Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 September 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 21 September 23 September >

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 keep. T. Canens (talk) 02:04, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Champa (novel)[edit]

Champa (novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable novel, fails WP:NBOOK. There was a reference in a previous version, but it is to a predatory journal and is not reliable. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:38, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for reasons noted above. Unreliable citation. Fails notability. Balle010 (talk) 02:51, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Passes WP:BOOKCRIT#5 as a book by Laxmi Prasad Devkota. GNG-wise, This is a full-length analysis by a recognised critic. It references another 12-page work on the subject. That makes two (incidentally, also a pass of WP:BKCRIT#1). As the only novel from Devkota, it is covered to a varying degree in almost all if not all major works about Devkota as well as those about Nepali novels. I found this and this that seem to have SIGCOV going by the snippets which is all google would give me. I think anyone who looks at search results for this novel in google books will come convinced that it meets BOOKCRIT and GNG just from the context in which it is mentioned even when only in passing. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:01, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Laxmi Prasad Devkota. As the author's sole novel, it should be described within his biography. The new references identified are only passing mentions of the novel itself and don't suggest that substantial expansion is possible. Author page is missing details in the article like ISBN, publisher, etc. --Spasemunki (talk) 09:30, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Spasemunki, with all due respect, if you are going to call me a liar, you'll have to do better. In what universe could this 2,500 word critique possibly be just a passing mention? Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:17, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No one is calling you a liar. I can't read Nepali so I can't verify the source, but a single essay-length review is still not a substantial basis for expansion or notability given that the other two sources you provided are indeed only passing mentions. If there are additional substantial sources in Nepali that's another situation, but a single essay on a random website wouldn't be sufficient under normal circumstances. --Spasemunki (talk) 22:06, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying that you discounted sources that you couldn't personally verify; that was not at all clear from your original comment. Would you care to quote the full extent of coverages present in the two books that you say are only passing mentions? Because it really looks to me like, especially the first one has definite SIGCOV. The snippet itself is almost already it, and it ends with the last available sentence still ongoing. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:01, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The search gives me the index on the first source, which indicates it is only mentioned on a single page, which appears to be providing a brief plot summary while discussing a similar novel by another author. The second source includes it in two lists and summarizes another source which calls it 'incomplete', but there is no index entry. Since you can read Nepali, it would be helpful if you could characterize the website hosting the review- is it a reliable source? Who is the 'recognized critic'? The guidelines require two 'non-trivial' published works regarding the topic- the two Google book sources both appear to be trivial inclusion. With regards to criteria #5, the current wiki article on Devkota doesn't establish that the author and his works are a 'common subject of academic study'. So far there is no indication that is the case in English-language media, but if there is sufficient sourcing in Nepali then that would bear consideration. Again, in whatever language a 2500 word essay would only be a WP:SINGLESOURCE, and only if the website is reliable source. --Spasemunki (talk) 03:26, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So you can't access those books either but are choosing to assume the coverage is trivial? And you won't take me at my word for anything I've said so far, but want me to tell you more anyway? That's just self-contradictory standards. I have no interest to go hunting for your goalpost, especially as you argue from a position of complete ignorance. You'll have to either assume good faith with the evidence given, or you'll have to buy a book, any book, on Nepali literature yourself, and see that Devkota is considered one of the greatest writers (or actually the greatest, depending) in a language spoken by tens of millions people. Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:53, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am agreeing with you 90% by suggesting a merge rather than delete, but when I try to help you improve the case by suggesting how to contextualize the Nepali sources to make a better argument, you attack me. If Devkota is famous enough to be covered under guideline #5, then it ought to be possible to provide sources that attest to his widespread fame and coverage by academics, whether in English or Nepali. Currently, his fame is sourced in the article about him by two links to blogs. WP:V and WP:EVERYBODYKNOWS aren't overridden by WP:AGF, and it isn't good faith to attack the user rather than engage with their points. The index entries in the Google Books results suggest only incidental coverage in those sources. The onus is on you to provide evidence of significant coverage sufficient to support a standalone article, rather than just asserting that something is self-evident. --Spasemunki (talk) 07:16, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can't even! Here's the bottom-line: I wouldn't have needed to say anything to begin with, and would have happily left it to the closer to try and make sense of your arguments, had you not based it upon a demonstrably false claim (that sources I gave were just passing mentions) in direct reference to my comment. Don't make irresponsible comments like that when you are in a position to influence the fate of an article contributed in good faith by someone else, and you'll hear no complaints from me. Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:33, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The book is also available online [1] ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 19:11, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 18:59, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 18:59, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm also finding quite a bit of evidence that this novel has been discussed in literary sources - I've added a couple to the article. I can only get a snippet view, but what I'm seeing indicates that the book is discussed at enough length to be considered in-depth. I'm not familiar with Nepalese publishers, but the authors of these books look to be reliable sources in and of themselves. Both Paras Mani Pradhan and Abhi Subedi are seen as literary icons and critics of renown, for example. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:44, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Those are the same sources Usedtobecool linked- as I mentioned above, the index and search results indicate that there is a page or less in each of those sources. Reliable sources, but not extensive coverage as required by criteria #1. --Spasemunki (talk) 03:48, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Something to keep in mind is that most of the coverage will likely be in Nepalese and a good chunk of it won't be online, given the time period this was released. As such, this looks to be one of those rare situations where I'm leaning towards whether or not the available online coverage (and the notability of the author) can argue that there is more coverage out there. I haven't made my own official judgement yet, but I'm leaning towards there being coverage given what I've seen so far. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:54, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There is <Pradhan, Pratap Chandra (2066 BS). ‘Devkota's Novel "Champa" : A Literary Study’. Bhrikuti. Vol 5. pp. 243–254> cited in this, as mentioned above. That's enough evidence to convince me that there is a 12-page work wholly about this novel that we don't have access to. And, the novel was just translated into Hindi, 70 years after it was written. If that is not evidence of lasting notability, I don't what is. But really this is just so notable per BOOKCRIT#5 that I feel ridiculous to have to continue to make a case for it (WP:AGF, WP:NPOSSIBLE, WP:BIAS). Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:28, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge the article is somewhat light on content and is borderline on passing the WP:GNG, but it is at least verifiable in some reliable sources, and could easily be merged into an article about the author. Archrogue (talk) 20:56, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note If the article is kept, predatory journals should not be cited to support anything in this article. It is now the third time I'm removing this citation. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:57, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Here, a book published by an American press, written by a westerner with a Wikipedia article in English language says—

    When a truly great poet appears during an important phase in the development of a particular literature, the fortunes of that literature are changed forever. All poets who follow are bound to the traditions that their great predecessor has established, even if it is only in the sense that these become the conventions against which they rebel, the norms from which they make their departures. The contributions made to the development of Nepali poetry by Bhanubhakta, Bhatta, Lekhnath, and Sama have been fundamental, yet Devkota stands head and shoulders above all of these. An American scholar of comparative literature has written, "In Devkota we see the entire Romantic era of Nepali literature" (Rubin 1980, 5), but this is an oversimplification or even an understatement. In Nepali, Devkota's works have formed a colossal touchstone and are the undisputed classics of his language.

    In the short space of twenty-five years Devkota produced more than forty books, and his works included plays, stories, essays, translations from world literature, a novel, and poems that ranged in length from a 4-line rhyme to an epic of 1,754 verses. His writings were certainly extraordinarily profuse, but they were also remarkable for their intellectual and creative intensity. Devkota rarely returned to a poem to revise or edit, being in too great a hurry to commence his next composition, nor was he averse to using little-known dialect words to enrich his vocabulary. As a result, some poems suffer from obscurities that puzzle even the most scholarly Nepali reader. Nevertheless, little that Devkota wrote would now be considered dispensable.(emphasis mine)

    Is that enough for WP:BOOKCRIT#C5? If not, please tell me why that criterion even exists, since we don't need it to justify keeping works of Shakespeare and Milton? Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:58, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per the two sources currently in the article, which strongly suggest that more may be available. I just removed a third source which looks like a copyright violation. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:12, 29 September 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. Fenix down (talk) 20:52, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Israt Jahan Ratna[edit]

Israt Jahan Ratna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Originally nominated for speedy deletion by @J. M. under WP:CSD#G5 as having been created by a sockpuppet of SR Alamgir Khan FASTILY 21:27, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep played professionally at a high level and meets notability. Balle010 (talk) 02:52, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:03, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:03, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:03, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:03, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 08:07, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't think the creator of this article is SR Alamgir Khan, his editing was far more competent, and frankly this article and the others created by Sanyhd are far more naive. Back to the article, Bangladesh doesn't have a professional woman's league, it's more amateur level at current. If she was to play full international games that might be a different story but at the moment article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. I really don't see WP:GNG met either. Govvy (talk) 09:25, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - clearly fails WP:NFOOTY as the Bangladeshi women's league is amateur/semi-pro and U19 caps do not count towards this either. No evidence of WP:GNG being met either. If the player is young then could be notable later if she gets full international caps but this can't be assumed Spiderone 10:20, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 17:54, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:31, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Does not meet WP:GNG , Alex-h (talk) 14:22, 26 September 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 20:48, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No Strings Attached (1997 film)[edit]

No Strings Attached (1997 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't find anything to support this film's notability. Every citation in the article is for film database sites or something similar. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:02, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:02, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:02, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since I could not find significant coverage. The film exists, but it does not seem like there is anything more to say. I'm fine with any details about this film being covered at Josef Rusnak. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:12, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete especially if details of the film can be mentioned at Josef Rusnak. Balle010 (talk) 02:53, 23 September 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 20:48, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Fay di Castagnola Award[edit]

Alice Fay di Castagnola Award (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non-notable minor WP:MILL award really only serving a list cruft purpose. Graywalls (talk) 19:55, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 19:55, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 19:55, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete as per nom. Not every literary award should have a Wikipedia page. Balle010 (talk) 02:54, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we lack the sourcing to show this is a notable award.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:44, 25 September 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 20:48, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nippon India Mutual Fund[edit]

Nippon India Mutual Fund (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP. References are mix of announcements, self-published sources, press-releases and run of the mill business news. No indication of notability. scope_creepTalk 19:36, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:45, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:45, 22 September 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. Fenix down (talk) 19:35, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Denilson Hernanes Santos Sineiro[edit]

Denilson Hernanes Santos Sineiro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

If I get it correctly, the footballer has never player in a fully professional league, thereby failing WP:NFOOTY. I do not see correspondence to WP:GNG either. Ymblanter (talk) 19:01, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 19:01, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 19:01, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not meet our ludicrously broad inclusion criteria for football players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:42, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:47, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 19:48, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lacks general notability. Thanks, EDG 543 (talk) 19:57, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has played plenty of games in Serie C with Sampaio Corrêa which more than passes WP:NFOOTBALL threshold. [2] Article seriously needs a cleanup. Govvy (talk) 20:25, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I can withdraw if all the votes are changed to keep.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:30, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - meets NFOOTBALL by some way. As Govvy says, needs improvement, not deleting. GiantSnowman 20:51, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – per Govvy. Needs a ton of improvement, but not deletion. Keskkonnakaitse (talk) 16:55, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Article about footballer who made a few appearances in Campeonato Brasileiro Série C (which creates a presumption of notability through NFOOTBALL) and which appears to be the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources (I added an in-depth article from Globo Esporte, and there is plenty of routine coverage, which overall suggests the GNG can be met). Needs some work of course. Jogurney (talk) 18:17, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Subject is far from meeting WP:NFOOTBALL. Although they play professionally, they never played in a competition better than Serie C, and Serie C is absolutely not notable per WP:NFOOTBALL, as it is lower tier than Serie B and Serie A. Even Serie B would arguably not be sufficient. Walwal20 talk ▾ contribs 18:18, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Walwal20: What are you talking about? Serie C is fully-pro on WP:FPL, which qualifies NFooty, Govvy (talk) 18:43, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Govvy, WP:NFOOTBALL merely indicates that list, it does not endorse it. What is professional or not is still up for discussion. Finally, WP:NFOOTBALL item 2 is a statement of presumption, not a guarantee. Best, Walwal20 talk ▾ contribs 22:15, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Denilson also played twice in the 2006 Copa do Brasil as Bahia were eliminated by Ceilândia (both clubs were in the Brasileiro Série C at the time). I'm not sure when, but Série C has been added to the list of fully-pro leagues at WP:FPL. Jogurney (talk) 22:42, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - more than just a borderline NFOOTY pass Spiderone 23:01, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Does, in fact, meet NFOOTY despite false assertions to the contrary. If you disagree with FPL's accuracy, discuss it there and we can revisit it if something changes. This isn't the appropriate forum to do so. Smartyllama (talk) 19:32, 29 September 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 20:48, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sabeena Manalis[edit]

Sabeena Manalis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A young actress who does not seem to pass WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Has done a few television shows but has played small roles. It seems WP:TOOSOON for an article about her. Google searches do not show in-depth coverage. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 18:54, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 18:54, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 18:54, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 20:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the toosoon reason given. Balle010 (talk) 02:57, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The young actress does not pass notability for now. Case of WP:TOOSOON. DMySon 14:51, 23 September 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 20:48, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Darrin Lamoureux[edit]

Darrin Lamoureux (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article topic does not WP:NPOL. Apparently, articles about unelected politicians like Naveed Anwar, Darrin Lamoureux and Naomi Hunter should be deleted regardless of the status of the party of which they are leaders.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:00, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:42, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:00, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nothing beyond routine coverage, no actual show of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:56, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We long ago deprecated the idea that every leader of a political party was automatically handed an "inherent" notability freebie just for existing, without regard to his sourceability or lack thereof. The standard is now that leaders of political parties who are not also actual MLAs need to clear WP:GNG on their sourcing, which is a significantly higher bar than just being able to verify that they exist — rather, the requirement is to demonstrate the significance of his leadership, not just the fact of it, and this article isn't doing what's needed. Bearcat (talk) 23:49, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - former leader of a significant political party in Saskatchewan. Sowny (talk) 00:11, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That "significant" political party has not had a seat in the Saskatchewan legislature since 2003. It received 3.59% of the vote in the last election and received no seats (under Lamoureux's leadership). If the current leader of the Green Party of Saskatchewan is not notable, why would Lamoureux be? Lamoureux does not meet WP:NPOL. Do you have any evidence to support a claim he has met WP:GNG?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:22, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike the Greens, the Liberals were once the ruling party of Saskatchewan and were more recently part of a governing coalition. That makes them a legacy party, IMHO, unlike the Greens who have never won a seat, and therefore Liberal Party leaders are notable, while SK Green leaders are not. Sowny (talk) 03:01, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One party has been in decline since the 1990s and the other is in an uptick across the country. The Sask Liberals have received a smaller and smaller share of the vote in every election since the 90s. They were wiped out in 2003 and have not held a seat since (17 years). Naomi Hunter is the current leader who will be taking the party into an election in the coming months. If she is not notable, I don't see how Lamoureux is. What about those WP:RS showing Lamoureux has received significant coverage to warrant general notability?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 03:36, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Darryl Kerrigan: If you believe Naomi Hunter is notable than create a new article on her with sufficient sources or go to Wikipedia:Deletion_review to contest the deletion. Sowny (talk) 21:07, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, the difference is he was the leader of a legacy party and she is not. A better comparison would be with former BC Conservative leader Dan Brooks who has an article. If he merits an article so do Lamoureux and Anwar. Sowny (talk) 05:29, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, the fact that Dan Brooks has an article (which you may notice has also been flagged for notability questions since 2014) does not mean every leader of every political party gets to have one too — it means Dan Brooks' article should also be put up for deletion (and just guess what's now happened). Leading a "legacy" party is not a notability freebie that works differently than leading an "emerging" party does — either way, the person still has to clear WP:GNG on the back of enough reliable sourcing to write a substantive article about the significance of their leadership, and does not get an automatic inclusion freebie just because it's possible to nominally verify that they exist(ed) as a leader of a political party with no representation in the legislature during their leadership. Bearcat (talk) 15:42, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Conversely, Darryl's point, otherstuffdoesntexist - the fact that Hunter's bio was deleted doesn't in and of itself justify deleting another article. The point remains that the Liberal Party of Saskatchewan, unlike the Greens, is s legacy party that was in government relatively recently (as a minority coalition partner) and had previously been in government as a majority. As for GNG - they pass it because they are the leader of a legacy party, therefore they are notable. Sowny (talk) 17:30, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? How were they RECENTLY part of a coalition government when they haven't had a seat in the legislature for 17 years? Your idea of what constitutes "recently" seems to be quite different from mine.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:41, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I responded in the other place where you made basically the exact same comment, GNG is a measure of an article's sourcing, not of how important the topic's notability claim does or doesn't sound to you personally. There is absolutely nothing in GNG that states that leaders of "legacy" political parties are treated differently than leaders of "emerging" political parties when it comes to notability — either way, the question of whether the leader qualifies to have a standalone biographical article, separately from having their name mentioned in the party's article, lives or dies on the quality and depth of their sourcing, not on the question of whether the party is a "legacy" one or an "emerging" one. GNG measures the sources, not subjective opinions about the importance of a statement. Bearcat (talk) 17:00, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Notability states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." and that: ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.". The article meets that standard of notability and in addition, the sources cites are both reliable and independent so as far as I can see, all three elements of the test have been passed. Sowny (talk) 21:01, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GNG is not just automatically met by every article that happens to have sources in it — it is not simply a matter of counting the footnotes and keeping anything that happens to surpass two, but also tests sources for their depth, their geographic range and the context of what they're covering the person for. That is, a political party leader does not instantly pass GNG just because you can show a blip of "person wins leadership" on the day of the convention and another blip of "leader resigns" on the day of his resignation — to get a political party leader over GNG, you have to show ongoing coverage of his work in the leadership, substantively establishing the significance of his leadership (which is not the same thing as the mere fact of it per se) and spanning the years in between the leadership conventions. Bearcat (talk) 23:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but the sources in the article establish notability beyond the threshold established by the policy, as written, and that is what is required. I cannot see evidence of the added strictures you are imposing in the actual policy, as it is written. Sowny (talk) 00:01, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I've often pointed out in AFD discussions, if the existence of two sources were enough all by itself to hand people a GNG-based exemption from having to be notable for any specific reason that would pass any of Wikipedia's subject-specific inclusion criteria, then we would have to keep an article about my mother's neighbour who once got into the papers for finding a pig in her front yard — which is exactly why notability doesn't work that way, and does work exactly the way I said it does: it tests the footnotes for factors like their depth, their geographic range and the context in which they're covering the person, not just for whether n>2 or not, and not all possible sources are equal contributors toward the actual notability test. We require coverage which establishes the significance of his leadership, not just the technical fact of it per se. Bearcat (talk) 00:23, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:47, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Tone 20:49, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Bug and a Bag of Weed[edit]

