemental" sources count more for notability per WP:NSONG. Songs that are not singles are not automatically deleted, but are sometimes merged. Am I right? Merge if necessary. Bearian (talk) 21:10, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reasons above – zmbro _(talk) 04:06, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. czar 06:33, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I Wonder (Kanye West song)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Only contains reception of the song in the shape of album reviews and nothing else. That's not notable enough. No chart performance or acollades, the only notable cover was by Big Sean. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 00:40, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Graduation (album). Fails WP:NSONG. – DarkGlow (talk) 00:46, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:38, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:38, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:38, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:38, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ - Definitely doesn't need its own article. Foxnpichu (talk) 17:00, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - 95 sources are present in the article, and the song has sold at least a half a million copies. Are there really not a handful of sources to meet the WP:GNG here? Sergecross73 msg me 05:03, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:39, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:21, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MarioSoulTruthFan - Nobody has touched this page in days, is somebody gonna close it? Foxnpichu (talk) 18:30, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is about time. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 20:07, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets GNG by a mile. Doctorhawkes (talk) 21:37, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Platinum single, plenty of good sources. Bearian (talk) 21:14, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If the guidelines about album reviews result in articles with this much sourced content being nominated for deletion, then it is the guideline that is a problem, not this article. Merge is not a viable option for such a long article in any case and deletion of this much reliably sourced content would be inappropriate, regardless of whether much of the sourced content was from album reviews. So the only viable alternative is keeping. Rlendog (talk) 22:56, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Changing my vote since Bearian and Rlendog give some pretty good points. Foxnpichu (talk) 23:49, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 10:03, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eduardo Castañeda[edit]

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

Fails WP:NGRIDIRON, having only played professionally for leagues like NFL Europe, Indoor Football League (possibly), and Liga de Fútbol Americano Profesional (possibly). Cannot find any significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:37, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:37, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:37, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:37, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The claim in the article that he played for the Houston Texans and Arizona Cardinals does not appear to be factual, although he was a practice squad player in 2007 and possibly 2008 (see here). Accordingly, and for the reasons set forth above by Eagles247, he does not pass WP:NGRIDIRON. Also, my searches (like those by Eagles247) do not turn up significant coverage in reliable, independent sources of the type needed to pass WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 21:01, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being on a pratice squad does not make one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:04, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:GNG. Ejgreen77 (talk) 20:09, 5 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. czar 06:31, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Felton Huggins[edit]

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

Fails WP:NGRIDIRON, having only played professionally in minor league NFL Europe. Cannot find any significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:30, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:30, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:30, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:30, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sourcing found to support the claim in the article that he played for Montreal in the CFL. Nor did he appear in any regular season games for the Buffalo Bills. (See here and here). Accordingly, and for the reasons outlined by Eagles247, he does not pass WP:NGRIDIRON. Nor do there appear be accomplishments of the type required by WP:NCOLLATH or significant coverage of the type required to pass WP:GNG (I only found passing mentions and transactional blurbs). Cbl62 (talk) 21:13, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence he ever played in an NFL game.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Cbl62. I couldn't find any evidence that he appeared in a CFL game either. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:38, 5 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. Ultimately, the "keep" side provides no convincing, specific references to establish notability. Ambrosiawater writes that "we will just need to source the proper references to demonstrate it" - well, yes, and the time in which that should have been done is now over. Sandstein 14:09, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Magdalena Wróbel[edit]

