Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 September 10

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 9 September	11 September >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:13, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Beant Singh (assassin)

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

This individual is notable only for his role in the Assassination of Indira Gandhi. Aside from being one of the assassins of Indira Gandhi, he has no notability whatsoever. Per WP:CRIME, A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person. Therefore, this article should be deleted and redirected to Assassination of Indira Gandhi. Please see related AfD at: [[1]] May His Shadow Fall Upon You ^Talk 22:15, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:34, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:34, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:34, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a highly notable subject. This was not some random crime but Assassination of the then Prime Minister of India. The Guideline that nominator is quoting above states "..should not normally be..". Well the murder of the sitting PM is not a normal crime. The assassins of Kennedy, Lincoln etc are similar cases who have their own article. In such high profile cases the subject gets intense national and international coverage which makes the subject pass all criteria of WP:GNG. As expected Beant Singh's act made him popular and multiple notable events such as, election victory of his widow and father, in Lok Sabha, honour by Akal Takht, annual felicitation etc were caused as a result of this act. All of these cannot simply be merged to the assassination page. There are enough sources in the article, hence I dont feel the need to post here.--DBig Xrayᗙ 09:40, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - one of the few assassins who actually changed history. There's plenty of good evidence that his legacy continues to this day. Bearian (talk) 14:12, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian: - He is definitely notable, but he's notable for this crime alone. Given that there's only perhaps a few sentences in this article that's not in the assassination article, per WP:CRIME he should not have an independent article. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ^Talk 14:27, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@May His Shadow Fall Upon You: - Assassins are often kept as as exception to WP:CRIME. I don't see how consensus has changed on this. Deleting this would create a terrible precedent, or worse, devalue the life of a women leader of color if we kept Sirhan Sirhan, Mark David Chapman, John Wilkes Booth, and Lee Harvey Oswald. We even have articles about those who kill the assassins (Boston Corbett and Jack Ruby). We should keep all of these articles. Bearian (talk) 14:36, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian: - None of those other articles are up for AfD, nor should they really interfere with the AfD on the basis that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The undeniable fact is that the article for the Singh assassins contain almost no information over and above what's in the assassination article. I count only perhaps three or four sentences that could easily be ported over. Assassins are not mentioned at WP:OUTCOMES so I'm not sure why you linked that. This seems like a clear-cut WP:CRIME situation. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ^Talk 14:40, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO the article passes our notability criteria due to being the perpetrator of a major crime with international ramifications. Hence deserves a standalone article.
There are other notable events that has occurred to the subject and his family as a result of assassination, some of them are already in the article some more should be added, since our article is incomplete IMHO. This is exactly the reason why the subject merits another article.
There are more than a few sentences here, and a notable stub is a reason to expand, not to delete and merge. We wont have stubs if we go down that road.--DBig Xrayᗙ 16:41, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that the subject of the article passes notability criteria, but the community consensus established in WP:CRIME is that a perpetrator who is known only for his crime (and the repercussions of that crime) should not have a standalone article but rather be included in the article about the event. 100% of the notability for this subject stems from his role in the assassination of Indira Gandhi. Therefore, as per community consensus, this should not be a standalone article - unless you have some reason to think that this individual is notable for a reason that has nothing to do with the assassination. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ^Talk 13:31, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:May His Shadow Fall Upon You, you are taking an extreme inference of WP:CRIME (which By the way, is a guideline and not a policy) and using it as a fit all thumb-rule. WP:CRIME further states, the criminal or victim in question should be the subject of a Wikipedia article only if one of the following applies :: For perpetrators :: The victim of the crime is a renowned national or international figure, including, but not limited to, politicians or celebrities . I am sure you would agree that Indian PM is a renowned international figure. --DBig Xrayᗙ 15:46, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DBigXray: - While I agree that the Indian PM is a renowned international figure, please read the text that precedes your quote: Where there are no appropriate existing articles, the criminal or victim in question should be the subject of a Wikipedia article only if one of the following applies... The victim of the crime is a renowned national or international figure, including, but not limited to, politicians or celebrities. In this case, there is an appropriate existing article: Assassination of Indira Gandhi. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ^Talk 17:44, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:May His Shadow Fall Upon You thank you for pointing this, I seem to have missed it. Nevertheless, I will stick with my stand above due to reasons stated in the first two comments I made to this thread. And lets agree to disagree. regards. --DBig Xrayᗙ 17:58, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom clear WP:BLP1E and redirect to Assassination of Indira Gandhi.182.65.50.9 (talk) 15:02, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep highly notable and celebrated as martyrs by Sihks, e.g. [2]. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:32, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Of course assassins of high-profile politicians are notable. "This individual is notable only for his role in the Assassination of Indira Gandhi. Aside from being one of the assassins of Indira Gandhi, he has no notability whatsoever." So, like Lee Harvey Oswald then! Someone else who is notable only for assassinating someone famous. Yes, more is written about Oswald, but the stated reason for deletion just does not hold water. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:37, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep mostly per the keep votes above. Also, wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, we have to use our logic at times. Also, WP:CRIME is guideline, not a policy. The subject has plenty of coverage. Not as much as Oswald, but it is enough. John Wilkes Booth was not notable as an actor, without the assassination; he wouldnt have an article either. —usernamekiran(talk) 02:29, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per User:DBigXray. -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 03:34, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm in agreement on the guideline/policy issue Mujinga (talk) 19:31, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep as per nom this article must stay Jhummu ^Shiv-o-Hum! 09:13, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notability has been established and it appears we now have consensus. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:45, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:19, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Satwant Singh

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

This individual is notable only for his role in the Assassination of Indira Gandhi. Aside from being one of the assassins of Indira Gandhi, he has no notability whatsoever. Per WP:CRIME, A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person. Therefore, this article should be deleted and redirected to Assassination of Indira Gandhi. Please see related AfD at: [[3]] May His Shadow Fall Upon You ^Talk 22:12, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:16, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:16, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:17, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep highly notable subject. This was not some random crime but Assassination of the then Prime Minister of India. The Guideline that nominator is quoting above states "..should not normally be..". Well the murder of the sitting Prime Minister of a country is not a normal crime. The assassins of Kennedy, Lincoln etc are similar cases who have their own article. In such high profile cases the subject gets intense national and international coverage which makes the subject pass all criteria of WP:GNG. As expected Satwant Singh acts made him popular and multiple notable events such as honour events by Akal Takht, Riots after his execution etc were caused as a result of this act. All of these cannot simply be merged to the assassination page. There are enough sources in the article, hence I dont feel the need to post here.--DBig Xrayᗙ 09:45, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing in this article that is not already in the article Assassination of Indira Gandhi, aside from a few sentences that could easily be merged. This article is mostly a copy of the assassination article. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ^Talk 13:18, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

disagree. The things that I noted above are not covered in the assassination article. Besides, this discussion is on the notability, which is met. --DBig Xrayᗙ 14:22, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DBigXray: - Surely you would agree, though, that the difference between the assassination article and this article amounts only to a few sentences. While notability is met, the question is whether the perpetrator should have an article independently of the crime. Per WP:CRIME, in this case they should not. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ^Talk 14:25, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO the article passes our notability criteria due to being the perpetrator of a major crime with international ramifications. Hence deserves a standalone article.
There are other notable events that has occurred to the subject and his family as a result of assassination, some of them are already in the article some more should be added, since our article is incomplete IMHO. This is exactly the reason why the subject merits another article.
There are more than a few sentences here, and a notable stub is a reason to expand, not to delete and merge. We wont have stubs if we go down that road.--DBig Xrayᗙ 16:40, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that the subject of the article passes notability criteria, but the community consensus established in WP:CRIME is that a perpetrator who is known only for his crime (and the repercussions of that crime) should not have a standalone article but rather be included in the article about the event. 100% of the notability for this subject stems from his role in the assassination of Indira Gandhi. Therefore, as per community consensus, this should not be a standalone article - unless you have some reason to think that this individual is notable for a reason that has nothing to do with the assassination. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ^Talk 13:29, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:May His Shadow Fall Upon You, you are taking an extreme inference of WP:CRIME (which By the way, is a guideline and not a policy) and using it as a fit all thumb-rule. WP:CRIME further states, the criminal or victim in question should be the subject of a Wikipedia article only if one of the following applies :: For perpetrators :: The victim of the crime is a renowned national or international figure, including, but not limited to, politicians or celebrities . I am sure you would agree that Indian PM is a renowned international figure. --DBig Xrayᗙ 15:52, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DBigXray: - While I agree that the Indian PM is a renowned international figure, please read the text that precedes your quote: Where there are no appropriate existing articles, the criminal or victim in question should be the subject of a Wikipedia article only if one of the following applies... The victim of the crime is a renowned national or international figure, including, but not limited to, politicians or celebrities. In this case, there is an appropriate existing article: Assassination of Indira Gandhi. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ^Talk 17:44, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:May His Shadow Fall Upon You thank you for pointing this, I seem to have missed it. Nevertheless, I will stick with my stand above due to reasons stated in the first three comments I made to this thread. And lets agree to disagree. regards. --DBig Xrayᗙ 17:57, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - again, this assassin helped changed history - and his legacy, for better or worse, continues. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beant Singh (assassin). Bearian (talk) 14:16, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom clear WP:BLP1E and redirect to Assassination of Indira Gandhi.182.65.50.9 (talk) 15:03, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep highly notable and celebrated as martyrs by Sihks, e.g. [4]. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:32, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Of course assassins of high-profile politicians are notable. "This individual is notable only for his role in the Assassination of Indira Gandhi. Aside from being one of the assassins of Indira Gandhi, he has no notability whatsoever." So, like Lee Harvey Oswald then! Someone else who is notable only for assassinating someone famous. Yes, more is written about Oswald, but the stated reason for deletion just does not hold water. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:43, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep mostly per the keep votes above. Also, wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, we have to use our logic at times. Also, WP:CRIME is guideline, not a policy. The subject has plenty of coverage. Not as much as Oswald, but it is enough. John Wilkes Booth was not notable as an actor, without the assassination; he wouldnt have an article either. —usernamekiran(talk) 02:28, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:42, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LeLe XO

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

Does not appear to meet notability guidelines. References are often self-published, or parroting unverifiable claims made by the artist. For example one reference contains the oft-repeated claim that the artist won the "HugFest Artist Appreciation Award" in 2017. Either this award is so insignificant even the internet hasn't noticed its existence, or it is completely made up. According to a video on Lele XO's own Youtube channel Hugfest was held at Harbor House in Detroit, MI. Yet searches for "HugFest" "harbor house" or "HugFest" "detroit" 2017 provide no evidence this event happened at all, which in the days of everything being publicised across multiple social media platforms is unusual to say the least. The claim of a single rearching #110 on SNEP Charts in France should also be taken with a pinch of salt. The reference is actually for downloaded albums (note, for some reason Chrome confusingly translates "Top Albums Téléchargés" as "Top Albums Uploaded" while translating "Top Singles Téléchargés" as "Top Singles Downloaded"), the general albums chart can be seen here and doesn't have LeLe XO in the top 200. I haven't been able to independently verify any of the claims about iTunes charts. FDW777 (talk) 20:27, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:32, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:32, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:39, 10 September 2019 (UTC)Editing and discussion[reply]

KEEP - References were not self published and it appears that the person who put in for the deletion has targeted this page repeatedly. The policy below should be considered. When it was possible to find links updates can and should be made instead of deletions by editors. I have found links and sources and added them with ease. Main page: Wikipedia:Editing policy If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. Vandalism to a page's content can be reverted by any user.

Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases. The content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used first, such as listing on Wikipedia:Requests for comments for further input. Deletion discussions that are really unresolved content disputes may be closed by an uninvolved editor, and referred to the talk page or other appropriate forum.

Disagreement over a policy or guideline is not dealt with by deleting it. Similarly, issues with an inappropriate user page can often be resolved through discussion with the user.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rinkgypsy007 (talk • contribs) — Rinkgypsy007 contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment I have made other contributions to the topics I know about when time permits. Rinkgypsy007 (talk)(talk • ~

Yes, edits such as adding LeLe XO's family members to other articles, which is quite telling. FDW777 (talk) 17:59, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Clearly not vandalism, neither were any of my other edits to the page. The comment above does nothing to address the person failing notability guidelines, and should be ignored. FDW777 (talk) 08:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThis wiki seems to be started to expand the POP category (reference talk page by original wiki writer) FDW777 only put in for deletion when he became inflamed when his retractive edit was undone. They have repeatedly targeted this wiki eliminating posts to dismantle the Wiki after that. (edit warring)

The Hug Detroit festival does exist [5], [6], but I can't see any indication that this is a notable award ceremony. Richard3120 (talk) 10:05, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you live in Detroit? Perhaps it's a significant award ceremony there. Not every notable event happens in LA or NEW York. Detroit has a rich history of music (Motown)

Comment Yes, I saw "Hugfest Awards" had been changed to "Hug Detroit Spirit Awards" since the nomination. Sadly this does raise the problem that the sources that parrot the HugFest Artist Appreciation Award in 2017 claim are unreliable, since they have failed rather miserably on fact checking and accuracy. FDW777 (talk) 10:10, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The website states awards ceremony has gone on for 9 years. Other than the Detroit Music awards (26 years), which she is nominated for it appears to be the only local awards event Rinkgypsy007 (talk) 17:55, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - At this time, there are 38 references in the article, yet not a single one of them establishes notability. The bulk of the referencing simply verifies facts such as links to itunes or event listings and do nothing to establish notability. There are sites which list the singer's profile information, but are simply directories. What little there is in terms of articles are interviews and what reads as regurgitations of press release hype. -- Whpq (talk) 13:21, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete Lacks the coverage to meet the GNG and don't see anything that shows she meets WP:NSINGER. Sandals1 (talk) 14:28, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:24, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rorbua

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

2005 article on a nice pub in Tromsø that has attracted decent local coverage. The assertion of notability rests solely on the claim that in 1984 it was one of the most visited pubs in Norway. Mccapra (talk) 05:58, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:58, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:58, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:58, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:58, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the assertion of notability actually rests on it being the ___location for a long-running tv show. Geschichte (talk) 16:38, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: "assertion of notability" is a little unclear, but in any case, it's currently an even disagreement
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 10:53, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - coverage seems to be run-of-the-mill local - no significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources - just another pub - existing is not notable - Epinoia (talk) 16:44, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG as well as WP:ORG. The references cited are passing mentions, including the one about someone stealing furniture ("puffs"). Notability is not supported. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 19:52, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:01, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like a nice place to have a beer, but that's not enough for an article. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:04, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG Zinzhanglee (talk) 03:08, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage per WP:GNG. Barca (talk) 13:44, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The topic does not have significant coverage and fails WP:GNG Taewangkorea (talk) 04:37, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't have required significant coverage and fails WP:GNG. Funnygooster (talk) 15:31, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:25, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis May

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

No major WP:RS. CEO of non notable company. Meeanaya (talk) 19:01, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 19:01, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 19:01, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 19:01, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - after removing all the press releases and personal websites, I don't see significant coverage. Please ping me if you find something more substantial. Bearian (talk) 14:20, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:24, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:03, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Highby

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

No major WP:RS. Not sure, what he is really notable for. . Meeanaya (talk) 18:59, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 18:59, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 18:59, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 18:59, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no notable in depth coverage to be found. However his son Matt Highby may be notable, Wm335td (talk) 18:22, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:23, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:55, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kathryn Deane

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

No major WP:RS. Not sure, what she is really notable for. Wikipedia is not a Linkedin of company's executives. Meeanaya (talk) 18:56, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 18:56, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 18:56, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 18:56, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:55, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable company executive. Wikipedia is not Linkedin. Well at least it is not supposed to be.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:44, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:21, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tathagata Dasgupta

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

No major WP:RS. Not sure, what he is really notable for. Wikipedia is not a Linkedin of company's executives, but this page looks likes his detailed contextual resume. Meeanaya (talk) 18:54, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 18:54, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 18:54, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 18:54, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - appears to be entirely promotional - no independent sources cited - does not meet WP:BASIC or WP:ANYBIO: has not received significant coverage in multiple reliable independent secondary sources - Epinoia (talk) 16:25, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Epinoia fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:18, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Trip Lee discography. There's a couple of assertions that this is notable, but neither supplies sources and/or policy-based arguments to back up the assertion. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:52, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If They Only Knew (Trip Lee album)

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

Fails notability criteria, both WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. https://www.jesusfreakhideout.com/cdreviews/IfTheyOnlyKnew.asp and https://www.allmusic.com/album/if-they-only-knew-mw0001105981 are database entries without a review. The next best references were from sales locations (Amazon, ChristianBook, etc.). Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:06, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:06, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:06, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:06, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article was deleted per PROD. I requested un-deletion to see if it is possible to salvage the article. There is at least one review of the album that I managed to find. Will include it shortly.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 23:52, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would not object to userfying it under your space until sufficient sources can be found, but it shouldn't be kept in main space. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:54, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some sources. Probably not sufficient for notability, but at least enough to warrant discussion as to the fate of this article.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:17, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP looks OK. Not sure about the others. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:32, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Cross Rhythms review isn't sufficient? I felt that was the strongest, since it discusses the album in depth.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:49, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cross Rhythms is included on the list of reliable Christian music sources? Atlantic306 (talk) 16:16, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aye. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Christian music/Sources. But is that all it has going for it? We need sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:47, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, article has four refs, including the Washington times, demonstrating notability.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:11, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Epiphyllumlover: Did you read the article? It is a one-sentence mention of the album, as is vibe.com, while the third is a PRIMARY source which only leave the review from Cross Rhythms as the sole RS that discusses it at length. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:26, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:29, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:27, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per seeing above ref. Article no doubt is not to be considered for deletion. Zinzhanglee (talk) 09:53, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Trip Lee discography. Notability requires there to be significant coverage in multiple independent reliables ources. What is presented in the references are passing mentins and falls well short of significant. -- Whpq (talk) 14:25, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Trip Lee or Trip Lee discography per WP:NALBUM, "articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged into the artist's article or discography" - as there is nothing here to merge, a redirect seems indicated - the article is highly promotional in tone ("promising newcomer", etc.); WP:NOTPROMOTION - the Cross Rhythms review is only one paragraph, not an in-depth review - the album has not been the subject of coverage in multiple, reliable secondary sources - Epinoia (talk) 16:48, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Trip Lee or Trip Lee discography. I agree with Whpq and Epinoia as there just does not appear to be enough significant coverage. Aoba47 (talk) 19:02, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:35, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Navya Shastra

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

Unfortunately no substantiation of notability. Hyperbolick (talk) 18:21, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:37, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:37, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see no sources on the organization other than mirrors, official sites, and press releases when I search for it on Google, therefore it fails the general notability guideline as I understand it. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:56, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am unable to find evidence of notability, in the form of coverage in reliable sources, or of any other kind. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:32, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't passes Wikipedia basic notability guidelines. Zinzhanglee (talk) 09:55, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Forgotten Realms cities. Filtering out a couple of non-! votes, agreement that no reliable non in-universe sourcing exists and so no independent notability is demonstrated. I will add a 1 line summary, other users are free to amend (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 19:10, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mithral Hall

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

Non-notable fictional topic TTN (talk) 17:39, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:39, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of Forgotten Realms cities. BOZ (talk) 20:20, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Forgotten Realms cities, and then put a one line entry there. There is nothing to merge, since this is an uncited article.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:39, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Forgotten Realms cities per onel5969. That would make the most sense for me given the very limited notability of this topic. Aoba47 (talk) 04:30, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Forgotten Realms cities, I suppose. That list isn't exactly a collection of reliably sourced info, itself, but I can't think of any more appropriate place for the redirect. It demonstrates no real world notability, but as I can see it as a common search term, it should be redirected somewhere. Rorshacma (talk) 17:50, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Forgotten Realms cities seems to be the best option now, as the article up for deletion has no WP:RS but has content that may be helpful for the list. Taewangkorea (talk) 04:41, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: to List of Forgotten Realms cities seems to be the growing consensus. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:49, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of The Transformers (TV series) characters#Combaticons. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:41, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vortex (Transformers)

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

Non-notable fictional character TTN (talk) 17:27, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:27, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:27, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of The Transformers (TV series) characters#Combaticons Argento Surfer (talk) 16:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of The Transformers (TV series) characters#Combaticons. The character is not independently notable, and the article is 90 percent in-universe plot summaries, and 10 percent toy catalogs, but an appropriate redirect target exists. Rorshacma (talk) 15:24, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:53, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Markos Giolias

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPROF and lacks third-party sources. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:15, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:15, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:26, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. That name doesn't even appear in Google Scholar, so as written, fails WP:NPROF. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:26, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject doesn't qualifies WP:NPROF. Funnygooster (talk) 15:33, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A pretty well known, at least to professional historians in Greece, and respected or praised by them ( like Spyros Asdrachas (el:Σπύρος Ασδραχάς) and de:Konstantinos Th. Dimaras (el:Κωνσταντίνος Δημαράς) ), amateur local historian, who had conducted research in regional archives, and published interesting works (both papers, and books). There are sources on him in Greek, but for the moment I have little time to spare in order to contribute to the article. Sometime in the future I will create a Greek-language article on him, and then I may have it translated into English. Btw he was not a "professor at Panteios University"; but he holded a PhD from this university. ——Chalk19 (talk) 08:18, 16 September 2019 (
Delete, no evidence of satisfying either WP:GNG or WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 12:34, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:09, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wren T. Brown

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

WP:BLP of an actor, not reliably sourced as clearing an WP:NACTOR criterion. As written, this consists of a single 10-word sentence stating that he exists, and then jumps straight to listing his filmography without contextualizing his significance at all, and is "referenced" solely to the WorldCat directory entry of a single educational DVD on which he was a production consultant and not even an actor. As always, however, actors are not automatically deemed notable just because the article happens to list roles -- having roles is the job description, so every actor who exists at all would always get an automatic notability freebie if all the article had to do was include a list of roles. Rather, the notability test for an actor still requires some actual evidence of reliable source coverage: entertainment reporting about him, film reviews which single his performance out for dedicated attention, news stories about him winning a notable acting award, that sort of thing -- simply offering one piece of cursory verification in a directory that a film he was involved in exists is not enough. Bearcat (talk) 16:25, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:25, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:25, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:45, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:45, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:45, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:46, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I did a google news search. I don't see any significant coverage, no Oscar nominations, no famous roles. His role in Flipper was probably his most significant, and it is a supporting role at best. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:42, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see no evidence any of his roles rise to being notable. To be fair this article actually tries harder than many of our articles on actors to present sources, we have lots sourced only to IMDb. Also we have lots that are just 1 sentance and then a list of films. Articles on actors are crying out for some good editing to provide contexts of notability or massive numbers of nominations for deletion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:29, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, in full knowledge that my opinion may be given less weight as an anonymous editor. Quite frankly, I'm baffled by the conclusion expressed by the OP and the two editors who have insofar commented, in the sense that no coverage in the media outlets, nor any significative sources other than IMDB exist on this actor. Took me 3 minutes of cursory search to find at least three interviews in different news media; not to mention that this actor in particular is not simply listed at IMDB, but also has entries at every single movie database there is, including Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic, TV Guide, etc. I also found out that he received a nomination for a NAACP Prize in 2001. Clearly the article needs improvement, but as always - deleting is far easier than working on actually researching and improving!