A Bug and a Bag of Weed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Semi-advertorialized article about a film, not making or reliably sourcing any serious claim to notability per WP:NFILM. The only notability claim in evidence here is that the film exists, which is not in and of itself an inclusion freebie in the absence of any actual sources to establish passage of WP:GNG. But all I can find in any real media outlet (as opposed to blogs and film directories like IMDb) is one review in one magazine, which is a start but not enough all by itself -- and it doesn't have any "inherent" notability claim, such as notable film awards, strong enough to earn the "keep in spite of poor referencing" treatment in lieu of having to have a lot more reliable source coverage than this. Also probable conflict of interest, as the article was started by an editor whose username matches the name of the film's screenwriter. Nomination withdrawn as another user has found better sources than I was able to; if this discussion proceeds any further, it is to do so without my name on it, because I categorically disown it, do not stand by it and refuse to have my name associated with it any further. Bearcat (talk) 20:22, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:22, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:22, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Bearcat: Which magazine reviewed it? I found where the movie was covered (in enough depth to qualify as a review of sorts, I suppose) in an academic press book, along with some coverage of production. With the magazine review this could safely squeak through NFILM. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:11, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • On a side note, this is kind of one of those "be careful about covering yourself in some way" since what I'm finding isn't all on the positive side. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:13, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:46, 22 September 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 20:49, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Freishia Bomanbehram[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Freishia Bomanbehram (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

May pass WP:NACTOR if role in Blood Monkey, When Harry Tries to Marry and Cambala Investigation Agency is explained that how she is notable for being in these films. GNG looks a far case. Comments please. -- Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 09:23, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 09:23, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 09:23, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

--Saumyalakhani (talk) 09:45, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Freishia B. played the character of Piya in MTV show Pyar Vyar and All That in 2005 and as Salman Khan's sister in Marigold (2007 film).

3 --Saumyalakhani (talk) 10:01, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Just being famous is not a guarantee of being notable. A single role other than lead role doesn't count for WP:NACTOR - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 12:16, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:57, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 21:07, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - zero evidence of notability; can't see any major roles in any major productions Spiderone 17:26, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:46, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per Spiderone. 1292simon (talk) 00:43, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The third references states Meet Freishia Bomanbehram.... dated 20 July 2020. Not a good indication of being notable. She is gorgeous and assuming she does well at her new presenting job, there will be another attempt at an article shortly, so probably WP:TOOSOON. scope_creepTalk 09:06, 28 September 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. Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:02, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Sinclair (veterinary surgeon)[edit]

Donald Sinclair (veterinary surgeon) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As with his brother's AfD discussion, there doesn't appear to be significant coverage about this individual, or anything which would satisfy notability per WP:ANYBIO: again, his fame appears to be solely by dint of the fact that a supporting character in the semi-autobiographical All Creatures Great and Small (franchise) was based on him, which wouldn't pass WP:NOTINHERITED; and as with his brother's page, I can't see any obvious target for a redirect. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 20:46, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 13:09, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 13:09, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 13:09, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The subject is the reality behind one of the three main characters in a series of books, TV series, and films that have been extremely popular for around half a century. His activities and personality were fundamental to the genesis of the material. To describe him as merely 'a supporting character' is disingenuous. Frankly, this is a ridiculous nomination, that one has to assume has been made by someone who has no idea of the widespread interest in, and popularity of, the material that is significantly based on this person. It's particularly odd considering that even TV series that only ran for a few years may well have separate Wikipedia entries for many of their fictional characters. PRL42 (talk) 16:29, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment PRL42 could you direct me to the pages for the many fictional characters you mention? Unless I've missed something, the only character who has their own page is James Herriot. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 07:38, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you have misunderstood what I wrote. I was contrasting the suggestion that a character that was the basis for one of the three primary characters of a set of books, TV series and films that have been popular for fifty years should not be considered notable, whereas there are myriad entries for fictional characters in TV series that have only run a few years. If you want an example, look at 'Parks and Recreation' (admittedly an excellent series), where virtually all the main characters have their own page.
You're right, I did misunderstand you: my apologies. However, your argument seems to be predicated on the argument that other stuff exists. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 19:36, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and as it say in the 'Other stuff exists' article, this can be a valid or invalid argument. "Winston Churchill and my dog are both mammals, Winston Churchill has an entry so therefore my dog should have one" is clearly absurd. It is agreed that Wikipedia should be consistent, so my argument is that as the franchise that is significantly based on this subject is both extremely popular and extraordinarily long lived, it should be acceptable that the information be present. However, see my comment after the re-list notice. PRL42 (talk) 08:55, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It may be that the problem here is that the article is titled for the real person and should actually be subsumed into an article titled for the fictionalised name. Possibly the best move would be to create an article for Siegfried Farnon rather than have that title redirect to Donald Sinclair as it does at present - particularly as that is almost certainly the starting point for the route anyone interested in the character would take PRL42 (talk) 10:55, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 21:08, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If it helps, when Sinclair died in July 1995, his obituary was widely published. Here's the New York Times obit, and ProQuest shows similar obituaries in the Chicago Sun-Times, Boston Globe, Daily Telegraph, Washington Post, etc. I don't know how much that adds to notability, because for the most part they say "he was the inspiration for Siegfried Farnon" and not a lot else, but I offer it here if anybody wants it. — Toughpigs (talk) 02:46, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The reason that this article should exist is that the information concerns a major character in a major and very long running franchise, that has been popular around the world for half a century. other stuff exists is virtually useless in helping here, as all it really says is that you cannot simplistically use other stuff does or doesn't exist to argue for or against an entry. For consistency within Wikipedia, and on a like for like basis, however, I would suggest that for an entry such as this, it would be more correct to ask someone petitioning for deletion to be asked to explain why this entry should be treated any differently from the thousands of other entries for characters in fiction. The only real difference here is that this character redirects to a bio for the person it was based upon, rather than having a entry for the character's name, containing his semi-fictional details and including this bio. It's not possible to do this at the moment because of the extant redirect, and it does not seem appropriate to change that whilst this discussion is ongoing. I'd suggest that the best option would be for the article and redirect to be deleted at which point a proper entry for the character in the franchise can be created. PRL42 (talk) 08:55, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:46, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject has clearly been noticed; the page gets thousands of views on a daily basis. If more details and sources are wanted then this is done by looking for them; not deleting the page. For example, see The Originals: Who's Really who in Fiction, which has entries for the Sinclairs. Applicable policies include WP:ATD; WP:NEXIST; WP:NOTPAPER and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:17, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on above discussion. Balle010 (talk) 02:59, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can’t see anything that would not seem to be accurate. It’s still of some interest. There is a new TV drama featuring the fictionalised version of this person — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.242.141 (talk) 06:39, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This deletion proposal is ridiculous. Sinclair, via Farnon, is eminently notable. The more so in light of the new TV series. Arcturus (talk) 22:37, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sinclair/Farnon is a highly notable characher and regardless of whether he is better known as Farnon, he has been an intrinsic part of the story line/history of countless books two re-makes of a television shows and a movie. He has been played by two notorious actors, Robert Hardy and Sir Anthony Hopkins. For those interested in the history of James Herriot, Sinclair is invaluable. Southy01 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.19.142 (talk) 13:20, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the article needs a lot of cleanup and sourcing, but the subject is clearly notable. Archrogue (talk) 20:21, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:42, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Sinclair (veterinary surgeon)[edit]

Brian Sinclair (veterinary surgeon) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find any significant coverage about this individual, or anything which would satisfy notability per WP:ANYBIO. His fame (if it can be called that) appears to be solely by dint of the fact that a supporting character in the semi-autobiographical All Creatures Great and Small (franchise) was based on him, which wouldn't pass WP:NOTINHERITED. As an alternative to deletion, the page could potentially be redirected to one of the pages about the franchise, although I'm struggling to find an obvious target. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 20:39, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 13:11, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 13:11, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 13:11, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The subject is the reality behind one of the three main characters in a series of books, TV series, and films that have been extremely popular for around half a century. His activities and personality were of great importance to the genesis of the material. To describe him as merely 'a supporting character' is disingenuous. Frankly, this is a ridiculous nomination, that one has to assume has been made by someone who has no idea of the widespread interest in, and popularity of, the material that is significantly based on this person. It's particularly odd considering that even TV series that only ran for a few years may well have separate Wikipedia entries for many of their fictional characters. PRL42 (talk) 16:31, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Comment: It may be that the problem here is that the article is titled for the real person and should actually be subsumed into an article titled for the fictionalised name. Possibly the best move would be to create an article for Tristan Farnon rather than have that title redirect to Brian Sinclair as it does at present - particularly as that is almost certainly the starting point for the route anyone interested in the character would take PRL42 (talk) 10:57, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 21:09, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have now created a page for the character and this article is included. This brings things into line with standard Wikipedia practice whereby characters from fiction have entries based on their fictional names. Therefore I've changed my suggestion to 'delete'. PRL42 (talk) 09:14, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article is undersourced and google searches are not finding anything substantial that could be added. The only notability derives from the character based on him in the book which is too tenuous. If there was an article covering the book series, then mention of him and his brother as the inspiration behind the Farnon brothers characters would be appropriate but there is nothing sufficient for a standalone article on him. noq (talk) 07:57, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Actually, not 'just in the book', but in seven books, two films and two sets of TV series, the first of which has sold world-wide. This person, albeit under his fictional name, is extremely well known and is is very likely that anyone interested in the books and series would be interested in the person who is the basis for one of the three main characters. PRL42 (talk) 08:41, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Further - a second TV series based on the original (bestselling) series of books has now (Autumn 2020) been made and broadcast, with a 2nd series commissioned. Interest in the characters is likely to increase, given that it is widely known that the fictionalised Tristan Farnon (who appears from the 2nd episode) and other primary characters were based upon real people who lived until comparatively recent times. (This unsigned comment was originally appended by 90.255.166.171 to the 'keep' above in a way that defeated the auto sig robot. Moved by PRL42. PRL42 (talk) 07:51, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:46, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to McGovern Centennial Gardens#Bust of Bernardo O'Higgins. (as merge has been carried out already, I will be redirecting shortly. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:11, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bust of Bernardo O'Higgins (Houston)[edit]

Bust of Bernardo O'Higgins (Houston) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

From what I can tell, this does not pass WP:GNG. The citations in the article are not independent. My WP:BEFORE revealed this, but not sure if it counts.  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 19:46, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 19:46, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 20:03, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions.  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 20:57, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Merge and redirect: I don't have access to article text, but a search at the Houston Chronicle archives suggests there's some coverage during the 1990s. A search for "Bernardo O'Higgins" yields 19 returns; Patricia C. Johnson published an article called "City attorney will step into sculpture dispute" on May 30, 1992. Also, there's another article called "Restored to glory: City's statuary begins to look like new again", published on August 25, 1996, and another called "Passions burn hotly for "The Liberator'", published on December 4, 1994. I am not suggesting these are all about the sculpture, but they may have some details worth incorporating. I write about public art a lot, and I've learned sometimes one cannot simply Google search for information about public artworks and monuments/memorials. Sometimes a bit more digging is required to learn about a work's funding, dedication, relocation(s), reception, etc. I'd prefer to keep this article until someone can review the Houston Chronicle archives and complete a library search for other books and resources which may have more information. ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:34, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there is simply not enough coverage. I had a good long search for coverage and found nothing other than the fact that the sculpture was donated to the city of Houston by a large Chilean corporation in 1992. The Houston Chronicle articles carry no weight here as we have no idea what their text says. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:25, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ThatMontrealIP: Um, you're saying we should ignore the Houston Chronicle sourcing simply because of accessibility? No, sorry, that's not how sourcing works. The Houston Chronicle is a reputable news source and coverage should be considered. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:44, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Another Believer: there is no confirmed Houston Chronicle sourcing, as you can't read it. You are speculating that coverage exists in articles that you do not have access to, based on some search results. There is no indication of whether the articles returned form the search are name checks, trivial mentions or significant coverage. It's not that I am ignoring it: it's that there is nothing to ignore. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:03, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ThatMontrealIP, We'll have to agree to disagree. I'm not comfortable assuming there's "nothing" when there's something. If I still lived in Houston I'd do some research at the library. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:13, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Another Believer: Ok then, what do the sources in the Houston Chronicle say?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:38, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's a question for someone with access to the archives. I've posted a neutral note at WikiProject Houston asking if anyone has access: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Houston#Bust_of_Bernardo_O'Higgins_(Houston). I hope this is appropriate. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:49, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good neutral note. I also copied and pasted it at WP:TEXAS.  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 02:45, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bait30, Thanks, ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:47, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bait30: Per feedback received at WikiProject Houston, I've changed my vote to merge and redirect. I do ask that a true merge to McGovern Centennial Gardens be completed when this discussion is closed. I don't want to lose any of the information we've been able to collect about this sculpture. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:50, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 21:18, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to McGovern Centennial Gardens where it is already mentioned. Sourcing is quite scarce, and nothing we know about this bust's merit, presence or provenance qualifies it for an independent article. --Lockley (talk) 23:26, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:43, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect as previously suggested, doesn't merit own article per WP:GNG. There is not much in the Houston Chronicle archives in the stories referenced by Another_Believer. I put this at the Houston page but will also add it here.
  • "RESTORED TO GLORY/City's statuary begins to look like new again" - story about Sam Houston statue. O'Higgins bust mentioned in a list of the 17 statues in worst shape among Houston's 90 statues
  • "City attorney will step into sculpture dispute" - story about cruciform sculptures that were rejected by the city. O'Higgins bust mentioned in one sentence: "the commission recommended that a gift from the government of Chile, a bronze bust of Capt. Bernardo O'Higgins, founding father of the republic, be accepted for the International Sculpture Garden located in Hermann Park."
  • "Passions burn hotly for 'The Liberator'" - story about a statue of Simon Bolivar. Passing mention of O'Higgins the person (not the Houston bust): ""The Liberator" is a household name in much of South America, though to Argentines that title belongs to Jose de San Martin and to Bernardo O'Higgins in Chile. Both were Bolivar contemporaries who led the independence struggles in those countries."
LizardJr8 (talk) 20:51, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
LizardJr8, Thanks again for your help here! Much appreciated, and I've referenced your work above and was drafting my comment below before you posted. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:53, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Sandstein: Thanks for extending this discussion, but an editor at WikiProject Houston was able to review the sources in the Houston Chronicle archives. I'm the article creator and only keep vote above, and I'm now fine with merging and redirecting the page, if you'd like to go ahead and close. As noted above, I'd prefer a true merge to the McGovern Centennial Gardens article be completed because I don't want to lose any information about the sculpture. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:52, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I welcome final attribution, templates, discussion closure, etc, but I've gone ahead and completed the merge and shared a link to the feedback provided by User:LizardJr8 to the McGovern Centennial Gardens article's talk page for future reference. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:05, 22 September 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. Fenix down (talk) 17:15, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Sligo Rovers F.C. season[edit]

2011 Sligo Rovers F.C. season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All fail WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS; nothing worth keeping or merging or redirecting

2013 Sligo Rovers F.C. season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2014 Sligo Rovers F.C. season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Spiderone 18:31, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:31, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:31, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:31, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:32, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 18:37, 22 September 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. deleted by admin DGG per G11 (non-admin closure) Megan☺️ Talk to the monster 11:57, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lido Learning[edit]

Lido Learning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. No effective referencing. scope_creepTalk 18:27, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:33, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:33, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:33, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:NCORP not established, PROMO issues. Also, article does not have enough categories.