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

No reliable sources out there to substantiate claims of notability. Other language wikis don't offer any either, some are even sourceless. Trillfendi (talk) 17:31, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:59, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:00, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:00, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:50, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She was a notable model for a few years around the year 2000. Durindaljb (talk) 16:26, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Without sufficient proof of that, she doesn’t meet notability guidelines for inclusion (by any stretch of the imagination). Trillfendi (talk) 16:33, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of magazine covers and Victoria's Secret photos can be found. Durindaljb (talk) 04:57, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Appearance does not equal notability without significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.... It’s not hard. There are hundreds of un-notable Victoria’s Secret models. Trillfendi (talk) 12:18, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Systemic bias aside, we cannot just say WP:ITSNOTABLE. We need proof that goes beyond just having a decent career. And I am not seeing much (the search is more complex as there is also an actress pl:Magdalena Wróbel (aktorka), and a business executive that doesn't have her own article yet). Weak delete unless someone can find sources/awards or such that will help with NBIO. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:11, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - being in a single runway show for a single brand does not make one notable, nor having a couple of supporting film roles. There's no evidence in that article, from reliable sources, that she's had any "editorial". A redirect to List of Victoria's Secret models would be a cheap way out. Bearian (talk) 18:55, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The content of the article appears demonstrates notability, but we will just need to source the proper references to demonstrate it. Google searches reveal no dearth of suitable references. Ambrosiawater (talk) 02:32, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A little divisive...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ミラ P 04:22, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I haven't found a great deal - mostly just her name in histories of Wonderbra. She was one of the models in the very first Victoria's Secret show in 1995 (the most I've found about that so far is a para in Marie Claire [7]). The Spanish magazine Interviú featured her as "la nueva chica wonderbra" in issue 1297 (which I discovered from a listing on the Spanish equivalent of ebay [8], so I haven't seen it and don't know how long it is, whether it's just an interview, or indeed whether it can be considered a reliable source). I haven't yet searched for her with the other brands she has modelled for, which might bring up more sources. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:03, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 06:30, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Astros–Cardinals rivalry[edit]

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

Alleged rivalry that never really existed, hence the lack of sources. One of the two sources in the article claims this is a rivalry that is over before it even began. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:48, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:49, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:15, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:15, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:15, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Besides the sources I included, I found a one-sentence mention in [9], which seems to describe the matchup as a past rivalry. However, the sum of the limited coverage suggests that these two teams are just former division mates who happened to be competitive in the same general window. Nothing special here. Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Rivalries makes it clear that rivalries need to pass GNG to get articles. Cards/Cubs and Cards/Royals pass GNG. This one does not. Hog Farm (talk) 05:37, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Hog Farm....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:51, 4 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) 03:44, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shepherd's Hill Academy[edit]