While I'm not particularly interested in this debate and I honestly don't care whether or not this article is kept, I can't help but to shrug when I see how little care some people put into their research before pompously exposing their conclusions - aiming for deletion, of course. What a surprise. 46.25.71.70 (talk) 13:08, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- In most places anonymous editors are assumed to be doing so in good faith. If you had pointed us to reliable, independent, significant coverage, I would gladly vote keep. As is, you made assertions without any supporting evidence. Rockphed (talk) 15:49, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Interviews, in which the subject is speaking about himself in the first person, are not support for notability. They can be used for supplementary referencing of stray facts after notability has already been demonstrated by stronger sources — for example, if a notable public figure comes out as LGBT in an interview, then we can use the interview as a source for the fact that they're LGBT — but in order to demonstrate that Wren Brown is notable enough to have an article at all, there have to be a non-trivial number of sources that represent other people writing or talking about Wren Brown in the third person. Once that's cleared off, then you can use the Q&A interviews to source some additional facts — but the Q&A interviews don't count as data points toward the initial question of whether he's cleared our notability standards in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 17:15, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot find any significant, independent coverage of Wren T Brown. Rockphed (talk) 15:49, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:34, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Warner Avenue

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

Notability issues, we don't usually have articles for minor roads. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 16:05, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 16:05, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:17, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not about whether something is minor. We have plenty of articles on minor things. Notability is about how well documented knowledge of a thing is, and this road as far as I can tell simply isn't well documented. I can find information about a bridge, discussed in the context of the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve, and a related person, a local politician from the mid 20th century, but pretty much nothing about this road. Uncle G (talk) 18:22, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Uncle G: let me get this straight, your argument is that my argument is weak because it didn't agree with a section in an essay that you wrote (as evidenced by this edit). Just because you wrote an essay on notability and you appear to be an expert in this subject, it doesn't mean you're right? Maybe a link to something someone else wrote about notability would help? The second part of that answer is fine, I can agree with you, but the first two sentences are fundamentally flawed. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 19:57, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - regardless of whether it's his own essay or not, he's right - notability in Wikipedia is determined on coverage and reliable sources, not on whether it is "minor". For example, an article on a 300m street in Sydney, Australia has plenty of coverage. Bookscale (talk) 11:22, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—fails WP:GNG. Imzadi 1979 → 23:02, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Entirely unremarkable and has no real sources that can assert notability. Sounder Bruce 23:25, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks sources and any sign of notability.Nikoo.Amini (talk) 01:07, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:33, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ghassan Issa

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPROF.Lacks third party sources. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:01, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:01, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jordan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:17, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Google scholar shows two emails verified for this name, not sure if it is the same person, but in either case, the citation count is low (highest is 18) and the papers have multiple authors, so he fails WP:NPROF. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:28, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in no way passes notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:32, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - For now due to reliable source. Barca (talk) 22:33, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:42, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nagina Group

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

No progress from previous AfD, no new sources found. Fails to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. Those already present are not WP:RS as many are directory listings. Störm (talk) 18:09, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:16, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:16, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In my view, the 5 references presently at the above article are reliable business websites – (Forbes business website), Dawn (newspaper), Business Recorder (2 references from the largest business newspaper in Pakistan), The News International (newspaper). I honestly don't understand how any one of them can be called a 'directory listing'? I also went ahead and updated all 5 references. This company is a notable company because one of its Wikipedia categories is …Category:Conglomerate companies of Pakistan. Ngrewal1 (talk) 01:45, 4 September 2019 (UTC) anyway.[reply]

Comment Have you read the guidelines? Nowhere does it say that if references appear in "reliable business websites" then the topic must be notable. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:32, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment By the way, Prosperity Weaving Mills Limited (a part of Nagina Group) is listed on the Pakistan Stock Exchange. So a notable company due to this fact also. I also added 3 more newspaper references today. Ngrewal1 (talk) 20:15, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If there are analyst reports for Prosperity Weaving Mills, then that compeny would surely pass the notability criteria. But notability isn't inherited. Where are the analyst reports and references for this company that meet the criteria for establishing notability (see WP:ORGIND especially). HighKing⁺⁺ 14:33, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Being listed on the stock exchange makes it a sizable enough company in Pakistan. Some more background on the textile subsidiary is mentioned by Business Recorder here. Mar4d (talk) 19:03, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Mar4d, except *this* company isn't listed on the stock exchange. Also Notability isn't Inherited. Can you clarify again why you are !voting to Keep? HighKing⁺⁺ 14:32, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 15:18, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Things get a bit tough with cases like this, where we are not dealing with some obvious promo/spam attempt for a start up. It's a mid size company with ~50 years of history. But pretty please, we need sources that are not press releases, and that's all there is in the article. Google Books gives me a snippet " Nagina Group, one of the oldest textile groups in the country, consisting of Nagina Cotton Mills Ltd. Ellcot Spinning Mills Ltd and Prosperity Weaving Mills Limited" [7]. And that's all I am seeing in Books/Scholar. We have to face the fact that WP:ITSIMPORTANT is subjective and not a valid. In its half a century of a history, this company doesn't seem to have attracted any serious attention from anyone willing to write about that outside or passing mentions/press releases of 'business as usual'. Therefore, this is WP:YELLOWPAGES type of a fail. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:17, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Excellent analysis by Piotrus above, summarised as "if, after 50 years, there aren't any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, then it isn't notable". Nonsense arguments which are not based on our guidelines put forward by Keep !voters above. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:32, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When Pakistan Stock Exchange website shows it's traded on their exchange, there is no doubt it's traded there!!! Other financial, national and international business websites, may not be updated yet.

Again, when Forbes magazine lists this company as among the best-performing-companies with less than US $1 billion in revenue in 2003, we can safely assume this company already went through their evaluation process. Forbes website reference is at the above article.

Then there are ASIANET Pakistan and 7 other independent newspaper and business website references at the article. Ngrewal1 (talk) 22:48, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Response Please read WP:NCORP. All of your sources fails this guideline and most of the arguments put forward against your references are grounded in those guidelines, especially WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND and the definition of "Independent Content". 1) This company is not listed on any stock exchange. A subsidiary appears to be but not this company. Also see WP:LISTED as being listed is not a guarantee of notability. 2) Being included on a list is specifically listed as "trivial coverage" and fails WP:CORPDEPTH 3) Not a single one of those references meet the criteria for establishing notability. Most are based on company announcements and mentions-in-passing. None contain "Independent Content" (as defined by WP:ORGIND). HighKing⁺⁺ 17:14, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Let's be reasonable with each other here, please. I took your own above provided link subsidiary and used it to find out that both subsidiaries – Prosperity Weaving Mills Limited and Nagina Cotton Mills Limited of Nagina Group are shown being traded on Pakistan Stock Exchange on MarketScreener International website. Then just to improve the article further, I have even included your two references at the article. We all know that Nagina Group's subsidiaries are part and parcel of the parent company and I am sure the reputable Forbes magazine considered all those factors before giving its rating 'as among the best-performing-companies with less than $1 billion in revenue in 2003'. Anyway, let's not continue arguing over it and let the closing administrator decide what they want to do with this article based on facts and contents of this article. Ngrewal1 (talk) 01:39, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It sounds like the only point of disagreement at this stage (hopefully my summary is not misrepresentative) is that you say that if the subsidiaries (they are listed, probably because there must be analyst reports although I haven't checked) are notable (generating revenues for the parent) then the parent is also notable. My position is that (as per guidelines) notability isn't inherited and the parent must be notable in its own right. You say notability is established through the Forbes article (implying the Forbes article meets the criteria for establishing notability). I say the Forbes article is "trivial coverage" (specifically, inclusion on a list - fails WP:CORPDEPTH) and furthermore contains zero information on the company (fails CORPDEPTH). Sure - let the closing admin make a decision. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:17, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie Graham

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

Non-notable regional (BBC) TV presenter with very little reliable sources to go by. Upon a Google search,not much comes up. - Funky Snack (Talk) 14:41, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:16, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:16, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:16, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 14:43, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable presenter. Wm335td (talk) 21:13, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:20, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chrissie Reidy

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

Non-notable regional (BBC) TV presenter with very little reliable sources to go by. Upon a Google search,not much comes up. - Funky Snack (Talk) 14:41, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 14:43, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:48, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:48, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:48, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:38, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:28, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy Hurrell

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

Non-notable regional (BBC) TV presenter with very little reliable sources to go by. Upon a Google search, not much comes up. Current sources and refs point to profile pages such as LinkedIn and BBC profiles.- Funky Snack (Talk) 14:41, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:17, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:17, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:17, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 14:43, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus was that the subject is notable. Any other actions can be discussed at the talk page. (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 03:13, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jim McMillan

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

Perfect example of WP:BIO1E. Tragic, yet the victim is not notable except as the result of the crime. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:28, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:28, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:40, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Lynching victims are often an uncomfortalbe topic for people. So I feel it is important to expand upon lynching that have newscoverage. As shown by the sources in the article, this African-American lynching victim received media coverage when the event happened. Article is a start article and will be expanded upon as more details are found -- Thats Just Great (talk) 14:40, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Rename to Lynching of Jim McMillan -It really does seem to be a case of WP:BIO1E. Three of the sources are just very brief news blurbs written in the immediate aftermath of the murderers' arrests, one is just the victims' name in a list, and the last is not about the victim at all, and is about the Red Summer in general. Although certainly tragic, there is not much demonstrating notability for the individual outside of the reports of his lynching. Alternatively, I could support a Merge to Red Summer, if it can be done without going against WP:UNDUE. Rorshacma (talk) 15:25, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can support renaming the article, and shifting the focus to the incident rather than the individual, as suggested below. I have changed my recommendation accordingly. Rorshacma (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:18, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:18, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No opinion as yet on the notability of this subject, but there's no way this is the primary topic for 'Jim McMillan', and if kept it needs to be moved to a disambiguated title and this article restored to being a redirect to James McMillan. If deleted, a redirect should be retained. --Michig (talk) 16:54, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely agree with the redirect being reinstated after the conclusion of this AfD.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:26, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If the article survives what would the disambiguated title be? Jim McMillan (Lynching victim)? -- Thats Just Great (talk) 19:55, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Murder of Jim McMillan? The article's about the lynching rather than the man after all. --Michig (talk) 21:01, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's reasonable -- Thats Just Great (talk) 22:55, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lynching of Jim McMillan is the usual house style. See, e.g., Lynching of Jesse Washington and Lynching of George Armwood. 24.151.50.175 (talk) 15:09, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge - the fact that his killers were put on trial for murder is in itself notable. Bearian (talk) 14:24, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. and rename to Lyching of ... as suggested. There's enough specific information to justify a separate article. DGG ( talk ) 03:06, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This was a notable lynching.Strandvue (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Lynching of Jim McMillan, per house style.