    (...just kidding about the categories!) 1292simon (talk) 09:58, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1) Added more categories 2) Removed future planning in Young Leaders Scholarship. Added objective and advantages of it 3) Added more references

Literacy in India is a key for socio-economic progress. With revolutions in the Edtech domain, online education in India has seen rapid progress as it takes away some of the major limitations of conventional classroom learning like location, accessibility, transportation etc. Lido learning focuses on teaching Maths, Science, English, and Coding online to kids in the K-12 category. The Wikipedia page of Lido learning is very important to create awareness and visibility about the organization that provides online education to children. Hence I request not to delete the page. Also, it would be great to get more feedback for improving the page and I will be happy to work on it accordingly. Thank you! Dr. Punit Mangal (talk) 19:38, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I speedy deleted this as G11, promotional , before reading the above statement. that statement certainly confirms the promotional intent. Wikipedia is not intended to be used for advocacy. . DGG ( talk ) 03:56, 30 September 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 MangaGamer. MBisanz talk 14:43, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edelweiss (visual novel)[edit]

Edelweiss (visual novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sources cited since 2011, and Google brings up nothing usable. Even the Japanese Wikipedia entry for this game lacks reliable, third-party coverage. Appears to fail Northern Escapee (talk) 18:11, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northern Escapee (talk) 18:11, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northern Escapee (talk) 18:11, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Appears to fail" ... what? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:03, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or convert into an article on the developer and rename it. The Japanese Wikipedia on the game doesn't seem to have any sources. The developer article seems to have some, but not sure if they're relevant to our WP:GNG. TTN (talk) 20:25, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also looks like redirecting to English publisher MangaGamer might be a good place. TTN (talk) 14:46, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Appears to fail WP:V and WP:GNG, I guess. Japanese Wikipedia article is not much better. I see some blog reviews but also a few less bloggish, so it seems sources do exist. One : [3]. Another: [4]. One more: [5]. Not sure if they are all reliable, but this may squeak by. (Also, some additional reviews seem to be from 18+ sites and may contain 18+ content, this one for exammple is blocked at my workplace: [6]). I am open to the discussion on whether those are reliable, but hmmm, I think there is enough out there to make it pass notability requirements. But best to review those sources outside one's workplace, lol. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:14, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • RPG Valiant's about+staff pages admit that it's an enthusiast site by fans. Anime UK is a situational per-writer type of source according to WP:A&M/RS and usable in this case. Gaming Target is considered unreliable according to WP:VG/RS. Fapservice is just someone's blog about anime-adjacent pornography and doesn't even have an about/staff page... I'm not necessarily saying "delete" - I haven't done a search myself - but solely based on the example sources you listed, there's just one RS, meaning this would not pass GNG.--AlexandraIDV 09:01, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to MangaGamer per TTN. No evidence of notability—per Alexandra, the sources just aren't there. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:53, 28 September 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. Fenix down (talk) 17:14, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Shamrock Rovers F.C. season[edit]

2012 Shamrock Rovers F.C. season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS Spiderone 17:57, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:57, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:57, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:57, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 18:05, 22 September 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. Fenix down (talk) 17:14, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2012–13 FC Gandzasar Kapan season[edit]

2012–13 FC Gandzasar Kapan season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS significantly Spiderone 17:51, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:51, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:51, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:51, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:51, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 17:54, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:43, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cornwall, Missouri[edit]

Cornwall, Missouri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All indications are that this is/was a non-notable railroad station, not a community. GNIS gives it a census code of U6, which by definition is a populated place without legal recognition as a community, which does not pass WP:GEOLAND. A 1952 book of Missouri place names by Ramsay, which is considered to be one of the better books on the subject for Missouri, calls it a railroad station. State historical society calls it a railroad station. Old book calls it a station. 1910 topo shows not a whole lot there, and it at a point along the railroad. By 1959, there's about six buildings there. A little more there by 2000, but the development is a ways from the site, and seems to be associated with the railroad. Apparently copper deposits there, but since the Cornwall Copper Mine was a thing, that may not actually be about this "populated place". With the census code saying this is not legally recognized as a community, several sources calling this just a railroad station, and nothing refer to this as an actual community, I'd say this likely fails WP:GEOLAND, the WP:GNG failure is a bit clearer. Hog Farm Bacon 18:53, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 18:53, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 18:53, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 17:44, 22 September 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. Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:00, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Noel Quiñones[edit]

Noel Quiñones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Mr. Quinones does not meet the notability criteria as outlined in WP:FILMMAKER. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 22:00, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 22:00, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:10, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 16:33, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 17:41, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I too would had nominated it for deletion based on the sources listed in the when nominated. However, the 4 cites provided by AleatoryPonderings above tip the balance in favor of a Keep. What this article needs is to have AleatoryPonderings's cites incorporated into it. The cites are important as they are from three (3) independent secondary sources which consist of articles covering the subject of the article directly (as opposed to "in passing" only) and abundantly (as opposed to cursory). The article needs to be copy-edited a bit to show these 3 new cites as well as to highlight Quiñones's "Flight of Fancy" film, which itself has its own WP article. Mercy11 (talk) 01:50, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources presented by AP, establishes notability. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:25, 29 September 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. Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:00, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kapil Jain[edit]

Kapil Jain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creepTalk 17:41, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - company may be notable, but notability is not inherited to the person who founded it. 1292simon (talk) 09:55, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - zero evidence of any notability Spiderone 09:53, 28 September 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:03, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Akhil Rajendra[edit]

Akhil Rajendra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Created by an SPA. Seems to be a non-notable actor, failing WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 17:10, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 17:10, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*This page should not be deleted as Akhil Rajendra has written a masterpiece book DECODING THE GOD AND THE RELIGION - Volume-1 (https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&sxsrf=ALeKk03wwuiMqZxL1ZvJTo825RD1XxNsCQ%3A1600834277688&ei=5cpqX9ijKd-K4-EP6rWEiA8&q=DECODING+THE+GOD+AND+THE+RELIGION+-+Volume-1+akhil+rajendra&oq=DECODING+THE+GOD+AND+THE+RELIGION+-+Volume-1+akhil+rajendra&gs_lcp=CgZwc3ktYWIQAzIHCCEQChCgATIECCEQFToECAAQRzoFCCEQoAFQkTlYplBg7VJoAHACeACAAf8EiAHuNJIBBDUtMTKYAQCgAQGqAQdnd3Mtd2l6yAEHwAEB&sclient=psy-ab&ved=0ahUKEwiYqtyztP7rAhVfxTgGHeoaAfEQ4dUDCAw&uact=5)

  • DO NOT DELETE

Akhil Rajendra did very choosy and classy works in films, let that be in-film advertising or acting, so WP requires to have his page

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jumpytoo Talk 04:55, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*DO NOT DELETE this page as Akhil Rajendra written book DECODING THE GOD AND TEH RELIGION-Volume-1 released last week, which is unique in a way of bringing science and spirituality on same page, this book is available internationally on

https://www.amazon.in/Decoding-God-Religion-Akhil-Rajendra/dp/9390266769/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=9789390266760&qid=1600145358&sr=8-1

For International Print Copy Orders:-

USA - https://www.amazon.com/dp/9390266769 UK- https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/9390266769 GERMANY- https://www.amazon.de/dp/9390266769 FRANCE- https://www.amazon.fr/dp/9390266769 SPAIN- https://www.amazon.es/dp/9390266769 ITALY- https://www.amazon.it/dp/9390266769 JAPAN- https://www.amazon.co.jp/dp/9390266769 CANADA- https://www.amazon.ca/dp/9390266769

This page is very much required as Akhil Rajendra always worked with big co-actors and renowned technicians in his films and theatres.

Akhil Rajendra played main male protagonist in legendary actor Vinod Khanna's [{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinod_Khanna} {https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0451396/}]last film. Akhil Rajendra's co-actors profile on wikipedia and IMDb is following-

Daisy Shah was opposite Akhil Rajendra in BEGHUMJAAN [{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daisy_Shah} {https://www.imdb.com/name/nm2207567/}] Rati Agnihotri played Akhil Rajendra's mother in Downtown [{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rati_Agnihotri} {https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0013159/bio}]

Ganesh Acharya was choreographer in Akhil Rajendra's DOWNTOWN [{https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1017494/} {https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganesh_Acharya}]

Gufi Paintal played Akhil Rajendra's BEGHAMJAAN as his father [{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gufi_Paintal} {https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1031824/}]

  • NOT TO BE DELETED

Akhil Rajendra at IMDb {https://www.imdb.com/name/nm7216738/}

Akhil Rajendra has the credit of venturing India’s first full fledge, exclusive in-film advertising agency to organise and making in-film brand/product promotions as another stronger media vehicle of advertising and had set the all-time best example of in-film association by making brand Cadbury-Bournvita as an integral part of the script of the blockbuster film Rakesh Roshan's [11] "koi Mil Gaya", starring Hrithik Roshan {https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hrithik_Roshan} this was well appreciated and is still talked about.

Akhil Rajendra's profile includes the in-film advertising for country's leading brands and corporate houses with leading production houses with the films like: -

• "Yaadein"of Subhash Ghai (Brands–Paas Paas, Hero Cycles), • "Koi Mil Gaya"of Rakesh Roshan (Roshan Brands–Bournvita, Avon Cycles), • "Main Prem Ki Diwani Hun"of Suraj R. Barjatya (Brands–Yahoo India, Lays (Uncle Chips)), • "Masti"of Indra Kumar (Brands–Paas Paas), • “Bas Itana Sa Khwab Hai“ Producer–Rose Movies Combines Director–Goldie Behal Brands–Onida, Archies, Reebok • “Hum Pyar Tumhi Se Kar Baithe” Producer–Rajshri Productions Pvt. Brands–Hero Honda Cbz, Nokia • “One Two Three”(In Tamil, Telagu & Kannada) Producer–Siddhesh Films Director–K. Subhash Brands–Paas Paas • “Dil Vil Pyar Vyar” Producer–Matelight Productions Pvt. Ltd. Director–Anant Mahadevan Brands–Paas Paas

  • DO NOT DELETE

Akhil Rajendra directed ad-films and campaigns for the leading corporate houses with leading films and sports celebrities, following are links of his works:-

1- 'Be In Touch' campaign for M/s Cipla Pharmaceutical with cricketer Virender Shehwag [{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cipla} {https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virender_Sehwag} {https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqB7ZD2kyt8} {https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6La-HzKin9I&t=2s}]

2- 'World Heart Day' campaign for GSK [{(Glaxo SmithKline){https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GlaxoSmithKline_Pharmaceuticals_Ltd} {https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4u0djBTOKc&t=2s}]

3- Indiabulls Pharmaceutical Launch Campaign [{https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pm2INrQdp0g&t=110s} {https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiabulls}}

4- Akhil Rajendra has directed and produced 50 plus advertisements videos/films, available on his channel [{https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCFhN7LyGf6__LiRa7w44_Eg?view_as=subscriber} {https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCcmyG4t94w} {https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mukesh_Ambani}} including the AV for M/s Reliance Chairman Mukesh Ambani.

  • Delete - no evidence of notability at all; clear WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR failure; Amazon, YouTube and IMDb are not reliable sources either Spiderone 07:59, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*PLEASE DO NOT DELETE WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR can you please let us know that what references and details will you need, which you consider or considered in general as reliable sources? Akhil Rajendra is already verified on google, It is really an information for us that amazon is not reliable, where his book DECODING THE GOD AND THE RELIGION Volume-1 is selling internationally through above links.

Here's a good starting point WP:RSPSOURCES Spiderone 21:28, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, YouTube and WP are not WP:RS, and publishing a book doesn't always make you notable. WhoAteMyButter (📬│✏️) 16:44, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:GNG ,Just spam links and unreliable sources on the article and not even close to meeting notability guidelines for actor-- Padavalam🌂  ►  18:14, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Does not meet WP:GNG, keep votes are from SPAs making duplicate votes. Jumpytoo Talk 19:06, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have struck through the !votes by those confirmed to be socks by the SPI. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 23:03, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This page should not be deleted.., he (Akhil Rajendra) is pioneer in the business of in-film advertising in india...

He well known among the fraternity https://hamaraphotos.com/bollywood/scoops/vinod-khannas-very-kind-gesture-for-akhil-rajendra.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.79.72.76 (talk) 04:08, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How is that a reliable source? Spiderone 10:16, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia should keep this page, as Akhil Rajendra's recently released book DECODING THE GOD AND THE RELIGION -Volume-1 is among top 10 in one of the category world-wide, which is getting good reviews as 'Masterpiece' work

https://www.amazon.in/Decoding-God-Religion-Akhil-Rajendra/dp/9390266769

https://books.google.co.in/books/about/Decoding_The_God_and_The_Religion_Volume.html?id=A9L8DwAAQBAJ&redir_esc=y

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=A9L8DwAAQBAJ&printsec=copyright&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/1043002

https://www.scribd.com/book/476292851/Decoding-The-God-and-The-Religion-Volume-1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2401:4900:5175:2137:1:0:3265:BDF6 (talk) 14:04, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Google books, Scribd and Amazon are not sources that we can use for notability. Anyone can put something on those, it doesn't make them notable. What makes Smashwords a reliable source? Have you got any reliable newspapers covering this guy in depth? Spiderone 14:14, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, have fixed blanket strikeout so that legitimate user's entry is not struck out, naughty mopper has been duly admonished. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Does not meet WP:GNG or any notability guidelines and blacklist for the socking VVikingTalkEdits 13:31, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, WP:GNG as discussed above, following are the links from reliable news papers if amazon where my written book is among top selling in one category is not considered reliable.

https://www.mid-day.com/articles/bollywood-actress-daisy-shah-to-debut-on-stage-in-new-play/17391171

https://www.mumbaitheatreguide.com/dramas/Articles/16/jun/daisy-shah-debuts-on-stage-with-begum-jaan.asp

https://www.mid-day.com/photos/photos-salman-khan-sneha-ullal-watch-daisy-shahs-play-begum-jaan/10538


https://www.india.com/photos/entertainment/awww-salman-khan-attends-premiere-of-friend-daisy-shahs-debut-play-begum-jaan-72918/daisy-shah-performing-during-the-premiere-of-her-debut-play-72935/

https://www.pressreader.com/india/mid-day/20160710/282406988681785


Also I would mention here again that, these were our efforts to get the username UNBLOCKED and stop the page Akhil Rajendra from the delation by sending more and more explanations, we never ever had any intention of misusing wikipedia and we need did it in past. We are nor expert as yet on wikipedia, but learning the practices of is guidelines. Requesting you to not to delete the page and unblock the accounts and IP addresses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.106.194.228 (talk) 07:51, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked all 5 references and none of them are WP:SIGCOV (significant coverage) at all Spiderone 11:20, 29 September 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:23, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Genesis Park[edit]

Genesis Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another run of the mill financial firm. A search for sources brought back several hits about an unrelated dinosaur park, and that's about it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:00, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:11, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:11, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:11, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No effective references. Run of the mill business news, funding, share growth and announcements. Fails WP:NCORP. scope_creepTalk 18:03, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as per nom. 1292simon (talk) 05:17, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I am unable to find anything beyond routine coverage. WP:CORPDEPTH is not satisfied. --Kinu t/c 21:09, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Crazy Horse#Genealogy. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:44, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rattling Blanket Woman[edit]