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

This is a boarding school that appears to fail WP:NORG and WP:GNG. The provides references are not independent, reliable journalistic outlets. I can't find evidence that it has won any awards or some other notable achievement. Citrivescence (talk) 03:42, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Citrivescence (talk) 03:42, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Citrivescence (talk) 03:42, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:24, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've substantially trimmed some sections for NPOV and found archives for two refs that are reliable independent, secondary sources(The Idependent Mail and Athens Banner-Herald.) I veridfied most of the refs to external agencies such as accreditation and state agencies. While the article could use more citations in currently uncited paragaphs, it meets GNG. Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 19:56, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's still a lot of trivia, cruft, and tangential information in this. Bearian (talk) 21:25, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coment Agreed. I mad only a first pass. Just ran out of steam, plus my eys were watering from cruft in the last half of the article. Maybe tomorrow. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 21:29, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - I'm still unclear about its notability, but I removed all of the unsourced material, because allegations that all the students have ADHD and other such conditions violate WP:BLP and FERPA, putting the Wikimedia Foundation as risk for a lawsuit. Bearian (talk) 21:34, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian: Thank you for cleaning up the article! I still see this as a good candidate for deletion because these two sources are regional, and the school itself seems like a run-of-the-mill WP:LOCAL institution that is not itself notable for any particular reason. Citrivescence (talk) 00:15, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Citrivescence: First, the "regional sources" argument you advanced above is not based in any Wikipedia policy; if a source is reliable, it can contribute to notability. Second, I found a series of two more articles that tell quite a different story of the practices and history of the school related to its licensure. While the fact checkers at Medium (website) are listed by name in the articles, I hesitated to include much more of the content in trying to observe restraint, per WP:UNDUE. I may have added too much-- I'm confident other editors can approach the Controversies section with fresh eyes and can trim my excesses as needed. As for me, I feel the need to shower my brain after this one. Gah! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 03:31, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -As of 9 January this is a well referenced balanced article- virulently throwing around WP:XXs may prevent this from becoming a GA anytime soon but it is not the level scrutiny needed at AfD.ClemRutter (talk) 15:26, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is 2020, and everybody knows we have rules, policies, and guidelines, so throwing them around is what is expected at AfD's. If you don't like them then cite WP:IAR. "Sin boldly," said Martin Luther. I am still putting some thoughts into this matter, but will be occupied IRL due to dental work over the next two days. [[User:|Bearian]] (talk) 17:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bearian, thanks for taking time to make a considered judgment. I came across your personal Standards for Notability of High Schools and understand why this may be a close call for you. It's a good list. Best wishes for speedy recovery from your dental work! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 17:31, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Based on media coverage, it appears to skim by because I found at least two reliable sources with technically significant coverage. It has 7/10 factors according my own standards: Has (or has had 50) or more students? No, only 25 boarders as of 2019. Has (at least) 10th through 12th grades? Yes. Has been in existence for (at least) 10 academic years? Yes. Grants a diploma, GED, or an International Baccalaureate? No direct evidence, but we'll assume its accreditation allows it. Pays its teachers (who presumably have Bachelors' degrees or higher). 9/12 do have a bachelor's degree. Is a Public school, or an Accredited Private school, or an Accredited Charter school? Yes. Has 2 or more notable alumni, who already have their own articles? No. Has 2 or more reliable sources? Yes. Has 1 or more notable academic programs, major annual events, or scholastic sports. No evidence. Is located in a country large enough to have significant media presence online (in order to verify its existence, and has competitive sports and other teams that garner media exposure). Yes. Bearian (talk) 21:36, 9 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 Per WP:SKCRIT. (non-admin closure) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:24, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hellier (documentary series)[edit]

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

Non-notable. Besides varios blogs and dubious websites, I was only able to find Richmond Registe and Vice. Neither of the reporters appears to have watched the film, because they don't comment on the show itself (as you would expect for a review). All the information seems to be quotes and info provided by the producers. Fails WP:PRODUCTREV. b uidhe 02:54, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Recommended action is merge or redirect to Hellier, Kentucky. b uidhe 02:55, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Disagree: Hellier has been picked up by a major platform, Prime Video. On Youtube alone the series has over a million views when totaled together.^[1] There is precedent for much less viewed and notable shows on Wikipedia, that this show vastly exceeds in viewership and notability. Furthermore, Buidhes must not have conducted a thorough search as there are plenty of articles on the subject.

Bloody Disgusting^[2]^[3]
Ready Steady Cut^[4]
ComicBook.com^[5]
Horror Society^[6]
Plus, all the "weird websites" that the complantaint dismissed

TheMemeMonarch (talk) 06:20, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:18, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:18, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:18, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:20, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