Two more contemporary news reports here and quoted here. I could find nothing about the trial – if it ever took place.

Jim McMillan should be a redirect to the DAB page James McMillan tagged as {{R from ambiguous term}}. A consequential edit to the DAB page will be needed, to point to the renamed article rather than to the (circular) redirect. Narky Blert (talk) 12:48, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Lynching of Jim McMillan -- I would support the last suggestion on DAB, but the target article will need a DAB capnote. I wonder whether there may not be a case for merging this with other similar lynchings. Certainly do not delete. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:44, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is enough coverage about the subject and the trial of his killers for a separate article. Nikoo.Amini (talk) 01:08, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 salt. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:34, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zionfelix

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

Subject (student blogger) does not meet criteria of WP:GNG or WP:BIO. The Ghana Tertiary Awards is not an award that confers notability, it seems to have to do with university students. The reference for it is also written by the subject himself.

Article was deleted three times before as advertising, and was recreated again identically, until other editors pared it of its promotional language and unreliable sources. ... discospinster _talk 13:32, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 13:32, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 13:32, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. A search found no significant coverage by any independent reliable sources. Recommend Salting due to the multiple promotional versions that have been previously deleted. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 14:53, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt I had reviewed the page via page curation a week or two ago (and it's creator awarded me a barnstar for helping), but overall this person fails WP:GNG. Endorse salting the article to prevent further creation. James-the-Charizard (talk) 12:22, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted (G11) and salted by User:Jimfbleak. (non-admin closure). Natg 19 (talk) 23:07, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Voodoo SMS

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

Subject of the article does not meet criteria of WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Two references are provided: one where the company is briefly mentioned in the context of an article about SMS security, and the other is a news report relating to religious objection to their name. Google search for "Voodoo SMS" comes up with fewer than 100 results, none of which are reliable sources that discuss the company significantly. Article was deleted several times before as advertising, and the current version retains some promotional language. ... discospinster _talk 13:17, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 13:17, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 13:17, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Its a small company but still relevant. Its one of the leading bulk SMS providers in the UK, but hasnt spent much money on PR. So surely that doesnt merit deletion just based on the fact that there arent many references to it on the web? All advertising has been removed from text.

@discospinster - can you please give specific examples of 'promotional language' so this can be reviewed? Thanks.

The article was speedy deleted, can we move to close this AFD? Chris857 (talk) 18:56, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Not as much input as I'd like to see, but sufficient to demonstrate that the subject doesn't meet WP:NBIO. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:57, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Grant Arthur Gochin

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO. None of the sources are in-depth coverage in RS. The majority are affiliated or simple announcements or passing mentions. I found quite a few mentions of him in the affaire of the plaque in Lithuania but none was in depth coverage they simply said he had sued the government several times about this plaque. this is not enough to show notability. Dom from Paris (talk) 23:29, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 23:29, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 23:29, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 23:29, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:46, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:46, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:49, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He has played a role in the reevaluation of Jonas Noreika and a redirect to that article where he is already briefly mentioned might be appropriate per WP:BIO1E. I am not finding coverage in English about him in other contexts besides the brief LA Magazine mention, and, the book that is named is self-published (CreateSpace) and unreviewed as best I can determine. 24.151.50.175 (talk) 16:36, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I am not qualified to judge the significance of his activism concerning the holocaust, but for the rest he is clearly NN, including as Honorary Consul. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:21, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree that notability is not shown. Renata (talk) 19:18, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Grant Gochin currently plays a large role in researching and exposing Holocaust Revisionism in Lithuania. Due to his continued work in this field, as well as his ongoing legal efforts with multiple state agencies in Lithuania, he is especially notable in the field of Holocaust Revisionism. Additionally, his status as a prominent member in the field of international affairs within Los Angeles must be recognized, thus doubly confirming his notability. --Stephenson b (talk) 01:01, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Stephenson b is the author of the article.
- Stephenson b: please provide in-depth independent sources to back up the notability claims. Wikipedia needs more than passing mentions and self-published or otherwise non-independent sources to establish notability. Renata (talk) 16:17, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Renata: To establish notability: ^[1] This Times of Israel article focuses on Gochin's ongoing lawsuit and places it relative to Holocaust Revisionism in Lithuania. ^[2] The latter half of this Politico article explores in-depth Gochin's case and the relationship between his research and the work of Silvia Foti, also notable in the field of Lithuanian Holocaust Revisionism. ^[3] This Haaretz article (published by one of the most widely recognized and trusted Israeli-based news sources) specifically explores Gochin and his case against the Lithuanian government. ^[4] This is an official statement from the Genocide and Resistance Research Center of Lithuania that explicitly responds to Gochin's lawsuit and dismisses his efforts as part of their ongoing court case. This is just a handful of the third party sources that I was able to find that explicitly mention Grant Gochin in detail and focus on his work. He did not personally author nor publish these works, but he is mentioned in-depth and focused on in these articles. Based on these high-profile mentions in the field of Holocaust Revisionism alone, I believe his notability is established. Stephenson b (talk) 02:43, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Stephenson b: None of these cited sources are about Gochin. They are about the lawsuit and the controversy, and Gochin is just interviewed about it (and not say about his life, work, or hobbies). These sources would make a case for the article on the controversy, not for the article on Gochin. See also WP:BIO1E. Renata (talk) 19:06, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There does not appear to be a consensus yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Taewangkorea (talk) 08:33, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:26, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Commendable activism, but not enough coverage to pass WP:NBIO. Ping User:Icewhiz who may find this subject of interest. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:21, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Decepticons. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:57, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thrust (Transformers)

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

Non-notable fictional character. The only real world reference is to a trivial Top X list. TTN (talk) 10:59, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 10:59, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 10:59, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Decepticons Argento Surfer (talk) 16:36, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Decepticons. Lacking in sources that demonstrate any sort of independent notability, but is already present on the master Decepticon list. Rorshacma (talk) 15:29, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:58, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leonardo Royal Hotel London City

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

Proposed deletion in 2010 was rejected because this was one of London's 5-star hotels. It's now under new management with a new name, and may no longer have 5-star status. (The Leonardo website lists their nearby hotel in St Pauls as 5-star [8] but does not say the same of this one [9]). Lord Belbury (talk) 09:44, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:23, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:09, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No opinion on whether this particular article should be kept as I don't know or care whether it's notable in Wikipedia terms, but don't let "star rating" have any impact on your thinking here. As I explained repeatedly a decade ago when I was trying (and failing) to clear up the hotel spam, may no longer have 5-star status has no relevance for UK hotels. There is no formal UK hotel rating scheme, and any establishment can describe itself with whatever number of stars it likes. Indeed, it's not unusual for the same establishment to use a different star rating to describe itself in marketing materials aimed at different audiences, depending on whether they want to appear luxurious or good value. ‑ Iridescent 15:55, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I echo Iridescent. Wikipedia is not a travel guide, and if you are choosing subjects according to star ratings you are approaching encyclopaedia article writing entirely wrongly.
The right approach is to see how well documented something is and how in-depth that documentation is. For this hotel, under either name, I could not find anything beyond directory listings, complete with prices, and advertisements. The sources cited discuss this subject only tangentially, as one out of several examples of a different subject. Sometimes with this sort of article there is an earlier name and it is the address that is notable for having a documented history of buildings, but Midland House (from the 1960s and existing mainly in yet more business directory listings) is not particularly well documented in the history books either. The old London Wall is, or was in the time of Midland House at least when some archaeology was done, still preserved at that address, but this would be a bizarre way to present that subject, even as a redirect.
Uncle G (talk) 18:47, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed with both the above. Grange City has a number of hits in Google books. Picking up something on it being a place for parties, I think it's Lloyds. But doesn't seem to be anything substantial. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:37, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not seem to have generated any reliable, independent coverage, much less significant coverage in same. Rockphed (talk) 15:19, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Charlie Shrem. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:31, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BitInstant

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

Another short lived bit coin company with next to no coverage outside (rewritten, business as usual) press releases. One WP:INTERVIEW in New York Magazine and the rest of coverage is worse... Creator was of course a likely paid and undisclosed SPA. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:29, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:32, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:32, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Charlie Shrem, whose arrest supplies all the third-party notability here - David Gerard (talk) 09:03, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete TechCrunch aside, all other reliable, independent, significant coverage seems to be about the founder. Redirect seems appropriate. Pegnawl (talk) 18:10, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:29, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SatoshiDice

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

Seems to fail WP:NCOMPANY, sources are limited to business-as-usual (buy our shares, merger/sold) press releases and their rewrites in the mostly unreliable bitcoin trade magazines, and minor coverage of a fine the company paid. Created by a likely undisclosed paid SPA. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:21, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:32, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:32, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this has never been a well-referenced article; its problems have been flagged but remained unfixed for years. SatoshiDice has negligible coverage outside crypto sites. There are some passing mentions from the early days of bitcoin on scholar.google.com, but nothing that I could see beyond passing mentions - David Gerard (talk) 08:59, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above Fails WP:GNG , WP:NCORP and WP:WEB.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:41, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:35, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Vermillion

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

Being elected clerk of the Kentucky Court of Appeals once and no other office is far from satisfying WP:POLITICIAN or WP:GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:20, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:31, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:31, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NPOL does not extend an automatic notability freebie just because a role happens to have been elected rather than hired; the difference between a role that passes NPOL and a role that fails it hinges on the importance of the work the person does in the role, and court clerk is not an "inherently" notable role at all. But the only evidence of reliable source media coverage being shown here at all is a single obituary in his hometown newspaper, which is not in and of itself enough coverage to get him over WP:GNG in lieu of having to hold an NPOL-passing role. Bearcat (talk) 17:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being the clerk of a court is not a notable position.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:25, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:29, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Voorhees

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. All there is are some mentions in passing. Subject is related to the spam-prone bitcoin area; article creator was a likely undisclosed paid WP:SPA who created a few articles related to bitcoin topics and disappeared (Bmrg567 (talk · contribs)). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:17, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:19, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning delete, though I could be convinced otherwise. But this article has never had good mainstream RS sourcing, once the crypto sites were removed - David Gerard (talk) 09:04, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Fails [[WP:SIGCOV] only passing mentions about the subject.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:46, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:36, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Survivor: Winners at War