Rattling Blanket Woman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Unable to locate any significant biographical details in secondary sources. Being mother to Crazy Horse does not presume notability, and Wikipedia is not a genealogy. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:51, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:12, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:12, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:13, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:24, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge. I see even shorter articles about other Native Americans, such as Crow Foot and One Bull, after clicking on just a few other articles in the Lakota people category, so that seems to be fairly normal. Perhaps there should be a WikiProject drive to fix this issue, either building on these stub articles, incorporating them into related articles, or deleting all of them, but at the moment this article seems to be in the norm, and it contains information that does not occur in any other article, including Crazy Horse. There is a section in Crazy Horse's article ("Genealogy") where the unique information from this article would fit well. --Iritscen (talk) 17:54, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Iritscen: I did a thorough search for biographical information about this person before proposing (PROD), and then nominating it for deletion. You suggest "building on these stub articles". How would you do that for this particular article? Magnolia677 (talk) 17:49, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since you did do a search for more information on her before nominating, I guess I don't have any suggestion on how to build on this article. I'll settle on a merge position then. I think it's relevant to Crazy Horse's background and childhood to mention the suicide of his mother and her replacement by a sister. --Iritscen (talk) 00:16, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nothing in this article suggests anything about Rattling Blanket Woman is notable. People do not gain notability from their children.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:46, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Cf. Mary Anne MacLeod Trump 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:06, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. In my Google Books search, an excerpt says, "Rattling Blanket Woman later married and had three children, two girls and a boy." It's odd that it doesn't mention Crazy Horse by name there, considering his notability. Also, the article under discussion lists one girl and one boy as offspring. I suspect it's another woman by the same name. --Iritscen (talk) 17:26, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Crazy Horse#Genealogy. Like those before me, I can't find sources that suggest Rattling Blanket Woman is notable in her own right. (And the sources in the article are explicitly about Crazy Horse, not Rattling Blanket Woman.) I agree with earlier discussion that the Rattling Blanket Woman in The Sioux: Life and Customs of a Warrior Society is likely not the same one this article is about, so that rules out really the only possible source. I wavered a bit between merge and redirect because I'm not sure to what extent the information not currently in the Crazy Horse article about Rattling Blanket Woman is actually relevant enough to Crazy Horse to merit inclusion in the Crazy Horse article. But I'm leaning merge with this one just because the sources seem to support this info being relevant to Crazy Horse. Can't see a reason to delete when a merge/redirect is pretty obvious in this case. Samsmachado (talk) 00:03, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with the above stated article. As much as I love any article about Indigenous/American Indian women she does not meet the requirement for notability in and of herself. She is an important figure in history, especially as it relates to American Indian history, through her son, Crazy Horse. A merge into his genealogy is appropriate and will still give her recognition.Tsistunagiska (talk) 20:31, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm concerned about merging this article into the genealogy section of another article, when a longstanding consensus has been that Wikipedia is not a genealogy. Magnolia677 (talk) 09:55, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I actually agree. I don't think that articles should have genealogy sections, except to mention notable ancestors or relatives. My feeling about the current state of the Crazy Horse article is that the "Early life" section and "Genealogy" subsection are disordered and contain a little too much information, but they don't really give a general family tree that would violate NOTGENEALOGY. There is actually very little unique information in "Rattling Blanket Woman", but I would argue that it still belongs under "Early life". When I look carefully, I'm not actually sure that there's more than a single salient fact about his mother that is not already in "Crazy Horse", which is that she committed suicide due to feeling that she had been replaced. I think that certainly deserves mention in "Crazy Horse". --Iritscen (talk) 12:13, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- Her notability is only derivate (inherited) from that of her son. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:13, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such rule or guideline. If you mean WP:INHERIT it is an essay that recommends arguments to avoid during deletion discussions. No one during this AfD is arguing Keep because of her relation to Crazy Horse. Please read the essay it is often misunderstood. -- GreenC 20:36, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Again it seems she is not notable in her own right.Slatersteven (talk) 13:23, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge She appears to be significanty documented, but not notable in her own right. -- The Anome (talk) 13:28, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, per above. —Brigade Piron (talk) 14:12, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge sources and content. -- GreenC 20:37, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. MBisanz talk 14:45, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Golems of the Red Planet[edit]

Golems of the Red Planet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Band in its genesis, but not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG, and certainly doesn't meet WP:NBAND. Onel5969 TT me 15:38, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 15:38, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Looks like an interesting project based on serious musicology, but as the nominator noted, the group is just getting started and it is too soon for a Wikipedia article. ––DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 01:24, 27 September 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:23, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spider Gang[edit]

Spider Gang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't appear to be a notable music collective despite the many name drops in the article itself. No coverage to be found, unless of course we're talking about Baby cannibal spider gangs. Praxidicae (talk) 15:14, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:14, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no indication or evidence of notability. Completely lacks reliable sources. PKT(alk) 18:11, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I couldn't find any detailed coverage of the collective on reliable publications. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 11:02, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable band. As the first sentence of the article states, they are underground and they haven't been covered by reliable media. The article is sourced to trash sites like Youtube, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Imgur and Genius only. No evidence of notability. Also, the article was created by a user whose Wikipedia activity only revolves around this band (he hadn't edited anything else). GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 09:31, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Probable promotion attempt for musical act that self-releases and self-promotes its material. Good luck with that, but for Wikipedia you have to be noticed and covered by someone other than yourself. ––DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 01:22, 27 September 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:23, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Md. Yousuf Gazi[edit]

Md. Yousuf Gazi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not close to meeting GNG nor NPROF, see Google scholar profile. Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 15:12, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-notable person. Does not meet WP:GNG. DMySon 15:17, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per DMySon, non notable individual. Doesn't pass WP:N --Chiro725 (talk) 15:18, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Captain Calm (talk) 15:25, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Captain Calm (talk) 15:25, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Clearly does not pass WP:PROF#C1 and the article makes no other claim of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:48, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Possibly self-promotional spam. Anyway, it's a GNG and NPROF fail. Hog Farm Bacon 17:08, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, h-index of just 2 in GScholar, nothing else to indicate passing WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 19:21, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:PROF, a mere lecturer. --Zayeem (talk) 18:03, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable individual Spudlace (talk) 06:07, 26 September 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 rough consensus is that this list is an indiscriminate list. A lot of the discussion surrounds other stuff (doesn't) exist, and there's some disagreement as to whether this list is more analogous to a 'list of product or activity performers' versus 'list of people who follow X religion', but the fairly substantial weight of consensus agrees it is closer to the former, and that that type of list is not suitable for Wikipedia. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:57, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of people who have learned Transcendental Meditation[edit]

List of people who have learned Transcendental Meditation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:IINFO, this is a an indiscriminate list of people who claim to have learned or practiced TM. In a spot check of sources, all I've seen are one-sentence throwaway mentions in profile pieces, and nothing that indicates that there's any greater significance.

This is no different from a List of people who have seen Titanic. It's a notable film, and I'd bet we can find quotes from notable people about how they hated/loved it, but it's still not an appropriate topic for a list. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:04, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:04, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:04, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:04, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sure, we do NOT make List people who are not Christians or List people who hate Christians. But we do make Lists of Christians. Same about other religions. My very best wishes (talk) 16:05, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To me, the basis for the article we are discussing is as valid as any of the red-linked lists I and others have suggested. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 16:08, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, but your argument here is inventing "OTHER STUFF THAT DOES NOT EXISTS". My very best wishes (talk) 16:22, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article is clearly promotional -- basically promoting a POV by showing how many celebs believe in TM. Would Wikipedia carry an article "List of people who believe in faith healing" or "List of people who believe that vaccines cause autism" or "List of people who believe that Dr. Fauci is part of a Deep State conspiracy"? NightHeron (talk) 15:20, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but rename to List of practitioners of Transcendental Meditation. Yes, this list is useless for someone who is not interested in the subject of Transcendental Meditation. However, we do have pages about all people included in this list, and all items are sourced. Most references do provide useful information for someone who would be interested in this subject. Hence this is a legitimate list. For the same reasons we have legitimate List of Scientologists, Lists of Christians. This is a large movement with a number of notable adherents. None of these lists is an obvious promotion, but rather a supplementary information relevant to main subject. Perhaps this list could be renamed to something like a "list of practitioners of...", but that should be a separate discussion. My very best wishes (talk) 15:34, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with others that simply a list of people who have learned a certain technique, like a "list of people who meditate", would not be legitimate. Hence rename. My very best wishes (talk) 17:28, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reference to OTHERSTUFF is not a strong argument. List of Scientologists at least provides some balance by listing former members, in some cases with sharp criticisms of Scientology. Lists of Christians is also different, although not without its own problems (all of the 6 references given are currently invalid, because a commercial site now owns the domain name). NightHeron (talk) 16:14, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My argument is not "OTHERSTUFFEXISTS", but our policies as they apply to WP:lists rather than regular pages. See also comment by Literaturegeek below. I am saying that "OTHERSTUF" is also policy-consistent. My very best wishes (talk) 16:18, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't practitioner of TM a nebulous concept? How would you define it? Suppose at a certain moment a celeb gives an interview in which they say they're practicing TM, but soon after they pass on to sweat lodges, shiatsu massage, or some other form of pseudoscientific cultural appropriation that's in fashion? Do they get on the list of TM practitioners? Do they get on the list, and then get taken off later (assuming there's RS saying they're no longer practicing TM)? Do they get on a list of former practitioners? NightHeron (talk) 19:18, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if a celebrity openly self-identify as a follower of Transcendental Meditation movement (as documented in RS), I think he belongs to the list. Same would apply to scientologists, etc. Switching an allegiance from one religion to another could qualify someone as a "convert", but probably not in this case (I can easily imagine that someone self-identify as a Christian AND as a member of this movement. Yes, this maybe tricky because is it actually a religion? According to our page Transcendental Meditation movement, it does qualify as a new religious movement, at least according to some sources. That's why I voted "keep". If it would be just a community of people who exercise yoga, that would be an obvious "delete". Yes, I am sure some of them just do their meditation and do not believe in Maharishi, but so are many Christians who only go to the Church, but do not follow the Sermon on the Mount by any stretch of imagination. My very best wishes (talk) 22:38, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Yes, TM contains a lot pseudoscientific ideas and pseudoscience “research” to promote it, but that is not grounds for deleting it. Nor is it comparable to people who have watched a film because watching a film is not a way of life or religious or spiritual belief system. We have a list article for Scientologists: List_of_Scientologists. This list proposed for deletion is notable, per WP:N, so clearly the article should be kept. Given the controversy surrounding TM, undoubtedly this is going to attract a lot of LIKEIT AND DONTLIKEIT votes, but it comes down to WP:LIST, WP:N, WP:RS and WP:V which this article proposed for deletion seems to satisfy.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:09, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If kept, it should be renamed to List of people who have practiced Transcendental Meditation. That would at least suggest it’s about something the entries do rather than just know. No opinion beyond that except I do think this is far less trivial than the nom characterizes it. postdlf (talk) 16:16, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds reasonable. My very best wishes (talk) 16:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. You learn this thing by buying a course from the TM organization. So, similar to Deacon's analogy, that is a list of people who bought a specific product from a specific company. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:28, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This list was initially created as a list of "practitioners" and renamed (see discussion here). Is it actually a "list of buyers"? Looking at the multiple references in the list (like that [12]), this is a list of practitioners/adherents, not just buyers (yes, they possibly took initially a course of meditation, but this is hardly relevant). One should simply rename it back and remove any items that have been included without proper justification - just as for any other list. My very best wishes (talk) 16:40, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't really answer my questions about how practitioner of TM is defined, and whether the list would include someone who took it up briefly and then dropped it a while later. The last paragraph of Transcendental meditation points out that practitioners do not have a common belief system. It seems it's more analogous to shiatsu and pilates. Perhaps it's similar to a hobby. We have a lengthy List of hobbies (about 500 hobbies listed), but fortunately not lists of notable people for each of them. NightHeron (talk) 20:10, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just as for any other lists, "a practitioner", a "member of a church", etc. is simply someone who was described in RS as such or openly self-identify as such. I am surprised you are asking. My very best wishes (talk) 22:10, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt it's really so clearcut in the case of TM. For example, Nicole Kidman is on the list based on something she reportedly said in 2014. But an editor objected, giving three reasons why he didn't think she really was practicing TM (see [13]). And do we know if she (or others on the list) is still practicing TM six years later, if ever she was? NightHeron (talk) 00:23, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, this is happening all the time with all lists. If this can not be reliably sourced (or there are contradictions), then the item does not belong to the list, and especially living people. My very best wishes (talk) 02:09, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see two problems here with this list that most lists don't have. First of all, New Age types of self-improvement practices of the sort that became fashionable in the West in the 1970s and intermittently since then are often engaged in for a brief period of time after which the "practitioner" passes on to other things. In contrast, someone is not likely to self-identify as a Christian and then change their mind the next year. Thus, many of the "practitioners" in the list may in fact be former practitioners. There are often no RS to tell us whether or not the individual was a life-time TM practitioner or a 6-months practitioner. As the OP says, the sources are mainly one-sentence throwaway mentions in profile pieces, so there's only very weak adherence to WP:V.
Secondly, listing celebrities who at one point said they believe in some theory is really promotional; although many people would find it interesting information, such a list belongs in a website whose purpose is to promote TM and not on Wikipedia, per WP:PROMOTION. The promotional nature of the list is especially concerning because the TM movement spreads fringe claims about health. According to WP:FRINGE, a Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is. NightHeron (talk) 11:43, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree this list is at the borderline of keeping and would not worry too much if it is deleted. But promotion? WP:NOT is about obvious and blatant promotion. Sure, one could say that a list of scientologists might be a promotion to some degree, and a lot of other lists and pages as well (every page in this list does promote a notable person by providing information about them), but the actual guideline is this: Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone_lists. My very best wishes (talk) 19:24, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree that it's not blatant promotion in the sense of advertisement for a company. What concerns me is an NPOV issue. According to WP:PROMOTION, Wikipedia is not for Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise. An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. Whether TM is a mainstream movement that brings benefit to millions of people or a cult that makes false claims and promotes pseudoscience is controversial. A list of notable people who like TM, with no mention of notable people who see the movement as a cult, reads like an endorsement of TM in wikivoice. As I mentioned before, the Scientology list at least does mention former members who've sharply criticized Scientology and called it a cult. NightHeron (talk) 20:10, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No this isn't a diet, but it's not the general concept of meditation, it's a form of meditation popularized by one person, just like the Atkins diet is a form of dieting popularized by one person. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:24, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Indiscriminate list. An illustrative mention of influential practitioners on the main article might be OK, but a long list doesn't add value. Neutralitytalk 01:49, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is the most indiscriminate list I have seen this year, and we have seen some duzzies this year, including the attempt to create a list of all notable people who had tested positive to having been infected by the Covid-19 virus. With nearly 1 million articles on living people, that would have become an uncontrolled nightmare if it had been allowed to remain.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:30, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep List of people who have seen Titanic is a bizarre straw man. The list in question easily passes WP:LISTN because it's easy to find coverage of the numerous famous people who do this such as this or that. There are obviously sensible alternatives to deletion and, when taken with the similar attack on vegetarians, it seems rather tendentious. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:50, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it really such a straw man though? Here's a list of celebrities who are obsessed with Titanic (omgz). It was a bit of a silly example, sure, but it didn't take me long to find that. Maybe I could find even more for other movies. In any case, TM is notable; the people in the list are (mostly) notable, but the list as a whole fails IINFO. Your first source is mainly about one person's use of TM (and how they were introduced to it). That might be good for their bio, but it doesn't justify a list like this. Your second source talks about TM in Hollywood, also focusing on the same person, mentioning others here and there. That might help support an article about TM in Hollywood as a notable topic on its own (or perhaps just a section in the TM article), but it doesn't support this list (it's only really talking about actors after all, and before anyone jumps on that, no, that would also be a bad idea for a list). Compiling a massive, indiscriminate list like this is precisely what IINFO is about. What ATDs should be we considering here? Also, please don't refer to good-faith deletion nominations as tendentious or an "attack". –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:41, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it's barely been ten days since this user was censured for making bogus accusations against AfD participants. Yet now he's at it again. Obviously nominating a vegetarianism-related list is no more an attack on vegetarians than voting delete on a list of Egyption shopping malls is an attack against Africa. Reyk YO! 19:32, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete- I am persuaded by LuckyLouie's argument that this is effectively a testimonial and falls afoul of WP:IINFO. Reyk YO! 19:17, 26 September 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. MBisanz talk 14:45, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Kellogg[edit]

David Kellogg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG. He did direct Inspector Gadget, which is a fairly notable film. However, I see no real coverage of Kellogg, in depth or otherwise. There appear to be multiple individuals of this name, including a newspaper writer and an academic. They each appear to have more sources available than this Kellogg.