#Even if you accept that Bloody Disgusting is a reliable source, those are both WP:ROUTINE trailers with press releases, without enough original content for SIGCOV.
#Ready Steady Cut may have significant coverage, but its reliability has not been established.
#ComicBook.com more WP:ROUTINE coverage in a questionable outlet
#Horror Society: this is an actual review, but I doubt this is a reliable outlet
Viewership statistics is not a substitute for significant coverage. b uidhe 07:04, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The ComicBook.com article is an interview with the executive producer reguarding the potential of a 3rd season and contains a review of the first two seasons. That definitely does not meet the criteria of WP:ROUTINE. Furthermore, reliability is not at issue here. The article is not using these paranormal focused news websites as evidence for the existence of the paranormal, but only for their analysis of a paranormal themed documentary. It is similar to complaining that John F. MacArthur or any non-atheist theologian is not a reliable source on Christianity because they have some wacky religious beliefs. The beliefs expressed in these papers do not invalidate their analysis of the documentary as all they are doing is reviewing the subject matter. So far, there has been no dispute on the facts in the article and only the reliability of the sources, which I addressed earlier. To add more evidence of notability, Hellier has been discussed/reviewed on big podcasts with millions of listeners such as Last Podcast on the Left and Mysterious Universe.^[7]^[8] TheMemeMonarch (talk) 07:32, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Hellier Playlist". Youtube. Planet Weird. Retrieved 4 January 2020.
^ Squires, John. "TV[Trailer] Documentary Series "Hellier" Explores Extreme Weirdness in the Appalachian Mountains". Bloody Disgusting. Bloody Disgusting. Retrieved 4 January 2020.
^ Squires, John. "[Trailer] The Rabbit Hole of High Strangeness Gets Deeper and Weirder in "Hellier" Season 2". Bloody Disgusting. Bloody Disgusting. Retrieved 4 January 2020.
^ Howat, Tyler (2019-02-09). "'Hellier' Season 1 | Amazon Prime TV Review". Ready Steady Cut. Retrieved 2020-01-03.
^ Cavanaugh, Patrick. "Will There Be a Season 3 of Hellier?". Comicbook.com. Comicbook.com. Retrieved 4 January 2020.
^ "Hellier Season One (Review)". Horror Society. Horror Society. Retrieved 4 January 2020.
^ "Side Stories: Metal Health". soundcloud. Last Podcast on the Left. Retrieved 4 January 2020.
^ Wright, Aaron. "21.02 – MU Podcast". https://mysteriousuniverse.org/. Mysterious Universe. Retrieved 4 January 2020. {{cite web}}: External link in |website= (help)

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus that NCORP is not satisfied Nosebagbear (talk) 01:24, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Skytree, Inc[edit]

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

I'm nominating this article for deletion per WP:NCORP, in particular the requirement for WP:SIGCOV. Most of the references are press releases or similar about the venture capital investment. I couldn't find any RS coverage (there are a couple of interviews). 94.21.10.204 (talk) 01:02, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Completing nomination on behalf of IP editor. Above text is copied from article talk page. I have no opinion of my own at this time. --Finngall ^talk 02:23, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:51, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:51, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:51, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 09:12, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 09:12, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 09:12, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Coverage seems limited to press releases (and their rewrites), seems to fail NCOMPANY. WP:CORPSPAM. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:02, 8 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 withdrawn by nominator. I am satisfied with the sources provided by Cbl62 to meet GNG. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:03, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Pinnix[edit]