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

Article uses sources from a singular spoiler site, Inside Survivor. The other site sourced, Reality Blurred, also uses information from Inside Survivor. The screenshot Instagram post with a picture of a logo also cannot be used as a valid source, since 1) the person in question is clearly a tourist who just met Steven Bradbury, not affiliated with CBS, 2) does not state "Winners at War" is the fortieth season", and 3) is a screenshot of the Instagram post, which could mean that it make doctored (either by Photoshop or through the Source Editor). As suggested the deletion by Sinjoh2015 (talk · contribs). ApprenticeFan work 08:00, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ApprenticeFan work 08:00, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. Upcoming TV show, not notable yet, may likely be notable once it airs. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:19, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A similar article (Wikipedia: Articles for deletion/Survivor: Edge of Extinction) was deleted since not many people were talking about it and it was still unconfirmed. From a simple google search of "Survivor season 40", many sources claim the fortieth season of Survivor is Winners at War (or at least an all-winners season). Some sources are related to Survivor and some are not, but the "main source" has proven to be reliable over the years. I must stress that the main source is not original research because it gets its information from Survivor itself or workers in Survivor, proving itself to be reliable. Jayab314 10:15, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Literally that same source was used for the early creation of Edge of Extinction, and was considered in violation of WP:RS. Inside Survivor also calls its articles rumors. In what way is a rumor a reliable source? Also, if there are more sources, then why weren't they used in conjunction with Inside Survivor? Telling someone to Google "Survivor Season 40" is not useful. Sinjoh2015 (talk) 10:35, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per my argument that ApprenticeFan copied above. In addition when Edge of Extinction was created (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Survivor: Edge of Extinction), it also faced a similar issue as all it used was a single source from Inside Survivor. The other "sources" used all linked back to Inside Survivor, and Inside Survivor was considered to not be WP:RS. Sinjoh2015 (talk) 10:35, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All work on the article is WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH and nothing has come from a confirmed source, merely spoiler sites (regardless of their accuracy) 135.196.1.74 (talk) 11:54, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It has always been past precedent to make a new article on an upcoming Survivor season, once CBS has officially released information about it. No matter how accurate Inside Survivor has been in the past, there are not an official source of information. In addition, all Survivor Season 40 info originated/cites information from Inside Survivor, so the argument that "other sources" have information on Season 40 is false. VietPride10 (talk) 03:45, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Ok I now understand that it was made too soon and is not necessarily reliable, but I have it in my sandbox for when it gets confirmed. Jayab314 22:21, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with the new sources not judged to demonstrate notability. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:40, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lana Rhoades

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

Deletion review came to the conclusion that the newly provided sources (https://www.xbiz.com/news/246121/op-ed-heres-what-happened-with-the-mia-khalifa-interview https://fortune.com/2018/01/24/most-popular-adult-film-stars/ https://www.bosshunting.com.au/culture/lana-rhoades-exclusive https://avn.com/business/articles/video/lana-rhoades-discusses-porn-debut-669399.html https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-sexual-coercion-epidemic-in-porn) need to be discussed. This is a procedural nomination; personally I have no opinion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:24, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:37, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:37, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:37, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:56, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:56, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:56, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:57, 10 September 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Delete. The Daily Beast article is the only source that meets the reliable, independent and significant coverage standard. The XBIZ article is an op-ed that only briefly mentions the subject. The Forbes listicle article is not significant coverage, and interviews don't count as independent. Comes up short on WP:BASIC and WP:ENT, and then now-superseded WP:PORNBIO SNG didn't prevail in the 2017 AfD. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The original AFD got this exactly right. There is virtually no reliable independent sourcing available, and the new sourcing, as Gene93k accurately points out, is hardly any better. The Forbes piece is clickbait from an outside source (it used to run at CNBC as "The Dirty Dozen") and was typically drawn heavily from Wikipedia articles. The Daily Beast source is a commentary by a retired porn performer, not an independent journalist, and the content regarding Rhoades is skimpy and buried deep in the piece and provides virtually no information useful in writing a BLP. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 20:46, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough reliable indepdent sourcing to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:47, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. —usernamekiran(talk) 02:32, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Malla Reddy Institute of Medical Sciences

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

Unreferenced stub. Fails WP:NSCHOOL/WP:GNG. With regards to WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and "Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools have historically been kept", please note there is no proof this is an " independently accredited degree-awarding institution". This may well be a Degree mill. With no evidence for or against we cannot extend good faith to spam-prone topics. Article on such website-only 'schools' should be assume to be spam ads for degree mills, unless someone can prove otherwise _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:14, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:38, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:38, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:38, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Degree-awarding medical college accredited by the Medical Council of India.[10] -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:01, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw as my concern has been addressed and therefore this passes SCHOOLOUTCOMES. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:45, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (and clean up). Sandstein 12:12, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jain Empires and Dynasties

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

Complete mixture of mythology with history. Like, for the 20th tirthankara, this page lists that Rama, Dashratha and other prominent figures of Hinduism as followers of Jainism. That is without any source. This is perfect example of WP:Misleading text.

Also, it is disputed that fathers of the Tirthankaras followed the Jainism as this article states without any mention. This list is ambiguous and misleading. This is violation of WP:DEL#6.

Hence, this debate. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 06:43, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 06:43, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 06:43, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 06:43, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 06:43, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 06:43, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 06:43, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:47, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Harshil169: The reasons you have mentioned have been resolved.. see that page's history for details Rishabh.rsd (talk) 08:16, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see why Category:Jain monarchs and this list cant co-exist. This in fact adds dynasties also in the list. All other problems which nominator mentioned are content issues and don't need deletion. The topic in itself is notable to keep. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:18, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is case of WP:Overcategorization and as you already mentioned, category exists then this list becomes reluctant. -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 06:37, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Without commenting on the merits of the subject at hand, Wikipedia:Overcategorization refers to having too many categories, not having lists as well as categories. The applicable guideline is WP:NOTDUP which clearly states that the existence of a category is not in itself sufficient reason for deletion of a list. Regards So Why 07:53, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dharmadhyaksha: , @Harshil169: And the content with which problems were there have been removed Rishabh.rsd (talk) 05:50, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dharmadhyaksha Article is still not resolved. I just cited one example to show how it is misleading. Here is an another example. Siddhartha of Kundagrama has been shown as Jain monarch while it is ambiguous that he followed Jainism; however, his son was tirthankara in Jain Tradition. Another goes for Ajayapala (Chaulukya dynasty), wikipedia page mentions his religion as Brahminism and it is also written that he didn't patronage Jainism then why he has place here in the list?

There are some other mistakes too. Like, obfuscating history with mythology. Mythological King Sagara also find place in same category as of other historical personality. That's why whole article is misleading and also it is WP:Overcategorization because Category:Jain monarchs already exists. -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 06:49, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this is content issue, not notability issue. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:35, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I didn't contest deletion under notability issue. The issue under which I nominated deletion must be read. It is under WP:DEL#6. I nominated this article for deletion because it is misleading from the basic structure and category already exists. Epical dynasties like Ikshvaku (in which Rama born), Harivamsha simply can't be label under same list as of historical dynasty like Chalukya. -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 15:41, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Harshil169: Siddharth of Kundagrama was follower of Jainism as he followed the teachings of 23 Tirthankara and Ajaypala was added by me by seeing his name in category of Jain Monarchs and I am removing him now and I am removing Sagara also

cite your sources.-- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 15:41, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Harshil169: I understand your concern that the list is being a mix of actual historically proven people with that of mythological people. I have added a separate section in the article to include such names. Please move the entries from top into it. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:17, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- There have been Jain kings and no doubt dynasties in India. If so, there is no reason for not having a list such as this. Issues about what its content should be can be resolved by editing. It will probably be better if history and myth are placed in separate sections of the article, but one never quite knows how much history may be incorporated in what is referred to as myth, because we cannot date it or the story includes the direct intervention of gods in human affairs. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:39, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - deletion is not clean-up. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:51, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Andy. IMO, the topic is inherently notable.Mini apolis 19:28, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree the topic is notable, and AFD is not cleanup. Dream Focus 23:36, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:40, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Daud Arsala

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

I mistakenly PRODed this not realising it was ineligible. This man was an unsuccessful candidate in a parliamentary election. I’ve looked in English and found only a couple of passing mentions in directories. In Pashto I found nothing at all. Therefore it’s clear the man is not notable. Mccapra (talk) 04:27, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 04:27, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 04:27, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems to fail WP:NBIO. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:23, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being an unsuccessful candidate for political office is not an inclusion-clinching notability claim, but this doesn't even really try to make a claim that he had preexisting notability for other reasons that would have gotten him into Wikipedia independently of the candidacy — the only reference being cited here at all is a glancing namecheck of his existence as a giver of soundbite in an article about somebody else, not coverage about him for the purposes of establishing his notability. I'd also note that the original prod was removed on the grounds that the prod rationale was expressed in a nonsensical and invalid way, not because there was any actual debate about his lack of notability — but since we're here, we're here. Also, both of the images in the article are screenshotted from a website but falsely claimed as Creative Commons-licensed original work created by the uploader, and accordingly have also had to be nominated for deletion at FFD. Bearcat (talk) 17:39, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NBIO - MA Javadi (talk) 16:52, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete failed candidates for public office are almost never notable for such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:22, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:44, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative Airlines

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

Not notable. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP, especially with respect to WP:CORPDEPTH. — Newslinger talk 03:26, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis of sources:
1. TTG Media: Coverage is not significant. The article focuses on payment systems (e.g. Amazon Pay), and gives very little information about Alternative Airlines itself.
2. Companies House: Indiscriminate directory listing.
3. Fast Track: Not significant. WP:CORP is stricter than WP:GNG, and doesn't give sourcing exemptions to companies that are on ranked lists.
4. Yell: Indiscriminate directory listing.
5. Travel Daily Media: Not significant. Reads like a press release.
6. Fintech Finance: Blog. Not reliable or significant. Reads like a press release.
7. Alternative Airlines: The company's website. Not independent.
8. Alternative Airlines: Company press release. Not independent.
9. Fintech Finance: Blog. Not reliable. Reads like a press release.
10. Travel Daily News: Self-published blog with two authors. Not reliable.

I found no sources outside of the ones cited in the article that would support Alternative Airlines's notability. — Newslinger talk 03:27, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 03:29, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 03:29, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 03:29, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 03:29, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a common misconception when it comes to company pages in Wikipedia. Some people feel that a lot of press makes a company notable. In fact, its the quality of the press as defined by WP:ORGCRIT that really matters. For this company, ORGCRIT is not met with any of the sources analyzed above or for any sources I found in a Google search. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:27, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 09:00, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:34, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Capture the Spirit of Ramadan

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

promotional and non notable. Essentially every references is PR, A few of the seem to have been published in otherwise fairly reputable sources, but they too seem to be PR. DGG ( talk ) 03:11, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:27, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Nnadigoodluck (talk) 17:13, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SOAP and WP:TNT - there's not a single, unbiased, independent and secondary source in the article. With due apologies to my Muslim friends, this is not an encyclopedia article; it's a press release. Bearian (talk) 14:27, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Absolute puff event listing that subverts Wikipedia Terms of Use, WP:NOT, WP:NOTADVERTISING. scope_creep^Talk 17:10, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is room for a merger discussion, but not really any consensus for deletion - and a merger discussion would have to be narrowly focused given the implication here that the lists are not comparable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:44, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Innovation (Technology) (1979)

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

Annual lists containing extremely few notable entries (some have 0 notable entries, most have under 5 notable entries, and only a few have 5-20). Each year is not notable on its own to merit its own list (cf. WP:LISTN) regardless of whether the award as a whole is or is not. Other articles being nominated here for the same reason:

Compare with an older mass nomination on empty/placeholder entries for the same awards (and more related AfDs: nonexistent years, empty, another empty). ~~These articles were all automatically generated and promptly abandoned.~~
An alternative, if some believe that having some list may be useful, is to create a list of awardees across all years, with inclusion limited to those that already have existing articles. However, these year-by-year lists should be deleted regardless. — MarkH21 (talk) 03:03, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 03:03, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 03:03, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep
- They have never been "abandoned", only attacked, notably by User:Fram. Not all of these articles were created by me, a few other people have been prepared to contribute.
- A huge amount of work went into creating these articles, the information was not available in decent machine readable form and needed substantial work.
- Even if they had been automatically created, then "promptly abandoned" - which seems to suggest that both these things are bad - they are not - and by extension poison the well against the creator, that would be irrelevant. 30,000 stubs were automatically created by User:rambot and "promptly abandoned" and are now full fledged articles. (I know, I have worked on almost all of them).
- Most of the awardees are notable if anyone can be arsed to actually do the work to research them - even those that are not can simply be unlinked. We do not limit these types lists to entities that are wiki-notable. Our coverage of commercial entities that are not prominent is very poor.
- We do normally have year-by-year lists for awards where there are a significant number of awardees - this example is for one category, of one award that had two awardees. Making one big list of all awardees over 50+ years would be ludicrous, numbering possibly thousands of entries.
- There is no doubt that these are notable awards, covered annually in the press and in early decades, national television news.
- I would not be totally adverse to mergeing earlier years sections into one article per year, if the total number of recipients is small.
- When I created these articles there was one Queen's Award for Enterprise article with a list of random winners in random categories from random years, and in some cases the wrong entity was credited the award. Returning to the "one list to rule them all" would invite this type of chaos back.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 11:44, 10 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Moreover many of the awardees do have article on Wikipedia, even though they are redlinks,some are even household names. I just turned the following links blue with a few moments work.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:51, 10 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]

@Rich Farmbrough: The current state is more chaotic than one list with the notable winners from each year. Perhaps it was not systematic and inclusive before, but a List of Winners of the Queen's Award for Enterprise with sections for each category and subsections for each year would serve better than the existing model of dozens of articles incompletely covering dozens years. — MarkH21 (talk) 15:39, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the ones that need merging/Not a topic for a single AFD - The awards themselves are definitely notable. Obviously some years not all winners are notable and not all categories are populated - but this seems to be a question best handled on a case-by-case basis. FOARP (talk) 15:06, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @FOARP: I don't think that there should be a list for each category for each year. Each list only has a few notable winners at most, and this is true for all of the ones nominated. — MarkH21 (talk) 15:39, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We have not established that only notable winners should be listed.
We have not established that "only a few" on each list are notable.
- On the article The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Innovation (Technology) (2007) there are forty winners listed. Thirteen are already blue links, which seems more than "a few" to me. Of the other I have looked at, Air Products PLC, Packaged Gases Group, is almost certainly a part of Air Products and Chemicals, and has a turnover of some $7 bn. James Halstead is a member of the AIM 50, and so almost certainly notable. Enterprise Control Systems is a leader in UAVs, and almost certainly notable. Autoflame is a relatively small engineering firm, but was a pioneer in electronic boiler control, may well be notable. Solagen is a solar sign company, which may struggle to meet notability criteria, although I may just need to search more thoroughly.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:52, 10 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Whereas most have very few entries like this. Most of the lists in "Sustainable Development (Environmental Achievement)" can never have more than a few entries based on this table. WP:LISTN applies and Wikipedia is not a directory of any business that has won this award that is given to 200+ per year. On the topic of LISTN: "Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group." Are the individual category years really notable? Is "The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Innovation (Technology) (2010)" really individually notable in the spirit of WP:GNG or something similar? It seems that each category-year is not. — MarkH21 (talk) 21:11, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~1983 is a difficult year, because the government have lost the documents. But it's still going to be reliably sourced, and verifiably so in the London Gazette, and newspapers of the time.~~ {This was a different year, someone had well-intentionally broken the ref in this case, I have populated this page now.)
Yes, thanks, I am familiar with the table, I created it.
It is interesting that you oppose these pages both on the small number of entries on them, and on the large number of entries on them.
Year-categories is a sensible way to build this coverage, because, pace deleters, in enables us to have year pages and category pages, without creating forked content.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:23, 11 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Nowhere have I opposed it on a large number of entries. It's the small number of notable entries. The 200+ per year is to contrast just how few are notable. And sure, you could find a reliable source listing entries for 1983 or any year, but is that year's award notable on its own? Are there multiple reliable sources with significant coverage on it? In the 1983 case, one article that prints the list in the London Gazette with no significant accompanying words doesn't seem to count. — MarkH21 (talk) 19:38, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We use the London Gazette (along with the Cardif, Dublin, Belfast, Edinburgh, and some 80+ other official Gazettes) as a reliable source for a huge number of things, in nearly 25,000 articles. I don't think there is any doubt as to its general reliability.

The awards are covered generally in the Financial Times, other quality papers' business pages, local newspapers and the trade press. Broadcast coverage was significant in the early years, and there is still some regional coverage.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:14, 11 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]

I am not disputing its reliability at all. Just whether there is evidence of WP:SIGCOV (on each year-category, not just the award as a whole). (Plus, whether we should have lists dedicated to 7 or so entries) — MarkH21 (talk) 20:18, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps if you do a Google news search for "Queens Award for Enterprise 2018" you will be able to answer that, at least in part, for yourself. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:21, 12 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Which is not a year-category and also not nominated for deletion. If you search for articles that provide sigcov on, say, "The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Sustainable Development 2003" then you'll find something different. — MarkH21 (talk) 21:16, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:03, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:03, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:03, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all, procedural close, another mass afd where the nominator seems to think that editors have the time to check each article for notability ie. 10mins per article we are looking at around 6 hours! we do not! Coolabahapple (talk) 05:25, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- They’re extremely similar articles and so don’t each require so much time to consider. Nominating them together saves time relative to making dozens of separate AfDs. — MarkH21 (talk) 06:59, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong merge Have one article/list for each category; it's simply preposterous to have separate articles for every year within each category. Looking though these, the list would not at all be too long to cover together, or do it by decade. I laugh at the comparison to the Nobel Prize, which receives worldwide coverage, which is only split by year for Peace, and which really doesn't even need annual articles when the recipients' cover the same content about their award too. I don't think you would ever need to spend 10 minutes on each category-year to figure this out... Reywas92^Talk 05:35, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator comment: In line with Reywas92's point and suggestion, I do think that merging these articles into three articles (one for each category) would be a reasonable solution in lieu of outright deletion. — MarkH21 (talk) 06:59, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all List of who won a notable award year by year are fine. Some of these articles are far longer than others, so I don't think you can just merge them all together, not any reason to do so. A navigational box would be a useful thing for these. Dream Focus 10:08, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Give me a break, I just created The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Sustainable Development (Environmental Achievement) from its yearly stubs. I won't redirect the individual pages while they're tagged but it's absurd to keep them separate. Even for the other two categories with more items, a list with a couple hundred bullet-pointed items is not too large to cover together, or they can go by decade: The Queen's Award for Enterprise: International Trade (Export) (2013) has a nice big 113 items but is less than 4,000 bytes and doesn't take up much space with its four columns. The related context, lack of prose, and lack of reason to split other than your perceived WP:LENGTH issue is reason to merge. Reywas92^Talk 19:33, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Give you a break", here you go Coolabahapple (talk) 00:32, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn ergo speedy keep