Yes, he has a lot of music video and ad credits, but these are, as admitted by the article 'partial' credits, meaning he worked on a team. That does not establish notability, and the awards listed are not in his name. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 15:03, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 15:03, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 15:03, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Being signed to a notable label indicates importance/significance. Sednablast —Preceding undated comment added 22:31, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What label are you referring to? To my knowledge he does not appear to be a musician. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 12:44, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
He is signed with Anonymous Content, therefore is involved with ongoing projects. By label I mean production media label not a record label - apologies. Sednablast 21:39, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE Fails to meet basic GNG. Cannot find any RS that covers him in depth. BLPs require a good level of meaningful coverage. Seems like a resume. Cannot find evidence that he is signed to a label as indicated in the article. Anonymous Content external link has no mention of him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lausapwow (talk • contribs) 03:01, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Agree with nom that he fails WP:GNG. I go back and forth on WP:DIRECTOR. KidAd talk 04:27, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE Fails WP:GNG, WP:DIRECTOR. The article lacks sufficient or reliable sources for a WP:BLP, nor could I find anything myself. IMDb is a questionable source (unless footnotes are cited) with a poor reputation for checking the facts. WP should not be an indiscriminate collection of information. The article is a list of unexplained stats that lack context or verification created by a likely WP:COI, which undermines the public's confidence in WP. We must get the article right and be very firm about the use of high-quality sources with integrity. Ultraquark (talk) 22:06, 26 September 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. MBisanz talk 14:45, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Masters, Missouri[edit]

Masters, Missouri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

State historical society calls it a "trading point". A very informative book by Ramsay exists for Missouri place names at [14], but he does not mention this town. Not on the 1886 topo, but it may not have existed then. 1950s topo shows five buildings, in the present day (via Google maps) there's two or three houses and a bunch of agricultural outbuildings. Only coverage hits I'm finding are in GNIS mirrors and an WP:SPS family history book on Google Books. Someone with newspapers.com access (not me) might be able to turn up something, but I'm not seeing a legally recognized populated place that would pass WP:GEOLAND, nor the coverage to pass WP:GNG. Hog Farm Bacon 18:30, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 18:30, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 18:30, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence that it meets even minimal definition of a community and nothing suggests that it meets basic Wiki notability thresholds. Glendoremus (talk) 03:44, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep community once was an active rural trading point with residents, per historical society source. If the community largely has died out, add "Little remains of the original site" rather than deleting.72.49.7.25 (talk) 04:07, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GEOLAND. Google search yields nothing. Google maps yields some intersecting bits of highway. KidAd talk 04:17, 24 September 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. Withdrawn by nominator with only keep !votes. (non-admin closure) AleatoryPonderings (talk) 00:11, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saskia de Brauw[edit]

Saskia de Brauw (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The problem is, she is a notable model in that she is considered an "industry icon" (not exactly a supermodel, but someone who has had longevity in the industry. Or The industry icons are models who have built stellar careers, they've snagged every cover, walked every show, booked every campaign, and lived to tell the tale. Before you can be a true supermodel, you have to become one of the industry's preferred stars and these girls are all bonafide favorites. In her case, campaigns for Armani, Chanel, Givenchy, Versace, etc.), and is seen as notable for having a great career “over 25” (Christ.) but it’s hard to find enough significant coverage to keep the actual article out of. I’ve seen things in Vogue and what not, but sadly it’s not sufficient here. Trillfendi (talk) 14:56, 22 September 2020 (UTC) They seem to believe these sources do the job, so here is withdrawn. Trillfendi (talk) 19:21, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 17:17, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 17:17, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 17:17, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I had no trouble finding in-depth coverage. Example, example. The article needs a cleanup. I'm not sure how much of an art career she really has, but as a model there is a lot of coverage. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:24, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
These sources barely substantiate the contents of the article (which had about 5 issue notices before I removed 3 of them). Net-a-porter, at the end of the day, is a clothing website. Trillfendi (talk) 17:31, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then I guess we will need to have a shorter article. There are many, many sources out there. GNG is clearly established. Example, example, example, example, example.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:34, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nytimes article: "When the Dutch artist and fashion model Saskia de Brauw first started traveling to New York for work, eight or so years ago, she found the city “a really overwhelming place.” NYtimes article: "A Walk Through Manhattan With Saskia de Brauw" Vogue article: "Saskia de Brauw and Vincent van de Wijngaard Go Off the Grid With a Multimedia Project, Ghosts Don’t Walk in Straight Lines".ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:42, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - based on the multiple reliable sources found by ThatMontrealIP. Netherzone (talk) 19:13, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the many sources from ThatMontrealIP, she meets WP:BASIC and citing just one source found by , she is clearly a notable model.[1]. AfD is not cleanup, and clearly the inability of Trillfendi to find RS is not the same as failing GNG. HouseOfChange (talk) 21:16, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I didn’t ask you if AfD was cleanup. One of the many issue templates said that the article‘s only attribution was a primary source. I considered whether or not general notability was met. This was all but useless. Trillfendi (talk) 22:07, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Trillfendi Like many others, I watchlist Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Women, where clearly notable women are sometimes AfDed, as for example you recently also did at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Judith_Exner. There is enough SIGCOV to show SdB is notable, as everyone else but you so far agrees. HouseOfChange (talk) 22:43, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Trillfendi did you do a WP:BEFORE on this? ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:47, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Did I not just say that? Trillfendi (talk) 23:10, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yet so much SIGCOV remained invisible.[2] HouseOfChange (talk) 14:33, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]


References

  1. ^ Pons, Sabrina (2012). "Saint Laurent Paris : qui est Saskia de Brauw?". Elle.fr. Retrieved September 22, 2020. À 29 ans, un âge qui sonne bien souvent le glas d'une carrière chez les tops, Saskia se fait très vite une place. En 2010, elle défile pour Balenciaga et Givenchy. Et tape dans l'œil de Riccardo Tisci qui la propulse égérie de sa collection en 2011. Il l'aime tellement qu'elle défile également pour sa collection homme. Dans la foulée, le créateur italien la présente à Carine Roitfeld, alors patronne de « Vogue Paris ». Subjuguée par sa silhouette masculine, elle la prend sous son aile et lui consacre un numéro. Sa coupe à la Jeanne d'Arc fait aussi son petit effet chez Chanel où Karl Lagerfeld lui fait ouvrir et fermer son défilé haute couture en 2011. En 2012, elle fait encore mieux : elle devient le nouveau visage de Chanel. Bref, une star est née. (Tr: At 29, an age that often marks the end of a career with the tops, Saskia quickly carved out a place. In 2010, she walked for Balenciaga and Givenchy. And it catches the eye of Riccardo Tisci, who propels her as the face of his collection in 2011. He loves her so much that she also walks for her men's collection. In the process, the Italian designer presents it to Carine Roitfeld, then patron of "Vogue Paris". Captivated by her masculine figure, she takes it under her wing and devotes an issue to her. Her Joan of Arc cut also had an effect at Chanel, where Karl Lagerfeld had her open and close her haute couture show in 2011. In 2012, she did even better: she became the new face of Chanel. In short, a star is born.)
  2. ^ Diderich, Joelle (January 25, 2016). "Saskia de Brauw Comes Into Her Own With Art Book". Women's Wear Daily. Retrieved September 23, 2020. Her androgynous look led to the project that perhaps best unites her artistic and modeling skills — the 2013 video for David Bowie's "The Stars (Are Out Tonight)," in which she plays a disquieting gender-bending celebrity who eventually ends up taking Bowie's place.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:10, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abijith Paul[edit]

Abijith Paul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a case of WP:Too soon. The subject has made cameo appearances in his first two films. This source says that his third film is also minor [15]. This article should not exist unless the films starring him in the lead role get released. Until then, he fails WP:Nactor. Also created by a paid user. TamilMirchi (talk) 14:51, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 14:51, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 14:51, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a case of WP:TOOSOON indeed. Cameo appearances do not confer actor notability. Draftify is another option but considering that the article was created as paid promotion, riddance and recreation at an appropriate time makes more sense. Sunshine1191 (talk) 05:39, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:43, 25 September 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. MBisanz talk 14:46, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dhani Matang Dev[edit]

Dhani Matang Dev (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can't find a source. Doug Weller talk 14:50, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It is high time we require every Wikipedia article to have a source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: Maybe there are sources in Hindi. I'll post the AfD note in Hinduism Wikiproyect talk page, maybe somebody can help there. Alexcalamaro (talk) 04:54, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good idea. Without any source to verify it must be deleted. Spudlace (talk) 06:14, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge to his great-grandson Mamaidev. Unless there is more in the Hindi WP, his only notability seems to be INHERITED from his descendant, apart from the existence of a statue. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:20, 26 September 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 15:10, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Pierre Abbat[edit]

Jean-Pierre Abbat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no substantive claim to notability at all. Being involved in shifting one product to production with plastic instead of wood is not really a sign of notability at all. This article is also unsourced as well. How long has it been unsourced? well, it has had a notice of being unsourced for 11 years. However this article has been unsourced over 18 years. No, I am not exagerating. Of the 6 million plus articles in Wikipedia this is one of the less than 100,000 oldest, probably among the 50,000 oldest. Not only is this article with no sources, but the article creator admits with his creation that he is the son of the subject. This article violates all sorts of policies on no orginal research, conflict of interest, and need for notability. True, many of these policies did not yet exist in 2002, but Wikipedia does not grandfather articles but applies current policies on articles. My search for sourcing came up with absolutely nothing. John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:45, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:59, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:59, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:59, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:59, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:59, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
agree:) Coolabahapple (talk) 02:22, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unable to establish notablility. ~Kvng (talk) 14:57, 27 September 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:48, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CN-MoM[edit]

CN-MoM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The term "CN-MoM" (or "combined node method of moments") only appears on the two conference papers cited on the article (which themselves have no citations). All citations except Harrington's Method of Moments book appears to be the original research of the article's creator, including a PhD thesis on the specific method (WP:COI/WP:SELFCITE/WP:OR) The method itself is a modification of MoM for PCB analysis; I couldn't find any further independent research or follow-up publications in the CEM literature to establish the notability of this method for a standalone article (or a section on the boundary element method page). Myxomatosis57 (talk) 14:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 14:43, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 14:43, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I also looked but could find nothing here; it appears to be research spam. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:48, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Probably an attempt to promote the creator's own work, what with the technique being credited to Reza Sabbagh Amirkhizi and the page started by Reza1506 (who has edited nothing else). In any event, as the nomination argues, it's not a notable method. XOR'easter (talk) 05:37, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:GNG, with no coverage of this anywhere except from the creator. I couldn't find anything in extenral referenced and there is no mention of this in the Harrington reference. — MarkH21talk 21:51, 24 September 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:49, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The grave below[edit]

The grave below (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Self-published book (author: Patrick Hansma, publisher: Patrick Hansma) distributed in 09.2020. [16] Not significant and does not pass WP:NBOOK. Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 13:00, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the written corpus of vampire fiction, the dynamic between church and vampire has had a steady progress from 1) antithesis to 2) indifferent to 3) irrelevant (as documented in J Gordon Melton's The Vampire Book: the Encyclopedia of the Undead). The novel which this wiki article is about, represents a paradigm shift in that relationship and is therefore significant in the scope of vampire fiction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MorbidAnatomy (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:09, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:11, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-notable, self-published book. There does not appear to be a single reliable source mentioning or discussing it. Rorshacma (talk) 15:30, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the article is so short and so bad it leaves doubt as to whether the book exists. Amazon.com verifies the book exists, but is self-published this month. No coverage at all other than a few online book stores. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:30, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's nothing out there to show that this very newly released book is notable. I get the impression that there's a very strong conflict of interest here by the article creator, so I must caution them against creating articles on things that they or people they know have created. If the claims are true, then coverage will eventually come about and someone else can create the article. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:54, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unreferenced, fails WP:V > WP:N, and in any case looks like self-promo for a self-publish. Or put it this way: if this stays, ummagunna create articles about the books I've written, and nobody wants that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:24, 23 September 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 15:11, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Papaye Fast Food[edit]

Papaye Fast Food (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional article about a Food company that seems to fail both WP:CORP and WP:GNG. It was recently declined through AFC and no substantial change in the article since then. Sources provided are primary, blogs, and ones that do not have in-depth coverage. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 12:15, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 12:15, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 12:15, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 12:15, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete highly promotional article standing on primary and unreliable sources. Northern Escapee (talk) 19:25, 24 September 2020 UTC
  • Comment It is very promotional but AFC reviewer says "maybe notable". There is a writeup in TimeOut (major publication) [17], so yes, I think maybe it is notable. But like this, it is an advertisement. Will anyone fix it? Spudlace (talk) 02:27, 26 September 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 15:11, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Samir Kalmoni[edit]

Samir Kalmoni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable businessman who does not satisfy either WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Sources provided do not discuss the subject directly and in detail. A BEFORE search shows mere mentions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 11:30, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 11:30, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 11:30, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable businessman. Wikipedia is not LinkedIn.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:47, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Promotional piece of content. Does not pass WP:GNG. DMySon 14:14, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Tone 15:11, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kohrville, Texas[edit]

Kohrville, Texas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly referenced article about non-notable geographic feature, with possible (but not certain, hence this AfD rather than WP:G12 speedy) significant copypaste content, and nothing much remaining if/when that's removed. Fails WP:N / WP:NGEO and possibly WP:V. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:06, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:06, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This carries a strong presumption as a populated locality under WP:GEOLAND. The WP:COPVIO issue can be dealt with by ordinary editing. See refs here and here. FOARP (talk) 12:51, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I would have stated hold because it seems excessive to have this put forward to AfD due to a COPYVIO but the community is in the GNIS as a starting point for verifiability. Additionally, you can't tell me that none of that copy and pasted material explaining some of the history is not salvageable? – The Grid (talk) 13:02, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I've already had a crack at the history section and if the bit about schools is also a copyvio then it can be dealt with the same way. @DoubleGrazing - AFD is really for articles that are beyond saving, not just ones that have a lot of problems. Read WP:TNT for explanation of where the save/can't save boundary typically is. FOARP (talk) 13:15, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:10, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep May not exist anymore but was a real community per [18]. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 14:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep The Handbook of Texas entry has a decent history which makes clear this was a real town. A quick check shows that none of the Texas city/town articles seems to cite GNIS, at least not well enough, BTW. Mangoe (talk) 18:44, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yeah, between the Handbook of Texas entry and the source now in the article stating a figure of 100 families at one point, this looks like a decent WP:GEOLAND pass, although I am seeing some copyvio red flags in the page history. Hog Farm Bacon 18:03, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - This looks like a very early effort by WhisperToMe. Much of this appears to be a ghost town, but we do articles on ghost towns all the time on Wikipedia. I've added some external links, because I don't have time to re-write this right now. Maybe someone can help. It's obvious from reading those eternal links that this Harris County community played an important part in the multi-cultural immigration to this area of Texas: "In the late 19th century, families arrived from Prussia, Denmark, Ireland and England, as well as several Southern states. African Americans also moved here from the Piney Point area west of Houston. The locale had multiple schools, churches, sawmills and a cotton gin in the early 20th century but remained sparsely populated until suburban growth occurred." — Maile (talk) 01:53, 25 September 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 15:11, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Filippo Addarii[edit]

Filippo Addarii (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not Linkedin/Resume WP:NOTLINKEDIN/WP:NOTRESUME. - Hatchens (talk) 10:09, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 10:09, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:10, 22 September 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 WWTC#"The Patriot". MBisanz talk 14:46, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Alliance Radio Network[edit]

Northern Alliance Radio Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability in the article, I can't find anything other than very trivial mentions. Doug Weller talk 08:12, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Doug Weller talk 08:12, 22 September 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 15:11, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Santo's Higham Farm[edit]

Santo's Higham Farm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY. It exists, and is old, but that is it. It has clearly been written as an advert and has been clogging up CAT:NN for 11 years. Boleyn (talk) 07:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:04, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it's just a hotel that has won some awards. I can't see any historical significance or coverage in reliable sources Spiderone 09:08, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Tone 15:12, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John Calarco[edit]

John Calarco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable musician. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Local coverage only. Fails WP:SIGCOV. No fans, no social media. scope_creepTalk 07:56, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:03, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:03, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration.
I don't think so. That may be the case that he toured nationally, but the coverage is very hyper-local and is insufficient to pass WP:SIGCOV and that is consensus. I did an Afd for a Seattle singer recently with similar arguments, supposedly notable but it was very-local coverage. I think to pass, it need more geographically diverse coverage. scope_creepTalk 19:25, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
scope_creep the artist has several non-trivial features. Not really hyper-local- Milwaukee Metro area is 1.5 million. Our notability guide does not distinguish between regional or national- it states reliable sources. So are the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Milwaukee magazine, Colorado Springs Gazette Telegraph reliable? If the answer is yes- the coverage is reliable and not trivial. Wm335td (talk) 12:43, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Madison looks to be home town, with some additional coverage 50-60 miles up the road, at Milwaukee. It is insufficient to establish notability, per consensus. scope_creepTalk 19:30, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is an unfortunate case and we have seen this kind of thing before with "journeyman" musicians who have worked with many notable people but are not quite notable themselves. Calarco has some local coverage in his own right (Wisconsin music weeklies), but most of his media mentions are brief listings as being present in shows or recordings by the people he backed up. So he is a few steps away from notability in his own right. There is no problem with discussing his contributions to other musicians' works at their articles. ––DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 01:31, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Wm335td: 1.5 million people just confirms it is a local city band, it hasn't got country-wide coverage. I would read WP:THREAD. New comments move from the top to the bottom. Otherwise it would make it very hard to read. scope_creepTalk 15:14, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Wm335td:, I have dug up the Afd that related to this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily Triggs. Its states that typically we expect a group to have an exceptional regional coverage Having it is single locality is not coverage as defined per WP:SIGCOV. scope_creepTalk 21:24, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are referring to an editor's !vote in a single AfD? - I am referring to the actual WP:GNG guideline. "Reliable" means that sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability. "Sources"[2] should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected.[3] Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent. We will just disagree. Wm335td (talk) 01:28, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That comment is one of the best administrators on Wikipedia and reaffirms the fact that WP:SIGCOV means more than a city-wide act. We are really looking at the WP:MUSICBIO policy but both GNG and MUSICBIO only really work if there is coverage. If it is a local entity, whatever it is, then it doesn't work. There is no coverage. scope_creepTalk 08:44, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And you making that same arguments that the folk in that other Afd made. You fail to understand consensus. scope_creepTalk 08:44, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Administrators are not super-editors and they must follow and interpret guidelines just as we do. - So you have pointed to a single !vote rationale by a single editor (not even a closer's rationale) and then you hold it up as a guideline. I understand our position and I understand our notability guidelines. As I have stated I disagree with your position. Also Madison is not near Milwaukee and not a hometown - Madison is 90 miles west with a population of 200k. We have both made our points and this AfD is getting crowded with each of us repeating ourselves. Wm335td (talk) 13:15, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
90miles and 200k just confirms it. It is next door. It justs confirms that you don't understand the consensus. There is no regional nor country wide coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV scope_creepTalk 13:27, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Metro-Milwaukee area has 1.5 million people- if we are comparing nearby ...metro Chicago area is 90 miles south of Milwaukee and has 9.83 million people. I was pointing out Madison 90 miles west dos not have anything to do with this person or this AfD - it was referred to above as a "home town". Wm335td (talk) 13:36, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Gazette (Colorado Springs) would not be deemed "local" by me.
That he was featured in an issue of The Wise Musician ought to settle the matter.[1]7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:21, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Most coverage being in the city he most often performs in of course. He did win awards for his skills. He has performed on notable albums and notable musicians who could hire anyone they wanted choose him at times. Dream Focus 15:54, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Milwaukee and Chicago are the main music hubs, although traditionally Chicago looks down it nose. Madison is more of a college town than a music machine. I did find this from Milwaukee’s Shepherd Express. Looking at the spirit of why we have notability guidelines is that we don’t want fraudulent content and we strive for good articles. I think GNG has been met and a good article is possible. That a drummer of a band garners much attention at all is surprising. Gleeanon409 (talk) 22:51, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Tone 15:12, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Toni Ann Johnson[edit]