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

Fails WP:NGRIDIRON, having never played professionally, and likely fails WP:GNG. I'm seeing a little bit of coverage for him in Minnesota papers, but these are the only two featured stories I can find at the moment: [10] and [11]. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:00, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:00, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:00, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:00, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with most of Eagles247's recent AfDs, but have to dissent on this one. Pinnix was the starting running back for a Power Five team and tallied 1,410 yards from scrimmage in 2006. See here. Running backs at this level of competition and accomplishment will almost always pass WP:GNG, and Pinnix is no exception. Examples of significant coverage in multiple, reliable, and independent sources include the following: (1) "For Former Gopher Football Star, Valuable Lessons Learned In Minnesota", CBS Minnesota, 8/29/15; (2) "Pinnix shows he's ready to take over", Star Tribune, 9/24/06; (3) "Pinnix, Gophers Start With Big Plans", St. Cloud Times, 8/7/07; (4) "Gophers hope Pinnix can be next big-time RB", Associated Press, 8/24/06; (5) "Pinnix's pain keeps him from gaining usual yards Injuries might keep him from surpassing 1,000 yards again this season, but teammates still respect his effort and attitude", Star Tribune, 10/26/07 (available via NewsLibrary.com); (6) "Pinnix leading from the sideline", St. Paul Pioneer Press, 10/24/07 (available via NewsLibrary.com); (7) "Amir Pinnix is not all ball", Knight Ridder, 8/31/07 (724-word profile available via NewsLibrary.com); (8) "U's Pinnix Has Plan for Life After Football", St. Paul Pioneer Press, 10/17/06 (1,025-word profile available via NewsLibrary.com); (9) "Patient Pinnix keeps the faith, gets his chance The Gophers junior running back seemed to be the heir apparent to Laurence Maroney and Gary Russell, but it was a slow process", Star Tribune, 9/30/06 (723 words, available via NewsLibrary.com); (10) "Made in Jersey Amir Pinnix", The Star-Ledger (Newark, NJ), 11/27/05 (available via NewsLibrary.com); (11) "Pinnix All Alone These Days: He's the Only Returnee in Gophers' Backfield", St. Paul Pioneer Press (available via NewsLibrary.com); (12) "A mere opportunity proves big for Pinnix", Minnesota Daily, 11/17/05 (via NewsLibrary.com); and (13) "Pinnix gives Gophers a first in the Big Ten", Star Tribune, 11/15/05. He also published an autobiography available here. Cbl62 (talk) 20:33, 4 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 Glossary of Brexit terms#Exit day. Consensus seems to be that this doesn't warrant an article at this time. This can be reassessed by editors if more good sources specifically about the day (rather than just about Brexit generally) appear and if the content is improved accordingly. Sandstein 14:00, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Exit Day of the Withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union[edit]

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

Content dublication of Brexit among other Brexit-related articles. If there is no ceremony or any special events (except Big Ben chiming) planned for the date, there is no reason for having an article for the date itself. Should rather redirect to Glossary of Brexit terms#Exit day (which, for full disclosure, I have created). ― Hebsen (talk) 15:24, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:09, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:09, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:09, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge - Don't think any of the information in the article is unique, it's all contained in other articles such as Brexit where the section specifically on Exit Day is artificially small as to presumably justify the external article. Merge back to there. As currently (perhaps WP:TOOSOON applies) a bell-ringing and presumed busy news day isn't notable enough for its own article. eeveeman (talk) 19:17, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's nothing here that justifies an independent article. Ralbegen (talk) 12:15, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now as the day approaches we may hear more about what will actually happen on that day, the article could be useful for reactions and also events or incidents that are likely to occur on the day. I'd say keep until end of January at least.Theprussian (talk) 23:46, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now as we don’t fully know yet what the day will entail as it’s only very recently due to the UK election that we have known for certain that the UK was leaving on the 31 January 2020 and events on that day are still only being planned for at the moment. (2A02:C7F:5622:2000:9C01:59B8:2A0A:DEB7 (talk) 15:41, 2 January 2020 (UTC))[reply]
Redirect to Brexit or a related article. The arguments above are backward - "we don't know yet whether there will be stuff to write about" is not a reason to keep an article, it is a reason to hold off on creating it until it's clear that there exists sufficient material that a separate article is required. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:56, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Well it's too late now the article exists now whether we like it or not. Also what you are basically saying is we should just go and delete the article but in 23 days time it would be recreated anyway when Brexit comes back into media limelight. So deleting the article is a token gesture and pretty much a massive waste of time for everyone, all I am arguing for is to wait 2 weeks until coming to a "delete" decision, is that really a big deal in the gand scheme of things? Theprussian (talk) 13:47, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 01:42, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as proposed above. Qexigator (talk) 17:20, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Events are being planned to mark Brexit Day. Will edit this into the article now, please don’t delete this article just because you think it’s pointless. (MOTORAL1987 (talk) 17:03, 6 January 2020 (UTC))[reply]
Delete as it is confusing/conflating two different concepts: Exit Day, a term defined in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018#Exit Day to synchronise legal changes, and Brexit Day events to mark the UK's withdrawal from the EU. With respect to events that may occur on Brexit day, it is based on pure speculation of events which have not been agreed or planned yet, so contravenes WP:CRYSTAL. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:31, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Glossary of Brexit terms#Exit day, confusing WP:FORK and the only truly separate information in the article is WP:CBALL. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:34, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Brexit Day is being discussed in the media and will have long-term significance. Andysmith248 (talk) 16:12, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Glossary of Brexit terms. The first category is an explanation of what the Withdrawal Agreement and Transition Period are, and the second section says that the government may or may not hold commemerative events 'to be announced in due course'. Less than three weeks to go now, so I don't think it is going to get any more notable. If people think that Nigel Farage's party is worth mentioning, that could be added either to the Brexit Timeline or an expanded entry at the Glossary of Brexit terms. Although if it can be updated to a good standard, without contravening WP:CRYSTAL BALL and WP:FORK, then by all means keep it if people really want a separate article. PinkPanda272 (talk) 10:55, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Fenix down (talk) 23:55, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Lionel Messi games[edit]