Disappearance of Jennifer Dulos

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

The article should explain why this crime has encyclopedic value. Some crimes have encyclopedic value because of who the victim is, who the accused is or because whatever happened as a result. Not every crime that happens and is mentioned on the news has encyclopedic value in my opinion. Poveglia (talk) 03:00, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - I think we should not include everything that meets GNG but be more selective and that a tragic event that is mentioned in many sources but doesn't have much on a long term impact on those who are lucky enough to not be directly affected by it and is unfortunately not unique or rare should not be included. Other people prefer to include everything that meets GNG. OK. Poveglia (talk) 22:39, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Special thanks to @May His Shadow Fall Upon You:, which it may not. Poveglia (talk) 22:39, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I prodded it, @DGG: deprodded it using the editsummary: "additional sources seem to be rapidly becomingavailable--too soon to decide.". I'd argue that something is non-notable until it becomes notable. Poveglia (talk) 03:04, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Crime_victims_and_perpetrators says: "The victim or person wrongly convicted, consistent with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Subjects notable only for one event, had a large role within a well-documented historic event. The historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role." and that just isn't the case here. This is not an event of historic or encyclopedic significance and there is no persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources. Poveglia (talk) 04:51, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_newspaper says: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia.". This event sure was newsworthy at the time but there is no enduring notability; its just routine news reporting. Poveglia (talk) 05:06, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Keep. This is a notable crime. It's received national and international coverage. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:07, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Joseph A. Spadaro: The article does not mention that national and international coverage. It contains just two sources. Any missing white woman will result in some press coverage, but there is no indication that this crime is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia unlike thousands of similar crimes. Stuff like this happens every day. Poveglia (talk) 03:10, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I checked and according to Google there is no international coverage. Only some national coverage, and only for a short period of time. Poveglia (talk) 03:15, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, cuz I just started the article. As I am sure you know. AND I put the "under construction" template at the top. Which, I gather, you either did not see or simply chose to ignore. Which? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:14, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, if the event is notable it should take less than a minute to find a link on Google and copy-paste it into the article. Poveglia (talk) 03:16, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(1.) Cover of ‘’People’’ Magazine. (2.) Listed as “’’World News’’ “ here: [11]. How did your one-minute Google search miss all that? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:27, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some guys "lifestyle news" blog is not exactly a great source. Greek City Times sounds like a newspaper you'd be able to buy in Athens but its just the name of a "lifestyle news" blog ran by 2 people in Sydney, Australia. Poveglia (talk) 03:29, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney, Australia = international. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:33, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah the modus operandi of blogs like that is to regurgitate information found elsewhere in more reliable sources, hoping to bait clicks. Poveglia (talk) 03:37, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how that answered my very pointed question. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:17, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is an encyclopedia, not an indiscriminate collection of text, so the fact that an article is under construction (like every single article on Wikipedia, none of them are finished) does not mean we should store information about non-notable events. I don't have to judge notability based on the article, I can simply type her name into Google to see limited local coverage for a short period of time. Poveglia (talk) 03:21, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Articles start as stubs. Then. grow. Or, did you think they just pop up in full form, out of nowhere, with no "work" or "construction"? Unreal. Bye. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:24, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is true in general. Not in this case because the event is not notable. We should get rid of this article before more time is wasted describing a non-notable event. Poveglia (talk) 03:26, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so you are the "final arbiter"? I was not aware. I say it's notable; you say it ain't. End of story. Bye. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:29, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah the fact that you've refused to provide evidence for that claim, and that none can be found in the article, is why I nominated it. Poveglia (talk) 03:32, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I just started the article. And I listed it as "under construction". Sorry that I don't work as fast as to your liking. Get lost, dude. Really. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:34, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You could've posted some links here in the past 20 minutes... Poveglia (talk) 03:37, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes, indeed. You right, Masta. As I said above, sorry that I am not working as quickly as you REQUIRE me to. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:39, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've read your talkpage and seen you respond like this to others. Are you sure that a collaborative environment like Wikipedia is the right one for you? Poveglia (talk) 03:46, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Listed as "World News": [12]. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:38, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If some Greek press reported on it because of the fact that one of the people involved is Greek that doesn't automatically make this worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. The husband is a Greek American. But I don't see what makes this crime special; why is so different about it from 8746358734685 other crimes committed in the past decade that this one should be included in an encyclopedia while the others are not. Poveglia (talk) 03:42, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Got ya. I see. Called "moving the goal post". Right? First, you complain that there are no international sources. Then, you complain that I am not providing you with info fast enough to your liking. Then, as soon as I find exactly what you want -- an international source -- you come up with a brand new excuse. Which basically amounts to "well, of course, this will be international news in Greece". Again, after you were complaining about a lack of international sources. So, again, moving the goal-post, when it suits your needs. Done talking with you. You're a joke. Hard to take seriously. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:48, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please re-read the stuff above, then compare it with your description of it. I'm sure you'll be able to find the discrepancies. Thank you, Poveglia (talk) 03:50, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - as a disinterested observer, the dingdong above seems a bit unnecessary, this appears to be a developing news story and thus there are now more notable sources eg CNN and CBS NY which perhaps have not yet been taken into account. If there is an 'underconstruction' tag surely it would be good faith to assume these sources will be added, at the same time the article was created 3 days ago and only has two references at the moment so it definitely needs some work to justify the tag. If more sources are added, I would be inclined toward keep. Mujinga (talk) 12:26, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are a million sources. National and international. Including the cover of People Magazine, and also Rolling Stone. And -- I just found out -- a full-hour episode of the TV show Dateline (airing just last night). These would eventually be added into the article. I only started the article a day or two ago; I immediately slapped an "under construction" tag. And, of course, five minutes after the brand new article is started, some one with a "trigger finger" puts it up for deletion. A quick Google search will show dozens of sources, many local, many national. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:19, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If sources that indicate a lasting notability and encyclopedic relevance are added I will also vote keep of course. Poveglia (talk) 13:08, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A quick Google search shows that this story has been covered repeatedly by CNN, CBS New York, New York Post, Fox News, International Business Times, The Advocate, Yahoo! News, and the list goes on. Although the article may not be fleshed out, this appears to easily cross the bar of notability. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ^Talk 13:48, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - In addition to my Keep vote above, I wanted to comment on some of the policies invoked in this discussion because I've found them to be commonly misunderstood. WP:CRIME does not require that the victim have a "large role in a historical event." WP:CRIME is concerned with whether the victim should have their own article, independent of the crime itself. Such a policy would be very relevant if the AfD was for Jennifer Dulos; but it's not. WP:CRIME is a more specific restatement of WP:BLP1E, which is another widely misunderstood policy. This does not address whether the crime should have an article; that's handled by WP:NCRIME. NCRIME states, in it's entirety, Articles about criminal acts, particularly those that fall within the category of "breaking news", are frequently the subject of deletion discussions. As with other events, media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, provided such coverage meets the above guidelines and those regarding reliable sources. The disappearance of a person would fall under this guideline if law enforcement agencies deemed it likely to have been caused by criminal conduct, regardless of whether a perpetrator is identified or charged. If a matter is deemed notable, and to be a likely crime, the article should remain even if it is subsequently found that no crime occurred (e.g., the Runaway bride case) since that would not make the matter less notable. I think this clearly meets NCRIME criteria as evidenced by abundant national-level coverage. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ^Talk 13:57, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Many sources covering this including New York Times[13]. Bus stop (talk) 15:22, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the goal here is to write an encyclopedia, not a somewhat random collection of old news. If people disagree that's fine. If they agree then I would like them to explain what makes this crime worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. This isn't D. B. Cooper. Poveglia (talk) 17:17, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is not "old news". This happened in May 2019. And it is still continuing and ongoing news. And its coverage has also been continuous and ongoing. If anything, the coverage has increased and expanded, as the story continues to grow and develop. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:25, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I just found out: The TV show Dateline did a one-hour special episode about this case, also. The show aired just last night! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:31, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Poveglia—you are mentioning the D. B. Cooper article. I think the comparison is the riddle wrapped up in an enigma aspect of both articles. We also have the Death of Elisa Lam article. I would guess we have other articles too that involve a severely unanswered question with the powerful implication of criminality. One important consideration involves the level of support in sources, but the Disappearance of Jennifer Dulos certainly attains some level of support in sources, so I am reluctant to reject the article's existence. Bus stop (talk) 18:03, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bus stop: I thought it was kinda obvious who were responsible after reading the article. So to me it doesn't seem like much of a mystery. The D.B. Cooper case is a mystery that has been talked about for decades. I didn't know Elisa Lam's name, but I did remember her story after so many years. I checked Google News, sorted by recency, and there are recent articles that mention Elisa Lam and D.B. Cooper [14] [15] It seems very unlikely that the disappearance of Jennifer Dulos will generate the same level of persistent coverage over the years (or decades in Cooper's case). Especially when the husband (and perhaps his girlfriend) get convicted, which is what I would assume the next chapter of this drama will be. I don't think its a much of a whodunnit when there are 2 people arrested on charges of tampering with evidence and hindering prosecution. Poveglia (talk) 18:15, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let me correct myself. There are mysteries involved in these cases. Some presumptions are strongly suspected. You make a valid point that it seems likely the husband will be convicted, although that remains an unknown at this time. But wouldn't there still be large mysteries such as why he would kill the mother of his 5 children? Or am I being too pollyannish? Reliable sources are closely following the case probably due to the enormity of the crime that is alleged to have transpired. We also have Watts family homicides. Bus stop (talk) 18:35, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I remember that story too, and when I looked on Google News (sorted by recency) I noticed someone wrote an article about them yesterday. That is 393 days after the event. It seems unlikely that this disappearance will receive the same persistent coverage. If and when the husband is convicted it will be case closed so to speak. I do think we should have an article on Mike the Headless Chicken because there is persistent coverage over a long period of time in multiple sources. For the future generations our article about Mike will have more value than an article about some random murder (let's be honest, its extremely unlikely that she is going to be found alive and well) that happened a long long time ago. Poveglia (talk) 21:25, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Updates

Update: January 10, 2020. This case has only increased in notability (and coverage), over the past half-year or so. We made the "right call" above. The nomination "deserved" to be withdrawn. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:17, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another Update: May 21, 2021. The State of Connecticut is close to passing a "Jennifers' Law", in response to this case. See: "Jennifers' Law" receives near unanimous support in state Senate. Source: [16]]. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:40, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:33, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dadi Shari

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

Unable to verify that any place of this name exists. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:00, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:00, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. First ref is dead. Second ref is unrelated and a google search shows up with nothing related. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 06:50, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - maybe there's something in the deprod but I also couldn't find anything to verify the place Mujinga (talk) 12:19, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reliable sources. - MA Javadi (talk) 16:56, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:06, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:NGEO, no sources found that this settlement exists (and a quick scan using gmaps starting at the coords in the article shows nothing). Coolabahapple (talk) 00:10, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the article is literally a duplicate of Dilbar Mat in everything but article name. The other article was created by the same user but actually exists (Pakistan Gov and India Today mention). — MarkH21 (talk) 07:21, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:33, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nikola Totić

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

He fails WP:FPL as he hasn't played in a professional league game for any of the clubs that he has played at. HawkAussie (talk) 01:59, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 01:59, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 01:59, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 01:59, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NFOOTY. SportingFlyer T·C 02:00, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG due to no significant independent coverage, and WP:NFOOTY due to not having played in a WP:FPL or in a Tier-1 international match. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 05:38, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:NFOOTY notability requirement to merit a page in mainspace. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:27, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:54, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:59, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Meets GNG, whilst some of the links posted contain links to articles about specific matches, there are clearly elements there which go beyond this indicating the club as an entity has garnered a reasonable level of coverage in mexican media. Fenix down (talk) 15:20, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Titanes de Saltillo

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

The club fails WP:FOOTYN as they did not compete in national cup of Mexico throughout their two years of competing. HawkAussie (talk) 01:57, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 01:57, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 01:57, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:53, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - played in the Serie A de México, the same level that teams are eligible to compete in the national cup. There is consensus at WP:FOOTBALL that that is sufficient. Needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 13:58, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GiantSnowman.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:07, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Serie A de México. We need at least one secondary source to write an article, don't we? What I'm finding are primary source game reports. – Levivich 01:51, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG, see the articles written on the team here: [17] and general articles: [18] [19] (which doesn't bode well, I can't find any evidence they played after mid-2017.) SportingFlyer T·C 05:12, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I think the need for secondary sources (WP:NOR: Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources...) applies just as much to team articles as to bios. Unless I missed something, all I'm seeing are contemporaneous game reports, reports of an award, reports of a default... these all seem like primary sources. The "source trifecta" is reliable, independent, secondary. WP:NTEAM points to WP:GNG, and GNG says at least two sources that meet the trifecta. Here, I'm not seeing even one. – Levivich 15:35, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They're not primary - they're periodicals which have covered the team. SportingFlyer T·C 17:32, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm of the view that newspaper reporting on current events (i.e., such-and-such team won by so many points and so-and-so scored a goal) = primary source – Levivich 19:49, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is one of the most ridiculous arguments I have ever heard in a deletion discussion. All newspapers cover current events. By that logic, none of them can be used to meet GNG. That's absurd. Smartyllama (talk) 15:18, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the first time you're seeing this argument made? May I introduce to you WP:PRIMARYNEWS, part of the explanatory supplement WP:Identifying and using primary sources. Anyway, that reporting by newspapers is primary doesn't mean everything written by newspapers is primary. – Levivich 21:08, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, in case it wasn't obvious by my response above. Smartyllama (talk) 15:18, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A redirect can still be created if editors feel like it, but I can't see anybody merge these reams of fancruft into an actual article. Sandstein 12:14, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Transformers: Prime (toy line)

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

PROD rationale: "Non-notable toy line". Better idea to merge/redirect. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 00:30, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 00:30, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 00:30, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect to Transformers: Prime. We don't need a separate article consisting only of a bullet-point toy list. JIP | Talk 12:25, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not-notable topic. TTN (talk) 19:39, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable topic. --24.101.156.239 (talk) 18:55, 8 September 2019 (UTC) Sockpuppet of permabanned troll A Nobody. Reyk _YO! 07:01, 9 September 2019 (UTC) [reply]
Delete - This is little more than a catalog of a toy line, without any reliable sources discussing it. There is nothing worth merging, and it would be useless as a search term for a redirect, as I can't see anyone specifically tacking the "Toy Line" onto the end before just searching for "Transformers: Prime" to begin with. Rorshacma (talk) 16:09, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:50, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- This is a poorly sourced toy catalogue. I do not think any of the content is suitable to be merged anywhere and the title doesn't seem useful. Reyk _YO! 05:17, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~It may not be useful to you, but it clearly is to others. It's not all about you. --24.101.156.239 (talk) 16:52, 10 September 2019 (UTC)~~ Sockpuppet of permabanned troll A Nobody. Reyk _YO! 05:41, 11 September 2019 (UTC) [reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Autobots#Micromasters. Whether to merge something from the history is up to editors. Despite the somewhat flaccid discussion, editors agree that we do not need to erect a monument in the form of an article to this particular toy. Sandstein 12:11, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Erector (Transformers)

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

PROD contested by @JIP: for reason "famous for unfortunate name". Of course, this must still pass GNG.,, FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 00:34, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 00:34, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 00:34, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Autobots. This article attempts to make a GNG claim with the Topless Robot source, but that notability ones comes from being a part of this group. Making into the Transformers Hall of Fame might confer some notability, but I'm unconvinced it's enough to sustain an article on its own. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:11, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Hoist (Transformers) and Pipes (Transformers) were both recently deleted although a Redirect to List of Autobots was suggested - by the same rationale, Erector (Transformers) should be deleted as well - Epinoia (talk) 03:36, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:50, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of autobots, either with or without redirect. We have several articles on rather unfortunate names, so this doesn't get a freebie in that respect. See also the Pokemon test, which I think this fails. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:19, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per my PROD. TTN (talk) 02:36, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Autobots. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blurr

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

PROD contested by @JIP: for reason "one of the most prominent characters in the third season of the original cartoon". Of course, this must still pass GNG... FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 00:35, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 00:35, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 00:35, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Hey, good news here! There is an exception to Wikipedia's requirements for notability of topics which means this article can easily be Kept, with only small modification to clarify that it is a set index article covering multiple items, i.e. the 7 usages of the name that the article does cover. The reason this can be saved is the argument/fact that any verifiable set of same-named things is allowed to be covered in a set index article, for which standards of notability do not apply! There is no requirement for wp:GNG or any other standard to be met, beyond verification that there are multiple things named "Blurr". It should probably be renamed, however, to "List of fictional characters named Blurr" or similar, and Category:Set indices should be added, so that it is clear to all that the big exception applies.