Toni Ann Johnson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Biography is has very little to no citations. Appears to be a vanity article. Appears to be fail GNG. If you look at the humanitas prize, she didn't win the award. The films won the award. BlackAmerican (talk) 06:02, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:FILMMAKER, WP:CREATIVE Authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals:

The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique.
The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.
BlackAmerican (talk) 06:11, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:12, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:12, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:13, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:13, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Has won the Humanitas Prize twice, for Ruby Bridges (1998) and for Crown Heights (2004). Softlavender (talk) 06:49, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Easily passes WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 07:20, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She meets notability. JSFarman (talk) 14:18, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Award winning author and screenwriter. (Article creator may have had a COI four years ago, but that can or has been fixed through editing.) pburka (talk) 14:37, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to awards won, and other independant coverage. -Kj cheetham (talk) 15:52, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There were plenty of references before it was nominated; there are even more now. The nominator does not address why the 30+ citations currently in the article are insufficient. — Toughpigs (talk) 16:28, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
comment My apologies. I saw a number of issues. For one, the Crown Heights reference was to a totally different movie with the same name Crown Heights (film) which shows it was written by Matt Ruskin. The movie The Courage to Love was a direct to cable tv. It seemed minor in my opinion. The Save the Last Dance was not for the film, but a TV pilot based on the film. Step Up 2: The Streets was not a major film. in my opinion. In terms of the Humanitas Prize. It is an award. I don't feel its a major award. [20] But even in Wikipedia, there is 61 film award groups just for America [21] , there are also 29 categories for TV awards just for America [22]. We aren't even considering that there are many subcatagories for the Humanitas Prize. If you look at the award on Wikipedia, she did not win the award. The film won the award. List of Humanitas Prize recipients . BlackAmerican (talk) 17:28, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NCREATIVE puts the threshold at "notable works". The Courage to Love and Step Up 2: The Streets both have Wikipedia articles, and therefore are presumed notable. Direct to cable TV can still be considered notable; these days, a large share of the notable TV work is either direct to cable (HBO, Showtime) or streaming (Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime). Saying that Step Up 2 is "not a major film" is your opinion, and doesn't have bearing on the notability of this article's subject. — Toughpigs (talk) 17:49, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In the end, all I am giving is an opinion. Today direct to cable or streaming is a huge deal. During that era though it was a showing of a subpar film. The Step up 2 simply shows that she hasnt produced any major films or works BlackAmerican (talk) 18:34, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You quoted the guideline above. It does not say "major film". It says notable film. Both of those films are notable. Your opinion of whether it was "major" or "subpar" is not relevant. Bad films can be notable. — Toughpigs (talk) 18:57, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a reliable source. She won the Humanitas Award in 1998 and in 2004. She did write Crown Heights. [23] JSFarman (talk) 18:01, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Very true, wikipedia is not a reliable source. The Crown Heights she wrote is a different film by the same name. The one that was linked earlier was from 2017. The one she wrote is from 2004. BlackAmerican (talk) 18:34, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the Crown Heights link in the article. -- Toughpigs (talk) 18:52, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
BlackAmerican, you stated that the film, not Toni Ann Johnson, won the Humanitas prize according to the Wikipedia article. She did win it, twice, based on the sources I referenced above. List of Humanitas Prize recipients is selective and doesn't cover all of the categories. (I noted this in the article, and if someone else doesn't edit it first, I'll add the additional categories when time permits.)
Also: everything that Toughpigs wrote. JSFarman (talk) 23:18, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keeped - Meets notability requirements per the intent of the guideline/rule. Tsistunagiska (talk) 20:24, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She meets the notability standard/requirements; she has plenty of valid citations. Veteranrecords (talk) 00:19, 29 September 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 Chlöe Swarbrick. Tone 15:12, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK Chlöe[edit]

OK Chlöe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

User talk:Cairo2k18 has made this article proposed for deletion for reasons of his belief that The article does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, the article only has trivial mentions from a couple of reliable secondary sources. I personally Objected and would rather have this article be dicussed and voted on.--Bennyaha (talk) 05:03, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.
That is what it means to oppose deletion, yes.--Pokelova (talk) 12:18, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pokelova, then the proper response would be "KEEP", not "OPPOSE" Donaldd23 (talk) 21:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Chlöe Swarbrick Nine sources are in the article. The first is a link to the doco on you tube. The second is a donations page for the film. The third seems to be a promotional site for the film. The fourth is a guardian page, but it is just an embedded video of the film and a three sentence promotional blurb. The fifth is a reliable source, but is not about the film. The sixth is the guardian again and it has an embed of the doco, but the text doesn't seem to make any mention of it. The seventh has some commentary on the doco. The eighth is facebook...so no. The last one is similar to the seventh and these are the only decent sources available. There is not really enough here to justify its own article and it would be better presented at the Chlöe Swarbrick one, where it is already mentioned. AIRcorn (talk) 09:43, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect I only found one citation [[24]]. Needs more than that, and nothing cited in the article now is good enough to pass WP:NFILM. Donaldd23 (talk) 21:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Chlöe Swarbrick - Definitely lacks notability as far as I’m concerned. but a redirect to the main person’s page sounds reasonable. Foxnpichu (talk) 23:24, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect It doesn't meet WP:NFILM but can have its own section under the Chlöe Swarbrick page. NZFC(talk)(cont) 02:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect As Aircorn notes, there is no substantial independent coverage. Even the citation found by Donaldd23 does not appear independent. HenryCrun15 (talk) 08:44, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Chlöe Swarbrick, but needs severe editing. "The reply made Swarbrick go viral." Maybe the comment went viral, not Swarbrick. Moriori (talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 15:13, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Ki-tae (military)[edit]

Kim Ki-tae (military) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SOLDIER and only known for the WP:1E of his claimed involvement in the alleged Binh Tai Massacre. All relevant detail on this page is already covered on Binh Tai Massacre. Mztourist (talk) 05:09, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 05:13, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 05:15, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Sawol (talk) 08:50, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or change to redirect - I mostly agree. There isn't enough material to write a full article. However, since he was a high-ranking eyewitness, redirecting is also a reasonable idea.Katemeshi101 (talk) 21:53, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom assuming that no Korean sources can be adduced to show he is notable in other contexts. —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:09, 28 September 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 15:13, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cypulchre[edit]

Cypulchre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:NBOOK. [25] is good as a source, but the Calgary Herald piece cited in the article appears to be based on an interview, so not clearly independent. [26] is from a student newspaper at Simon Fraser University, so not great either. I would have redirected it to the author's page, but there isn't one and I don't think it'd pass WP:NAUTHOR if it were created. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:26, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:26, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:26, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 14:11, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG. I looked through several Canadian databases but I could only find the same sources that the nominator mentioned. I might change my opinion if another source is found. Z1720 (talk) 02:46, 23 September 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 and redirect to La Verne, California. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:22, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Laverne, California[edit]

Laverne, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not recognized by GNIS. According to Durham and local historians, the Laverne post office operated from Jan. 1909 to April 1914 in Cooper’s Grocery on Linden Street in Mill Valley. There is a Laverne Avenue that predates the post office by several years. No one seems to no who Laverne was but there is no claim that Laverne was ever a community. Does not meet basic threshold for Wiki notability. Glendoremus (talk) 03:41, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Glendoremus (talk) 03:43, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Glendoremus (talk) 03:43, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This does not appear to have ever been a community. At most it was a post office. Not to be confused with La Verne, California, which exists. We might consider redirecting this title to that article, since someone might easily type Laverne when they mean La Verne. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:32, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought: To avoid confusion, it might be best to Delete and then redirect rather than leaving this history attached to a redirect about another community. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:48, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, delete and redirect would be more appropriate. Glendoremus (talk) 17:55, 22 September 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:54, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Rath[edit]

Derek Rath (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails notability checks. Has been around since 2006 but hasn't grown since. Balle010 (talk) 03:40, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:01, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:02, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doing a radio show on one station is not a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:43, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Barely found anything about him. Search results return either his articles or the man bearing the same name arrested for drug laundering. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 06:12, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - zero evidence of notability Spiderone 11:41, 29 September 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 15:13, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Frederick mayoral election[edit]

2017 Frederick mayoral election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable election SecretName101 (talk) 00:46, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:01, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:01, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Lockley: No specific standard yet. But in this case, this article does not state that anything particularly noteworthy took place in this election, the city itself is not large or significant enough that it would seem all of its elections would be automatically noteworthy (as a city like Baltimore, Philadelphia, Boston, or Chicago's elections can be), and neither of the two candidates appear noteworthy enough themselves to have biographical articles published about them. If Chula Vista (a city many times larger) did not have its election articles, with far more detailed analysis, be considered notable enough for independent articles, then this election surely is not up to par. In the case of Frederick, I'd recommend that (unless elections are, for some reason, of particular note), mayoral elections be relegated at most to a table on the article for the city showing the general election results of recent mayoral races. SecretName101 (talk) 20:37, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
thanks much @SecretName101:. I'd agree that we should only maintain separate elections articles for major cities (measured by population), or for special circumstances where the election earned news coverage beyond the local area. Chula Vista population about 271K. Frederick population about 72K. --Lockley (talk) 21:05, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Frederick is a pretty small city, and this is a routine election, with no claim to notability. Mangoe (talk) 22:08, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Lockley (talk) 01:44, 23 September 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, nomination withdrawn and no !votes to delete. XOR'easter (talk) 19:08, 22 September 2020 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Sabine Schindler[edit]

Sabine Schindler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable academic PepperBeast (talk) 00:36, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing this nomination. PepperBeast (talk) 17:03, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Schindler became a corresponding member of the Austrian Academy of Sciences in 2006,[1] and has been a full member since 2010.[1][3] She was elected to the International Academy of Astronautics in 2013. sounds an awful lot like WP:NACADEMIC#C3 to me. --JBL (talk) 01:33, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep membership in Austrian Academy of Sciences clearly meets WP:NACADEMIC#C3. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:00, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as creator of this brand-new article. Passing a single criterion of WP:PROF is enough for notability, but when I create new biographical articles on academics I prefer to choose subjects who pass more than one, to protect against overzealous deletionists. In this case she passes three: #C3 (twice over) as member of a national academy and society fellow, as described above, #C1 for well-cited publications (seven listed in Google Scholar with over 100 citations each; searching for her name actually finds eight 100+-citation papers but I think one of them is not hers), and #C6 as rector of a notable institution of higher education. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:07, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:55, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow keep, per David Eppstein. Passes WP:PROF on multiple grounds. The nominator would be well advised to quickly withdraw this nomination. Nsk92 (talk) 05:16, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to be wrong, but I'm not sure there is a way to unilaterally withdraw. PepperBeast (talk) 15:30, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sure, there is, since there have been no 'delete' !votes so far. You could append a comment about withdrawing the nomination below your nominating statement above. After that any other editoir can close the AfD as 'speedy keep'. The process is standard and is explained in WP:CSK and WP:WITHDRAWN. Nsk92 (talk) 15:47, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done! Thanks v. much for the info. PepperBeast (talk) 17:03, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow Keep Her university Curriculum Vitae states she is a full professor. Clearly notable. scope_creepTalk 11:31, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • To clarify, full professor isn't sufficient, but she is clearly notable. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:53, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep under WP:CSK #3, nominator doesn't seem to have done checked as per WP:BEFORE to see if passes WP:NPROF. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:53, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, a demonstrably notable academic. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:42, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, easily passing PROF just on citations and possibly other criteria as well.--Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 16:43, 22 September 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 15:13, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Efresh.com[edit]

Efresh.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant coverage per WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 00:30, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage. Dr. Vetter (talk) 02:22, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:01, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:02, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:02, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:02, 22 September 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 Kitty Pride#Other versions. Any usable content may be merged from the page history. T. Canens (talk) 02:07, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative versions of Kitty Pryde[edit]

Alternative versions of Kitty Pryde (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is entirely WP:OR based on primary sources. and a WP:CONTENTFORK that does not have sources to meet WP:GNG. BEFORE showed Fancruft/Listcruft articles.

Since this is entirely WP:OR fancruft and lacks proper sources, it should not be merged.   // Timothy :: talk  00:27, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  00:27, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:02, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This topic has been discussed by multiple reliable (and community-vetted) third party publications.

https://www.cbr.com/kitty-pryde-x-men-powerful-character/

https://www.cbr.com/marvel-xmen-kitty-pryde-love-interests-ranked/

https://screenrant.com/kitty-pryde-marvel-love-triangle-comic/

https://comicsalliance.com/unsinkable-ship-kitty-illyana-rachel/

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/lost-x-men-movies-arent-joining-marvel-universe-1195993

https://io9.gizmodo.com/the-greatest-spider-women-of-all-time-ranked-1796904543

https://film.avclub.com/a-brief-history-of-the-alternate-histories-of-the-x-men-1798268811

The OP nominating every Alternate versions article indiscriminately (with the same copy/paste rationale) is also cause for concern, especially after this post, which included at least one article that passed WP:GNG (Alternative versions of Batman), all of which are getting renominated at some point as clean-up. Darkknight2149 09:43, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Darkknight2149, Nonsense, all the articles I've nominated have closed as Delete. [27], [28], [29] (group nomination of 7 articles) and others that have been nominated have also been deleted [30], [31], [32], [33], [34].
The article you claim passed WP:GNG (Alternative versions of Batman) was deleted.
You don't have an answer to the nomination rationale, so you simply post ad an hominem attack. The articles are OR, they are a content fork, Fancruft/Listcruft articles sources do not meet GNG for notability.   // Timothy :: talk  13:47, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It was deleted on bandwagon voting after you cramed eight different articles into a single nomination. The problem is that you are assuming every article called Alternate versions is automatically fancruft or doesn't have coverage. I'm not making that up, it has been stated both in the vote below and in past nominations (note that both the nomination linked and several of the votes failed WP:NOTNOTABLE and WP:ITSCRUFT).
Likewise, what is your response to the six different articles from reliable third party news sites listed above? The Hollywood Reporter certainly is not a "fancruft source", as you claim above. Screen Rant is a reliable news source. Comic Book Resources is a reliable news source. IO9 is a reliable news source. Comics Alliance is a reliable news source. AV Club is a reliable news source. Where are these fancruft sources you speak of?
If something has enough coverage, it's notable, regardless of if the article is all plot (WP:NOTCLEANUP, WP:RUBBISH) or has Alternate versions in the title. Period, full stop. Claiming that they are all fancruft because of the title is hardly constructive and it's why I am going to renominate most of these in the future. Darkknight2149 19:14, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The overall topic of "alternative versions of the character" is not given enough attention in reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. It should be summarized in the main per WP:WAF and WP:NOTPLOT. The retention of content is unnecessary due to it being 100% plot information. It should be started anew. TTN (talk) 13:47, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Kitty Pryde per WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 22:43, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selective Merge. Ignoring the stuff about previous nominations of similar articles as irrelevant to this nomination, and having looked at most of the sources provided here (some my office firewall won't allow), I see little to suggest that the topic of Alternative Versions of Kitty Pryde is notable. I do see evidence that Kitty Pryde is notable, that alternative versions of the X-Men are notable, and probably Ultimate Kitty and Days of Future Past are worthy of being mentioned in the parent article. Most of the rest of this can be dumped. --Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 08:48, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Kitty Pride#Other versions, there is no reason for this to be a split from the main article since it is nowhere near the amount of prose where a split would be necessary. I would have suggested a merge, but there is no content here worth merging, as it is all in-universe information sourced to primary sources, an expanded section will have to be written from scratch. Devonian Wombat (talk) 08:50, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. Nothing wrong with multiple identical nominations if the affected articles are nearly identical. And the sources given by DN seem to be primarily about the character, with only a passing mention here and there to her 'alternate versions'. No need for a dedicated fancruft/plot-only subarticle. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:04, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or merge I can see how this is redundant with the Kitty Pryde article with not much to cover outside of various plot summaries and excerpts. But there has been a consistent practice to merge comic characters with similar non-notable spinouts. See the AFDs for: Gambit, Storm, Jean Grey, Venom, The Thing, and Rogue, all of which were merged or redirected. Daredevil was deleted, but that's an outlier. I'm sure I missed a few others. I think we should always strive to WP:PRESERVE and use alternatives to deletion. (Pardon the copy-paste rationale, which I used at a similar AFD for Deadpool, but the rationale is truly about consistent best practice across many similar articles). Archrogue (talk) 21:10, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or delete due to a lack of coverage in third party sources, thus failing the WP:GNG. It's all sourced to primary sources and there's nothing to merge, but would support some kind of summarizing if an editor is willing to take that on. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:07, 30 September 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. Numerically we are at 15 keep and 19 delete / redirect, which is no consensus. In terms of arguments, the "delete" side sees this as a WP:BLP1E case, whereas the "keep" side believes that Yaniv has received coverage beyond her role in her court case and is therefore independently notable. In my view, the "keep" arguments are somewhat weaker because it is not very clear from this discussion which sources exactly cover Yaniv in depth and outside of the context of the case. Still, a number of such sources were proposed by McPhail beginning on 3 September 2020 (UTC), and although they were contested, it is not my place as closer of this discussion to substitute my editorial judgment in assessing sources for that of the community's. The article is therefore kept for now, lacking consensus to delete it. Sandstein 08:06, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Yaniv[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Jessica Yaniv (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This BLP was spun out of British_Columbia_Human_Rights_Tribunal#Yaniv_v._Various_Waxing_Salons, which to me looks to be reasonable coverage of the case; however I would argue that an entire separate biography is WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP1E.