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

I think this page should be deleted because it fails WP:NOTSTATS. Listing every single game a single footballer has played seems a little bizarre in my opinion. I am also nominating Pelé statistics for that reason as well. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 01:42, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 01:42, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 02:42, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:50, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:41, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree that this is bizarre to have an article on, you could just copy-and-paste this for his Barcelona teammates with little change. The records of these games is available at List of FC Barcelona seasons (2018–19_FC_Barcelona_season#Competitions, etc) and Argentina national football team. Pele has Brazil national football team all-time record and List of Santos FC seasons; his page has a lot more stats than game results that wouldn't be on the team pages but it's still excessive, and some is already at Pelé#Career_statistics (so a merge and links to external sources like [12] could be appropriate). Reywas92^Talk 08:00, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as WP:NOTSTATS. Giant Snowman 12:43, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not see the encyclopedic value. Wm335td (talk) 20:37, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Both are purely stats and trivia – clearly not article-worthy. —Formulaone wiki 11:44, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with the comments above, wikipedia is not suppose to be an almanac. Govvy (talk) 12:44, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTSTATS. Ajf773 (talk) 19:55, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - possibly the maddest stats overkill I have seen on WP -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:45, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NOTSTATS as above. No Great Shaker (talk) 20:11, 6 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. Firm consensus that notability was established very clearly Nosebagbear (talk) 01:25, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Revival (Selena Gomez song)[edit]

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

After a search on the web, I couldn't find any sources that jusity the existence of this song as a standalone article besides reviews in the context of the album, the user who created this page has been blocked several times for creating and recreating articles that shouldn't have existed in the first place. On top of that, and according to the guidelines of W:NS, it doesn't satisfy the charts criteria, not that it means it will be notable, never won one or more significant awards or honors, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award and it has not been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands, or groups. Furthermore, the sample needed to be reduced to comply with the wiki policie on WP:MS. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 01:23, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:22, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Did you look at the dozen in the article? Please stop nominating articles that meet notability criteria. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:57, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Please. This is like the recent AfD for a Taylor Swift song. There is no doubt that most of Selena Gomez's songs are notable. Ambrosiawater (talk) 03:05, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are a dozen sources, most of which are reviews, which give significant coverage to this song. Being the title song of chart topping record, it is quite notable. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:31, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is getting ridiculous. The nominator clearly doesn’t understand the notability guidelines. Please stop with these nominations until you better familiarize yourself on where we draw the lines on these sorts of things. It’s not here. Sergecross73 msg me 05:13, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:25, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They are reviews within the album. Not stand alone reviews. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:13, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:12, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep - title cut from a hugely successful LP issued by a major label by a globally-known artist, performed at the MTV awards. There's plenty of coverage already in the article, some of it primarily about the album for context, but with details about the motivation for and meaning of the lyrics of this song. 21:38, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Comment non self published sources from the article
- scenestr Just the one sentence She wrapped up her final Australian show with 'Revival', thanking the crowd and promising she'd be back soon.
- Live Jpournal Blog Has a description of each track, Not a good source anyway
- Time interview Only mentions revival twice when talking about "Kill ‘Em With Kindness".
- Rolling Stone Just talks about the album
- idolator Again covers each track
- USA today album review Just the two sentences The title track announces her musical agenda, with synth sparkling and guitars crunching over a syncopated beat. Gomez's vocals are spare and cool, sensual but discreet.
- Rolling stone album review Can't find a mention of the title track
- Slant album review Has a paragraph which ties into the title track

I don't know the history of the nominator that is being brought up, but this is hardly a slam dunk of notability. AIRcorn (talk) 22:26, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 10:03, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Bayan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable as per WP:AUTHOR. Received a few mentions in a psychology today article [13], but otherwise lacks reliable sources. Rusf10 (talk) 01:17, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 01:17, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:51, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:51, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:51, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication of notability.NotButtigieg (talk) 11:07, 9 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 13:57, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

George Baxter (lawyer)[edit]

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

Promotional WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY for a non-notable lawyer. Has a few passing mentions in news articles, that's it, no in-depth coverage. Rusf10 (talk) 01:09, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 01:09, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 01:09, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a platform for autobiographies.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:07, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. I've written earlier today that I can't assume good faith with for-profit autobiographies of non-notable people. This was written arguably when a person could still write their own page on Wikipedia and claim innocence. However, this is basically a hagiography, not an encyclopedia article. In fact, the lawsuit he won, and his extrajudicial comments, contributed to homophobia in the age of AIDS. The real problem is that, outside of that case, he hasn't really done anything notable. A Google search reveals nothing new about him as a person. Snyder was decided on charitable immunity, a statutory doctrine under New Jersey law (which has its uniquely odd features such as its convoluted liquor laws.) The Snyder decision was criticized by scholars. California declined to follow the Snyder case, but a New York trial court has followed it as precedent. The consensus nationwide appears to make plaintiffs a higher burden than Snyder, but Virginia and Louisiana have followed it. The Times article names him once. As a lawyer, he fails my standards for notability for lawyers. So the only question is how important was Snyder; it has generated scholarship including law reviews, if not further litigation. So Snyder is notable, IMHO, but the winning lawyer, perhaps not. Is a redirect and re-naming in order? Is his one big case, Snyder, so triumphant that he gets his own article? Is this a coat rack for him? Bearian (talk) 22:16, 8 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 prejudice against speedy renomination per relatively low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:51, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jayson Pahlmeyer[edit]

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

Non notable wine maker who doesn’t satisfy WP:GNG. Celestina007 (talk) 12:19, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:19, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:19, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:19, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:19, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:28, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable winemaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:50, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep refer to this on google search and books - https://www.google.com/search?tbm=nws&q=%22Jayson+Pahlmeyer%22+-wikipedia , https://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&q=%22Jayson+Pahlmeyer%22+-wikipedia Rubydavis1250 (talk) 11:22, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:30, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:47, 4 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) 00:46, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shapour Marhaba[edit]