80% of the article is about that case, and the rest is a few minor incidents in her life, all from a single very local paper.

The article on the waxing dispute was previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Yaniv genital waxing case per NOTNEWS and BLP1E. Black Kite (talk) 20:47, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The prior AFD was, by it's title, was exclusively about the tribunal case, so really just an expansion of what's in British_Columbia_Human_Rights_Tribunal#Yaniv_v._Various_Waxing_Salons. Given the case was ongoing, and only so much to say (per WP:CRYSTAL), a separate article made no sense (at the time). The local coverage helps us discuss this person as an activist, and not just reference them as a single-note individual (it gives context to the person, we can't in the tribinual article). I think the arrest has garnered significant coverage [35][36][37]. So, it's worthy of inclusion, but will be out of scope in British_Columbia_Human_Rights_Tribunal. Also, I think there's clear room for growth in this article, in terms of the political/cultural dimension of it. There is this editorial in the Guardian about the nature/motive of most coverage of the case, why/how it's covered, combined with questions of motive of Yaniv, that can be used (it would of course, need to be attributed to the author appropriately, as opinion) that gives a much better understanding of what is actually going on, that can be explained in the Tribunal article. There is room for growth, but I've been intentionally slow in expansion, as I am trying to exclude the 95%+ of internet "news" that's blatantly bias and unreliable on this topic. -22:54, 30 August 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thivierr (talk • contribs)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Rob (talk) 23:12, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Rob (talk) 23:34, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Most everything that is in this article should just be in the article it's spun off from. Unsure a weapons charge moves this beyond WP:BLP1E territory. Rab V (talk) 03:14, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That will be hard now (with edits after your comment), since this article is much larger than the non-Yaniv portion of British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal. There's multiple things covered in reliable sources, that wouldn't fit in the the Tribunal article: her education, career/business, viral media campaign in 2008 (covered a decade before Tribunal case), arrest, local activism on varies issues, and allegations of harassment. The "Impact and reactions" sub-section could go in the Tribunal article, but it would make the Yaniv section somewhat over-weighted, since there isn't similar coverage in other cases. -Rob (talk) 07:56, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Rob (talk) 07:42, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Rob (talk) 07:43, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If we couldn't support an article about the incident, then we certainly can't support a WP:BLP1E of the person involved in it — the bar for that is markedly higher than the bar for an incident article. If the content in the Human Rights Tribunal article is starting to overwhelm it, that's less of a reason to give Jessica Yaniv a special personal exemption from BLP1E rules and more of a reason to trim that section as WP:UNDUE weight. Bearcat (talk) 20:07, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would have deleted the incident article and any bio, at the time of the incident AFD in August 2019. Time has moved on. The case has a resolution. it's no longer a CRYSTAL situation. There's now coverage of the significant impact the case has had on the community, and how it's seen. There's much more non-fringe coverage. There's also coverage beyond the case. There's general bio material, now. You seem to only be addressing what was, not what is. -Rob (talk) 21:21, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Basically what Bearcat says. If the incident does not merit the article, the person who is only notable for the incident even less merits an article. John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:54, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is like deleting potentional future movie project by unknown producer and using that "precedent" to later delete actual movie released with notable social impact. Please, can somebody explain the relevance of citing the prior AFD about a WP:CRYSTAL speculation of what might happen, and what might it mean, to an article with actual coverage of what actually happened, and what impact there is. When the country's leading newspaper runs an article titled "Jessica Yaniv fallout: Vancouver transgender activists says high-profile case has been 'massively negative' for community"[38], I think that conveys a degree of independent notability (to at least have a spin-off article). The multiple independent reliable sources providing substantial details about Yaniv, beyond the Tribunal case, justifies a bio article. In any event, if the !vote is to remove this article, I request we keep the content in history, place a redirect, and if worried of it being undone, protect it; as there's ample improvement over the Tribinal aritcle coverage, including better sourcing, that doesn't cite primary source of the case itself. It will take time to work an appropriate amount, back into the main article. -Rob (talk) 22:17, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This person and the publicity surrounding them has become well-known around Canada. As such, I feel that this page meets the relevant guidelines for Wikipedia. TheEpicGhosty (talk) 23:47, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What changed here exactly? The Guardian article Thivierr references above in support of Yaniv's significance was available back in 2019 when we decided that Yaniv's case didn't even warrant coverage, so why would it justify a full-fledged BLP a year later? Although there are few more recent articles cited in the entry, the fact that they consistently identify Yaniv as "the woman who filed that waxing case" is a strong indication of a WP:BLP1E who no one would recognize for anything beyond that incident. Where's the WP:SIGCOV that we could cite to talk about her legacy and significance? What can be said about her impact on society beyond her being a punching bag for tabloids? Nblund talk 03:57, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"What changed here exactly?" The case was decided! You didn't know? Rather than list everything changed here, I'll let you read the full article. I would have added more to the article, but I've figured out (belatedly) that the longer the article, the fewer people actually read it before !voting. In your AFD nomination, you stated "Since the Tribunal has not yet handed down a decision, it seems implausible to think that we're going to be able to say anything about the "lasting import" of this case at the moment." You were absolutely right. I would have deleted the article for that very reason. You mentioned the Guardian piece that's older, but there's the TorStar quote I gave above (post judgement). I've cited multiple independent reliable sources explaining the impact of the case. You complained in your AFD that "The overwhelming majority of coverage comes from opinion pieces". However, most citations in this article, are to factual articles, in reliable sources. The opinion pieces that I cited are by notable opinion makers in reliable publications, and are definitely not the garbage that is 95%+ of internet results. -Rob (talk) 04:57, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
IIRC, there was never any doubt that the case would be decided, but the argument was that the case would have significant legal impact. I don't see evidence for that, and it wouldn't justify a standalone BLP anyway. As for reliable coverage of Yaniv since this event: it appears to be limited to either local coverage (Aldergrove Star) or more coverage from the same Post Media tabloids (National Post, Spruce Grove Examiner, etc.), that have been humping this story from the start (Edit there was a story on the weapons charge from Global News, which is not Post media, so that's 1.). Why don't more prominent outlets like the CBC appear to care about the arrest of this significant national figure? Nblund talk 17:17, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So, you didn't know the case was decided, but after being told, now think that's a trivial fact? Of course the case didn't have a significant *legal* impact. It didn't change law. You clearly still haven't read the full article and sources, or you would understand what I was referring to. Also, Postmedia does own tabloids, like Toronto Sun. National Post isn't a tabloid, despite common ownership. Notice I avoided use of former Sun Media outlets. -Rob (talk) 19:46, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really not sure where you're getting the impression that I didn't know the outcome of the case: I worked on the description of the wording. I brought up legal precedent because, in the prior deletion discussion, several keep !voters argued that the case would produce important case law. It hasn't done that, as far as I can tell.
As for Post Media: other sources have remarked on the general trend toward more centralized and more openly partisan coverage across Post Media properties. That alone doesn't make them unusable, but the discrepancy between their interest in Yaniv compared to other outlets is pretty glaring. A bonafide significant figure would probably generate more coverage in other outlets. Nblund talk 23:12, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as she is covered significantly in news coverage in 2020 after the tribunal case was over.--Astral Leap (talk) 07:35, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, a review of Google News shows Yaniv featuring in the press fairly regularly, and not solely for the human rights tribunal cases (which are themselves high profile). McPhail (talk) 22:55, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How many are from independent, high quality, reliable sources? Google News searches turn up results from a number of outlets (like The Post Millennial) that are not considered reliable. Nblund talk 23:18, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say Forbes, The Times, Psychology Today, The Telegraph, The Guardian, and The Spectator are all robust sources, McPhail (talk) 12:41, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Psychology today and Forbes Contributors are both blogs with minimal editorial oversight, and The Guardian, and Spectator sources are both opinion pieces. More importantly: all of these were published while the BCHRT case was ongoing and primarily relate to that incident. It's not sustained coverage in reliable sources. Nblund talk 19:21, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's sustained coverage in multiple sources. From a quick initial search:
- Forbes: July 2019, December 2019;
- Toronto Sun July 2019, January 2020, August 2020
- Western Standard January 2020, August 2020
A more thorough search would uncover more. But it's clearly not the case that all the press coverage relates to a single point in time, given there is coverage in reputable sources spanning from at least May 2019 to August 2020. McPhail (talk) 17:07, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
None of these sources are going to be useful in a BLP. Toronto Sun is a tabloid, and is still probably the best of the three you're citing. Forbes Contributors is effectively user generated content, and the Western Standard is run by a far right provocateur who has been repeatedly sued for libel. Nblund talk 20:08, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are more sources over a broad timeframe. E.g. The Times in May 2019, The Guardian (Canada) in August 2019, CBS in October 2019, The Washington Times in December 2019, The Washington Times in March 2020, The Guardian (Canada) in August 2020. McPhail (talk) 22:10, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this is getting repetitive. Most of this coverage coincides with the trial, the portion that doesn't comes from niche right wing publications. There's an inherent NPOV problem here because there isn't neutral mainstream coverage of her beyond this single event. Nblund talk 23:03, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: We have roughly 18 citations from sources ultimately owned by about 8 different independent parent entities, that have deemed this topic notable. The following are the parent publications. They each own one or more publications, but (to my knowledge) don't share ownership with another parent listed here Postmedia (National Post,Aldergrove Star), Corus(Global), Scott Trust Limited (Guardian), Government of Canada (CBC), Bell Media (CTV News), Daily News Brands (Torstar), Economist, and Key Media (Canadian Lawyer Magazine). Given the massive consolidation in Canadian media, this is about as diverse a set sources as you can reasonably hope for on an activist with national, but not international, prominence. Postmedia does dominate this article, in part, because they dominate what's left of Canadian print newspapers. If you read the Postmedia articles cited, you'll find that they are not hostile to trans activism as the Post Millenial is. They aren't making wild predictions. The single most negative/sensational headline cited in the article is " "Estheticians don't have to wax male genitalia against their will, B.C. tribunal rules"." which was by the CBC, hardly a bastion of right wing anti-trans hate. Postmedia is a large corporation, and they haven't yet assimilated all the publications into a single unit. The Toronto Sun and the National Post are not the same. Nothing in Postmedia is remotely related or comparable to Post Millenial, and nothing is in the same universe as InfoWars, or other crazies you find on the net covering this. The sources cited in this article are all reliable sources. They are all independent. This screams WP:GNG. So, saying Postmedia is the only publication with an interest in the case is rather absurd. -Rob (talk) 01:28, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say that they were the only publication mentioning Yaniv, I said that they are the only publication that seems to have an interest in Yaniv that extends beyond WP:BLP1E. None of those other sources appear to have covered her latest lawsuits, or the harassment allegations, and only one (Global) appears to have covered her weapons charges. Post Media outlets appear to be an extreme outlier in terms of their interest in Yaniv herself. Nblund talk 02:40, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Globe and Mail (not Postmedia owned) mentioned " brandishing a taser on YouTube and complaining about a refusal to be seen by gynecologist". While small, it shows that Yaniv's actions beyond the case are actually significant. Also, the first mention of Yaniv was a decade before the case, by a non-Postmedia (or pre-Postmedia I guess, it gets confusing with corporate re-alignments) publication, for something totally unrelated to her gender identity. -Rob (talk) 03:32, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Globe and Mail story is an opinion piece, though If we look at high quality straight news sources like CBC, for instance, there's really no way we could write a standalone article. The Steve Bartman incident referenced in the WP:1E guideline seems instructive here: Bartman still turns up in the press from time to time nearly two decades after the incident, but reliable sources don't care much about his personal biography, and so Wikipedia doesn't either. Nblund talk 14:46, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The subject of multiple pieces of independently published coverage of presumed reliability. GNG pass. Carrite (talk) 02:38, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It's worth noting that while the existence of sources is usually sufficient for an article to be kept, evidence also needs to be provided of why BLP1E does not apply, and why the topic should not be covered on a page about a related but broader subject.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 04:28, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: She has plenty of notability now and the page is well referenced. BLP1E does not apply as she has been reported on issues of 'Local activism', 'weapons charges', her 'harassment and predatory behaviour', her as National Sex Day organizer, her setting back Trans Activism gains, in addition to the waxing lawsuits x2. CatCafe (talk) 09:07, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Non-Postmedia sources covering non-Tribunal stuff: Global News (Corus), CTV (Bell Media), Georgia Straight (Media Central Corporation), North Shore News (Glacier Media). -Rob (talk) 06:41, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have links? Is any of this coverage from this year? Nblund talk 16:39, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Try reading the article. Every claim has a citation. I try to always include both the name of publication and the publisher (like Postmedia) to make clear who owns what source. Am I required to repeat everything here for people who won't read the article? I find it sad people have to put more effort into afds than articles. -Rob (talk)
Okay, I went through and looked, and it appears to be a "no" except for one article from North Shore News, a regional newspaper. Nblund talk 20:40, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll now concede, if we use your made up standards, this article should definitely be deleted. You've moved the goal post so far. You're now saying we should discount all sources mentioning the thing that first gave her notability (even if they talk about other stuff), discount all publications by the #1 publisher of newspapers that use actual paper that dominates the industry in Canada even if they're reliable, discount all sources not from this year (discarding year-old and decade-old coverage), discount right wing papers (most commercial media), and discount all local and regional outlets. You have now taken BLP1E to such a ludicrous extreme, I can't conceive of anything that can be kept, because there'll always be a "but" that you can add to your escalating requirements. I'll just hope everyone else reads the whole article, and sees it easily meets WP:GNG, and goes beyond a single incident, by quite a bit. -Rob (talk) 23:44, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I recognise WP:BLP1E but don't think it applies here. Firstly, while the policy does not define an "event", I would not consider that a series of lawsuits in different courts (not a single lawsuit) over the period 2018-2020 comprise a single event. Secondly, while the HRT case is the most prominent aspect of Yaniv's notability, she has received press coverage for other activities, e.g. the Blaire White spat/taser arrest. Thirdly, it is questionable whether Yaniv is WP:LOWPROFILE; she has given multiple interviews, describes herself as working as a blogger and model, and was a contestant in the 2019 Miss BC pageant. McPhail (talk) 09:06, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To the extent she's mentioned anywhere else, she's generally mentioned as "the woman who filed the waxing case". So how is she different from people like Richard Heene? Heene is famous for the balloon boy hoax, but he's a publicity seeker, so he shows up in the news from time-to-time for other stuff. Nevertheless: nothing about him is newsworthy independently of his association with the hoax, so he's always "the balloon boy guy". Ken Bone and Steve Bartman are similar examples. None of them warrant standalone articles despite both having more diverse coverage than Yaniv. Nblund talk 16:39, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So, you're saying you want a stand-alone incident article like 2 of your examples? I think there are many differences. The tribunal case coverage is actually all about Yaniv, and less about the tribunal, or other people involved in the case. Balloon Boy was about multiple people, not just a guy, a single incident article is better than multiple bios. If baseball fan had repeatedly snatched away balls from players, in multiple games, starting with locally covered games, before going to a nationally watched game, with an apparent ongoing pattern, and was found by a quasi-judicial body to be targeting non-white players, and to be doing it repeatedly in attempt to make a unfair profit, ignored official requests to stop, and reliable sources spoke about how his conduct impacted public perception of fans and baseball players, and people questioned why he was even allowed to keep doing this, then yes, I would totally give him his own proper biography. But, instead, Steve Bartman touched a ball within the rules of the game. The end. -Rob (talk) 01:54, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, wrong Ken Bone. I meant this Ken Bone. I'm not sure a standalone is warranted either, but it would be an easier case to make than a BLP. Your own personal view of the significance of the 1 event doesn't make it any less of a BLP1E, and I think you're hairsplitting about "one event". Yaniv filed multiple simultaneous suits that were covered together. Nblund talk 02:27, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nblund you have made one vote here, and then 11 'comments' basically saying the same thing. Flooding the AFD repeating your position over and over again, is counterproductive. No need for it. CatCafe (talk) 01:51, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a vote, it's a discussion, and the recent comment was prompted by the AFD being relisted for additional discussion. Nblund talk 02:27, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Of course it's a discussion. But swamping the AFD and repeating your position over and over again Nblund is the problem. I see much value in Jessica Yaniv as she is a public figure and as such should featured on WP. Her contribution to trans issues in Canada is historic, substantial and immeasurable. Just because you don't like her doesn't mean her page should go. CatCafe (talk) 02:38, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There is plenty of coverage in the article already. Nblund's attempts to WP:BLUDGEON the discussion does not make their argument stronger; repeating it so much and always trying to have the last word makes your argument weaker. You shouldn't have to work this hard to get other people to agree; if you had a strong argument, people would find it compelling. — Toughpigs (talk) 21:35, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've looked at the sources and it's clear to me that WP:NBIO is passed now. It's not a case of WP:BLP1E anymore. The sources go way beyond the BCHRT case, and her role in it was significant and well-documented (and there is no article on the case anyway to merge into; the material on the case would overwhelm the BCHRT article). Crossroads -talk- 02:42, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note A notice of this discussion was placed at the BLP noticeboard Nblund talk 00:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It's worth mentioning that while still using their birth name, Jonathan Yaniv (source), articles were created about Yaniv numerous times and always deleted. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan_Yaniv. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 17:01, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (Saw the noted at BLPN) I think BLP1E clearly applies, no matter that it was more than one legal case since they are all about the same issue. If the case is really so significant that it can't be adequately covered in the BC HRT article, it's possible there would be merit for a stand alone article on the cases although I'm unconvinced that's the case at this time. However I see no evidence of the kind of coverage we need to establish notability for a biography on living person. Some minor articles on random other issues definitely aren't it. If that is our standard, we would allow a lot more articles than we currently allow. We don't because we recognise that when people have received significant attention in the media for some specific issue, it's fairly common to get these random media reports about random stuff related to them that occurred. Nil Einne (talk) 08:51, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: They're only notable for the tribunal complaint which already has an article which covers the case. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 22:04, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, WP:BLP1E wasn’t meant to cover every instance where a person’s notability arose chiefly from one event. It was to protect the privacy and dignity of people from embarrassment on the world’s info platform from a single event. We’re way beyond that here, that one event is covered from multiple sources and over many months and the article has been expanded beyond the BLP1E aspect as well. Gleeanon409 (talk) 02:41, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- BLP1E covers it -- it really doesn't matter that there has been some (mostly tabloid) coverage of this, it's still a single event without lasting significance. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:19, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. This article is really about the court case, whose own article was deleted. There is no lasting significance of the court case, let alone her. Newshunter12 (talk) 18:37, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete BLP1E. Extraneous trivia doesn’t make up for that, per Nil Einne. Per relist comment, I’m yet to see any evidence that this isn’t a case of BLP1E. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:01, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and/or Redirect to British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal. Outside of the court case she doesn't seem notable and I don't think that's enough to warrant an article about her. Since there's no evidence of sustained coverage about her past the court case and therefore keeping the article would go against the whole "single event" thing. That said, her and the case is mentioned in British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal and I see know reason not to redirect the article to that one, because her name is a likely search terms and redirects are cheap yada yada. Especially since it appears this was an un-needed content fork from that article originally anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:52, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:BIO1E and WP:NOTNEWS apply. Stifle (talk) 11:17, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. If it becomes necessary to spin an article off British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal, the subject should be the case, rather than the individual.--Trystan (talk) 13:11, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There really is only one event here, albeit spread over a number of separate cases. A redirect to British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal covers the informational content, and, as we see, many attempts to add anything else fall foul of WP:RS, because this really is not an independently notable person. Guy (help! - typo?) 14:17, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to substantial coverage in RS. I think that the reliance on BLP1E is misplaced. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 14:26, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting again to see if a final period of discussion yields a clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BD2412 T 00:25, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article passes WP:SIGCOV & WP:GEOSCOPE consider moving to "Jessica Yaniv". In the previous AfD this was my !vote and rationale, and that has not changed - and I see someone took my advice. Previous: [[39]] Lightburst (talk) 01:13, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Was also the subject of a deletion review. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 August 10 Lightburst (talk) 01:32, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lightburst, soi your argument is that you were right last time despite deletion and endorsement saying you weren't? Guy (help! - typo?) 22:14, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can the editors arguing keep give User:RoySmith/Three_best_sources that actually cover Yaniv as a biography? I don't mean good sources that cover the tribunal case (we have those) but sources that actually profile her as a biographical subject? Are there any beyond this National Post profile that bother going in to her personal life, upbringing, etc? Nblund talk 22:11, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Nblund, this is something that is lost on a lot of Wikipedians. Should we be the first place to create a biography on anyone, especially a living individual? My view is that we should not. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:16, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Three broadsheet newspapers with biographical information on Yaniv:
    - The Guardian (Canada)
    - The Globe and Mail
    - Journal Pioneer
    McPhail (talk) 21:40, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Two of these (Guardian.ca an journalpioneer.com) are the same National Post article I already mentioned, they're just reprinted in different Post Media outlets. These wouldn't count as unique sources. Nblund talk 22:09, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Adamant. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:11, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see significant coverage of the person beyond the lawsuit which I believe would qualify for a standalone article if you try to apply BLP1E aggressively. Coverage by high quality sources such as the National Post, Global News, and National Review. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:40, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see anything about her outside of the lawsuit in the article except for the tabloid crap about "harassment." Which is extremely run of the mill and shouldn't be included in the article or a factor in the AfD. Since Wikipedia isn't a tabloid. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:25, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You should look again and the reliability of the source and what they choose to cover trump whatever topic you deem as tabloid. [40][41][42][43] Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:41, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 19:36, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTNEWS doesn't have anything to do with WP:IDONTLIKEIT and 100% someone being "charged" (not convicted mind you) with brandishing a taser in a fued with another YouTuber would go against WP:NOTNEWS. 100% it's tabloidish to have section about in a biographical article about "YouTube personality feuds that never went anywhere" and didn't have sustained coverage. There's a good reason "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events" is a thing and trivial beefs between YouTubers is exactly why. Nice try with the trite personal attack though. Yawn. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:14, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The National Post extensively reporting on the disturbing pattern of alleged harassment and predatory behavior goes beyond ho-hum not news. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:53, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Whether it's "disturbing" isn't really the criteria for determining whether it's tabloid-ish coverage. For the most of those allegations of "harassment", we don't have an editorially diverse set of sources to draw on in order to write a fair article. Instead, we have an issue that only interests the right wing press. The fact that the allegations are serious but unproven and not widely covered is really a good reason that we would be reluctant to include them based on the current sourcing. Nblund talk 19:06, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Notability does not demand coverage by reliable sources serving the political spectrum. If the issue or person is not important to the left-wing or politically neutral RS, so be it. See WP:DUE. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:27, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Notability and NPOV both require us to avoid giving undue weight to minority viewpoints. An entire article dedicated to covering something that only right wing outlets are interested in is inevitably going to end up running afoul of that directive. There are all sorts of controversies, moral panics, conspiracy theories etc that occur in niche corners of the internet that have no business becoming Wikipedia articles. Nblund talk 05:15, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing in WP:NOTABILITY or WP:BIO that supports your argument and WP:DUE only requires that articles "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources". If RS on the other end of the spectrum does not care to cover it, the right-wing RS are by default the majority of the coverage and and what they report still satisfies WP:DUE. Demanding otherwise is WP:FALSEBALANCE. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:29, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is the problem Morbidthoughts, the above editor considers the article to be sourced from "right wing" sources, ignoring the fact that 'centre' and 'left' sources are used such as CTV News, Sydney Star Observer, CBC News, The Globe and Mail, KUTV, Canadian Lawyer, The Guardian and Toronto Star. This is why the article needs watching as there is a concerted effort to remove non conservative refs so as to falsely make the BLP look partisan and ripe for deletion. CatCafe (talk) 05:52, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And yet at the same time Morbidthoughts has removed references to nonreliable "right wing conservative" sources. So, your comment comes off a tad like hyperbolic gas lighting. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:25, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What's your prob Adamant1? Coming in and accusing me of "hyperbolic gas lighting". I have no idea who you are or what you're talking about. You're a fool if you believe removing "nonreliable right wing conservative sources" is a bad thing. I think you'll find most disagree with you. CatCafe (talk) 12:41, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My comment had nothing to do with the "rightness" or "wrongness" of it. I was simply pointing out that they were removed. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:22, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You know what Adamant1, I am over your 'hyperbolic gas lighting'. CatCafe (talk) 13:31, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Thumbs up." --Adamant1 (talk) 13:45, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "The National Post extensively reporting on the disturbing pattern of alleged harassment and predatory behavior..." Allegations that are supported only by a single source would run contrary to the WP:BLPPUBLIC policy, which says: If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.--Trystan (talk) 12:04, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You have a point Trystan, and there was an article in the Calgary Herald supporting that. Yaniv was interviewed and the article supported your point referring to online racist harassment, but as one would expect Nblund removed the supporting ref claiming it was all an opinion piece when in actuality the article was based on an interview. A minority of editors are wikisplaining and working overtime in order to whiteant the article. CatCafe (talk) 13:27, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"wikisplaining", that's a new one. Since your the second most commenting user I assume your included yourself in that. "and working overtime in order to whiteant the article" Seeing as you've made more edits to the article at this point then Nblund has you must be referring to yourself. When I said you were gas lighting, your comments accusing other people in a semi-derogatory way of doing what your the one doing (like your doing here) is exactly what I was talking about. You've commented as many times as Nblund and edited the article more. So, you really shouldn't be taking issue with those things or pointing fingers at others about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:58, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you conversing at me when I'm conversing with someone else? True, but my aim is to expand the article and add supporting refs, those I refer to are trying the opposite - i.e whiteanting. You know what Adamant1, you're a spokesperson for everyone else, and now there's no need for them to respond to me thanks to sterling arguments on behalf. But perhaps "you really shouldn't be taking issue with those things or pointing fingers at others". Thanks, move on. CatCafe (talk) 14:11, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@CatCafe:, I assume you're referencing my removal of this source. It was written by an opinion columnist and it appeared in the opinion section. There's no question that it's opinion. It also doesn't mention any of the sexual harassment alleged by the National Post. If you have other issues/accusations related to editor behavior, you should take them up with me on my talk page, or take them to ANI, or just drop them. They've got no relevance to a deletion discussion. Nblund talk 15:28, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Why are you conversing at me when I'm conversing with someone else?" Because AfDs are discussions and anyone can participate in the discussion and reply to anyone they feel like? That aside, I agree with Nblund. If you have legitimate complaints about someone's behavior there are proper places to take them to, like ANI. Just spouting off here about it is WP:CANVASing and WP:PERSONALATTACKS though. Both of which I'm sure everyone would appreciate it if you stopped doing. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:15, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Adamant1 "everyone would appreciate it if you stopped doing" what you're doing as well I guess. You were never elected spokesperson to represent all other editors in defining other's personalities here. But your compulsion to do so is dragging this conversation away from the content of the article I discussed initially. And the article still contains a slab of non-conservative media sources - that's a good thing BTW. As I requested, move on. CatCafe (talk) 21:50, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So I will say it again for you Adamant1 ss you didn't seem to get it the first time around. Some make the odd claim that the article is from "right wing" sources, ignoring the fact that 'centre' and 'left' sources are used there and now such as CTV News, Sydney Star Observer, CBC News, The Globe and Mail, KUTV (CBS I believe), Canadian Lawyer, The Guardian and Toronto Star. Move on. CatCafe (talk) 22:07, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The person herself is not notable. The human right complaints have interest only as a curiosity; they certainly have no legal importance. 104.192.232.61 (talk) 02:33, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The BC Human Rights Tribunal is a court, and does indeed have "legal importance". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wisefroggy (talk • contribs) 18:50, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep’ She is already more than one incident and publicity surrounding her is well-known throughout the LGBTQI+ community everywhere. More coverage to come. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.106.168 (talk) 04:14, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"More coverage to come"? See WP:CRYSTALBALL. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 23:33, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's doubtful there will be any more coverage about her in relation to the court case. Which is the only reason the article is even a thing. Maybe there will be in some "fringe" source if she tries to tazar someone again, but I don't think that means we should keep the article until (or if) she does. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:37, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To note a separate but related lawsuit is currently ongoing and receiving media coverage. Toronto Sun McPhail (talk) 09:59, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see significant coverage of the person beyond the lawsuit which I believe would qualify for a standalone article if you try to apply BLP1E aggressively. Coverage by high quality sources such as the National Post, Global News, and National Review. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:40, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This person has made headlines in all corners of the planet - examples: Australia[44], UK[45], Russia[46] - WP:NOTABILITY is easily fulfilled. And note my above headlines are all for different stories: the Australia article is because a physician gynacologist refused to treat the person; the Russian one was for, ummm, something about forgetting a tampon at the public pool, and the Guardian article is re: waxing. These are headlines in three different countries, for three different reasons, easily satisfying WP:BLP1E.Wisefroggy (talk) 02:01, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sputnik News is not reliable for anything, the Guardian article is an editorial and the Yahoo news story is literally just recounting something she tweeted. The standard is significant coverage in reliable sources. Nblund talk 15:39, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nblund, Sputnik News is criticized for its political coverage because it's heavily biased toward Russia, but this has nothing to do with that. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 16:54, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
May His Shadow Fall Upon You, since Yaniv is a figure of the culture wars, Russian state media sources are inappropriate: stirring dissent is a core Kremlin foreign policy objective. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:35, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nblund,Yes, I agree, we need reliable sources, there are plenty: The Telegraph [47], the Washington Examiner[48], Daily Mail (though depracated) in the UK[49],MSN[50], and every large news organization in Canada without exception: CTV[51], CBC[52], Global News[53], the National Post[54].
And the fact that you don't like the Guardian source just because it is an "editorial" (your word; which I agree with in this case), or the Australian source because it is "literally just recounting something she tweeted" (which it isn't, but that doesn't matter) just proves WP:NOTABILITY - the fact that reliable news organizations worldwide are writing editorials and providing analysis of her tweets proves WP:NOTABILITY Wisefroggy (talk) 17:22, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lemme point this out again, because it is important:
The fact that reliable news organizations worldwide are writing editorials and providing analysis of her tweets proves WP:NOTABILITY Wisefroggy (talk) 17:27, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@May His Shadow Fall Upon You: Did you click the link? Sputnik was deprecated earlier this year. I don't think there's really even a question worth entertaining: it's not an acceptable source for this article.
@Wisefroggy: This is why I asked for WP:THREE good articles above. Daily Mail, MSN (actually just a reprint of National Post), Washington Examiner...just throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks is not persuasive. WP:GNG is quite clear on the fact that insignificant coverage/non-reliable sources don't move the needle. Nblund talk 17:37, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NblundCBC, CTV, Global, NationalPost - these are all undisputed reliable sources. Take your pick - WP:THREE is satisfied.
And only one of them (National Post) has published anything that comes close to in-depth coverage of Yaniv as a bio. The most reputable of those sources (The CBC) hasn't mentioned her since her case was decided in October. If you wrote an article based on this, you wouldn't have anything that could plausibly resemble a biography. Nblund talk 18:15, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've given you 10+ sources, spanning the globe; you seem to be choosing to ignore them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wisefroggy (talk • contribs) 18:46, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wisefroggy FYI about WP:THREE, it's not a policy, it's just an essay on notability published on User:RoySmith's userspace. No-one has the right to ask (or badger) you conform to an essay. Of itself, WP:THREE states it "contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints." CatCafe (talk) 04:54, 1 October 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 15:13, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Platón (band)[edit]

Platón (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article does not meet GNG or WP:BAND. Sources in the article are a nostalgia "What became of the duo Platon" piece and a blogspot post. BEFORE showed no SIGCOV that meets GNG or WP:BAND.   // Timothy :: talk  00:04, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  00:04, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  00:04, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG, and definitely doesn't pass WP:NBAND.Onel5969 TT me 00:42, 22 September 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. ^ "John Calarco "John Cee"- Drummer Extraordinaire!" (audio). The Wise Musician. May 11, 2019. Retrieved September 28, 2020.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2020_September_22&oldid=981228896"