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

This article says Mr Marhaba was assassinated on 29 August 1981, and also that he was in office until 7 June 2015. This is down to poor translation. I suspect, but can't be sure, that this is a biography of a living person, and we can't have translations so poor that they say manifestly inaccurate things about living people. Let's delete it until someone with dual fluency in Farsi and English can make an accurate translation. —S Marshall T/C 00:29, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —S Marshall T/C 00:29, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —S Marshall T/C 00:29, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article doesn’t say he was assassinated in 1981 at all, it says his brother was. The article needs a bit of tidying up but the subject is plainly notable as having been elected to parliament multiple times. There are no grounds for deletion. Mccapra (talk) 01:56, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It said that when I nominated it for AFD. The article author made a single edit without amending the sources after nomination. I remain skeptical about the translation, in the circumstances.—S Marshall T/C 12:03, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:54, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup Translation is bad but notable.-Splinemath (talk) 17:23, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, could you just check that you've fully understood this nomination? This person is undoubtedly notable. The problem is that this is probably a WP:BLP and the translation is, as I've shown, unreliable. In the three and a half years it's existed, nobody's cleaned it up, because doing that requires someone with dual fluency in English and Farsi, and we don't have very many of those people. I'm not saying we shouldn't have an article. I'm saying that we need to delete this article until an accurate translation can be made.—S Marshall T/C 18:07, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, could you clean up the article instead of trying to delete it? -Splinemath (talk) 01:09, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it’s it a bad translation at all, it just needs a bit of tidying which I’ll do tomorrow. The nomination is based on a misreading of the article content. Mccapra (talk) 00:42, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

tidied up now. Mccapra (talk) 00:51, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you'll tell me that you speak Farsi and you've checked the article content against the sources, then I'll be delighted to withdraw this nomination?—S Marshall T/C 01:33, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t speak Farsi. That was not necessary as the only issues with the article were surface level language issues and not substantial points of fact. I have looked at the sources with Google translate and see no reason to have concerns that the article does not properly reflect them on points of fact. Mccapra (talk) 18:29, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article says he survived an assassination attempt and cites this source. When I check google translate, I can't see anywhere on that page that confirms that, or indeed that mentions Shapour Marhaba at all. What am I missing?—S Marshall T/C 18:48, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject held an WP:NPOL-passing political office, so his notability is not in question, and any issues with the accuracy of translation are matters for the editing process, not the deletion process. Bearcat (talk) 17:00, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG and NPOL. I was the one who deprodded it. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:07, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the exact same reasons as Bearcat - I have nothing more to add. SportingFlyer T·C 11:08, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus that notability isn't met, but there seems at least some consideration for WP:REFUND, if a draft is wanted by anyone Nosebagbear (talk) 01:28, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

George Varsimashvili[edit]

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

I don't see what's notable about this living person, and I don't see what's reliable about the sources in this article. Please will the community authorise its deletion? —S Marshall T/C 00:26, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —S Marshall T/C 00:26, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:42, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:42, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:39, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:39, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:41, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:42, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or if there is a notable topic here (which there may be) move to draft space, it's not ready for article space Dartslilly (talk) 03:54, 7 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] "Hellier Playlist". Youtube. Planet Weird. Retrieved 4 January 2020.

[2] Squires, John. "TV[Trailer] Documentary Series "Hellier" Explores Extreme Weirdness in the Appalachian Mountains". Bloody Disgusting. Bloody Disgusting. Retrieved 4 January 2020.

[3] Squires, John. "[Trailer] The Rabbit Hole of High Strangeness Gets Deeper and Weirder in "Hellier" Season 2". Bloody Disgusting. Bloody Disgusting. Retrieved 4 January 2020.

[4] Howat, Tyler (2019-02-09). "'Hellier' Season 1 | Amazon Prime TV Review". Ready Steady Cut. Retrieved 2020-01-03.

[5] Cavanaugh, Patrick. "Will There Be a Season 3 of Hellier?". Comicbook.com. Comicbook.com. Retrieved 4 January 2020.

[6] "Hellier Season One (Review)". Horror Society. Horror Society. Retrieved 4 January 2020.

[7] "Side Stories: Metal Health". soundcloud. Last Podcast on the Left. Retrieved 4 January 2020.

[8] Wright, Aaron. "21.02 – MU Podcast". https://mysteriousuniverse.org/. Mysterious Universe. Retrieved 4 January 2020. {{cite web}}: External link in |website= (help)

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]