In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of lakes named McArthur (still ongoing, but honestly it seems very likely the decision will be to "Keep" or not delete the article, thereby endorsing the strategy), it is being clarified that this maneuver is okay. This is great. By its reasoning, this article can be saved! --Doncram (talk) 05:39, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Doncram: I recommend you think about WP:POINT and your comment here. —hike395 (talk) 09:26, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:OR and WP:FANCRUFT. Nothing salvageable here, since there are no secondary sources._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:52, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Autobots. There have been several incarnations of the character, but anyone knowledgeable about the subject to search for the character by name will find what they want on this list. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:20, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:49, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Autobots. There are no reliable sources demonstrating any independent notability, however as the character was prominent in the classic animated series, it stands to reason that it would be a potential search term. The character is already included on the target list, so a redirect is all that is necessary. Rorshacma (talk) 15:34, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 18:05, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

South Fork, Humboldt County, California

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

~~Is it notable? We'll find out now. 99721829Max (talk) 00:37, 2 September 2019 (UTC)~~ Declined PROD. Rationale was: Unsourced; a WP:BEFORE search does not turn up enough for it to pass WP:GNG. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 18:43, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. No deletion rational provided in nomination. And wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP. --Doncram (talk) 00:57, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Doncram: 99721829Max is the creator of the article. The article was proposed for deletion by Willsome429, and the rationale for deletion can be found in his PROD nomination and my subsequent endorsement of the PROD ([20][21]). – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 01:27, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well could you please state any rationale for deletion explicitly here, for the record. Y'all are asking for multiple regular/specialized/skilled AFD editors with limited time to come and evaluate the article here and its AFD. Whatever is your rationale should not be hidden. --Doncram (talk) 01:37, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 01:07, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:16, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No entry for such place in the GNIS database, so no evidence it has merely appeared on a map, much less has any coverage in substantive sources to pass GNG. Reywas92^Talk 02:01, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, "South Fork" is in fact in the Geographic Names Information System, as GNIS ID 234961, which is classified as a "locale". This was mentioned in the article and/or tags on the article but was deleted by the edit opening the AFD. It is BOGUS to delete stuff in an article in order to try to "win" an AFD due to lack of stuff in the article. --Doncram (talk) 04:12, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah, I had searched populated places to exclude the hundreds of streams in the state. A locale is not automatically notable simply for appearing in a context-free database of anything that has been on a map. That entry mentions Dyerville, California as an alternate name; could redirect there. Reywas92^Talk 04:54, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The historical settlement that was at this point, the confluence of South Fork Eel River and Eel River, until 1915 was Dyerville. This name was originally the name of a post office. Actually of two post offices, one short lived in 1861, and a second one in 1933, some 18 years after Dyerville was destroyed. See ISBN 9780520266193 p. 371. The second one was the post office of a short-lived town named — yes — South Fork, that sprang up because of the railroad and logging. See ISBN 9781467130622 p. 37 and ISBN 9780738595139 p. 48 et al.. History books, people! Uncle G (talk) 10:16, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I find mention of South Fork, Humboldt County prior to 1915 e.g. in the Santa Cruz Weekly Sentinel January 8, 1876 "Colonel H. Allen. who recently died at South Fork, Humboldt county, weighed 350 pounds". References to it continue through to the 1950s (excluding of course mention of South Fork High School in nearby Miranda, California). Are we sure the South Fork settlement and Dyerville weren't in different locations e.g on different sides of the river? --Pontificalibus 11:55, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I haven't found documentation of more than a South Fork post office in the 19th century, and although a settlement is possible the post office only lasted a year according to the aforecited source. The only actual South Fork settlement in the books that I have looked at so far is the 20th century one. South Fork and Dyerville are two distinct things, but seemingly more separated in time rather than space. See ISBN 9780738595139 p. 87 for a 1930s photograph of a CCC camp where Dyerville once was with the railroad in the background. Uncle G (talk) 12:33, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ok, this claims the name "South Fork" was later adopted for the railroad station at the south end of the railroad bridge. If the settlement around the railroad station is what is referred to when sources say "South Fork, Humboldt County", this puts that settlement on the opposite side of the Eel River to Dyerville which was on the north bank. Here it is on a map fragment (website currently timing out).----Pontificalibus
      - You are assuming something not in the sources, the physical extents of these things. They were both at the confluence. We don't know more than that. And as I said before: history books, not maps! The history books will tell you that Founders Grove, inagurated 1937-11-15 some 22 years after Dyerville was destroyed, is on the Dyerville Flats. You are looking at a map from entirely the wrong time period to determine where Dyerville was. Uncle G (talk) 13:09, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Regardless of the extent of Dyerville, the map shows South Fork railroad station well south of the south bank, and the source above shows, on the north bank, an "aerial view of Dyerville in 1935, which by that time was mostly a CCC Camp". Post-1935 sources referring to "South Fork, Humboldt County" are thus unlikely, at that time, to be referring to a settlement synonymous with Dyerville. This would indicate a separate article referring to the settlement and also railroad station may be warranted.----Pontificalibus 13:51, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Verified large (pop. 300) settlement. In the absence of any source stating this town (widely named in historical sources and with its own post office(s) and rail station) was actually simply a renamed Dyerville then this should not be merged----Pontificalibus 07:34, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:49, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, because I cannot see a reason why WP:GEOLAND wouldn't apply. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:33, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. People who really feel like it can still create a redirect. Sandstein 12:15, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sparkplug (Transformers)

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

PROD contested by @JIP: for reason "one of the main human characters in the original cartoon". Not sure this counts as standalone notability. Merge or redirect? FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 00:43, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 00:43, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 00:43, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lists of Transformers characters. Any user searching for this character will likely be knowledgeable enough to find what they want from this list. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:22, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Hoist (Transformers) and Pipes (Transformers) were both recently deleted although a Redirect to List of Autobots was suggested - by the same rationale, Sparkplug (Transformers) should be deleted as well - Epinoia (talk) 03:42, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- You're the one who suggested the redirect though... Did the closing comment change your mind about how these should be handled? Argento Surfer (talk) 16:54, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus was Delete (see Wikipedia:Consensus) - for consistency with consensus, this article should be deleted as well as it has no more notability than the other ariticles - Epinoia (talk) 17:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue those two examples are outliers - most of the similar discussions I've seen opt for redirects. Plus, WP:CCC. Although we should abide by prior consensus, that does not mean we must agree with it when a new discussion arises. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:06, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:48, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A redirect from this title would be confusing (do some transformers really have a sparkplug?) It should, like all characters from Transformers (film series), be of the format Sparkplug (fictional character).----Pontificalibus 06:40, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pontificalibus. The character is nowhere near notable enough to maintain a independent article, and Sparkplug (fictional character) would be the more appropriate title for a redirect to the character list. Rorshacma (talk) 15:30, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Closing as "delete" rather than "redirect" because the term isn't currently featured in the proposed target, rendering that argument somewhat weaker. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:30, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sky Lynx

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

PROD contested by @JIP: for reason "important character in both cartoon and comic". Not sure this counts as standalone notability. Merge or redirect? FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 00:43, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 00:43, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 00:43, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - original toy is only worth $40 at my local comic shop Argento Surfer (talk) 20:24, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lists of Transformers characters - different versions have belonged to different factions. Anyone searching for this character by name will likely be knowledgeable enough to find what they want from here. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:24, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:48, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails the GNG. TTN (talk) 02:37, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There's consensus to delete this. There's no clear consensus on how to address its relationship to hyperspace. Editors remain free to implement any of the proposed solutions on their own. Sandstein 12:19, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperdrive

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

Complete cruft that is unreferenced. Most of the article simply talks about hyperspace which we already have an article for. "Hyperdrive" appears to be predominantly a Star Wars term. I recommend deleting this article, then moving Hyperdrive (disambiguation) to it and linking it to Hyperspace. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:52, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:52, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:52, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Zxcvbnm: The external links section has four working sources in the article, apparently in-depth. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 21:10, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I went over those, but they appear to be more like the press using the term "hyperdrive" to refer to something that isn't actually called "hyperdrive" just to make people understand the concept._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:13, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hyperspace, Delete and Move Disambiguation Page Here - as both articles are on essentially the same subject, and this article itself uses the term "hyperspace" interchangeably with "hyperdrive". Since none of the information presented in this article is actually sourced, nothing needs to be merged over, though some of the external links may be useful as sources for the main article. Rorshacma (talk) 17:38, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The question is should the term "hyperdrive" be a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to "hyperspace" when there are a number of other media called that, and it's a relatively niche, predominantly Star Wars-related term? I think putting the disambiguation in this article's place would make more sense._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:45, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are right, this space would be better suited for the disambiguation page, with the link to "Hyperspace" included in that. I have edited my above recommendation to reflect this.Rorshacma (talk) 19:19, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Hyperspace - recently, List of Hyperspace Depictions in Science Fiction was nominated for deletion and the result was Redirect to Hyperspace - Hyperdrive is already mentioned several times in the Hyperspace article, so having additional information on Hyperdrive in the Hyperspace article may be appropriate - Epinoia (talk) 01:50, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- There is nothing to merge. It is entirely WP:OR that is something someone may have remembered one day. "Hyperdrive" may be used in numerous sci-fi works, but its origin is in Star Wars, meaning it has little place in a general article about hyperspace._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:22, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then said merger will be very easy to enact. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 17:58, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:47, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Hyperspace. The current content is badly sourced original research regarding a fictional means of faster than light travel. Reyk _YO! 06:06, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no need for deletion in that case, as Special:PermaLink/4620669, the very first version of the page 15 years ago, was that very redirect. We are only discussing this now because someone wrote about a fictional thing as if it were fact (Special:Diff/4620682) and that was turned into (Special:Diff/4794679) effectively a duplicate article on hyperspace travel in science fiction rather than back into a redirect. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 17:58, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to notability of the concept. --24.101.156.239 (talk) 16:53, 10 September 2019 (UTC) Sockpuppet of permabanned troll A Nobody. Reyk _YO! 05:41, 11 September 2019 (UTC) [reply]
As Han Solo might say: The name hyperdrive pre-dates Star Wars by thirty years, kid. It's been around since at least 1949. But it is not really documented separately from hyperspace or the other names for this, including ″overdrive″ (since at least 1945) and ″ultradrive″. Uncle G (talk) 17:58, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (soft redirect/merge ok). I am not seeing any in-depth discussion of the concept in literature. SR/Merge to faster-than-light/Warp drive or hyperspace. Sadly, hyperspace article is little better than this, and it may end up getting the 'axe or not' review soon. PS. Hyperspace is probably notable, it has hits in The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy (unlike hyperdrive). It also has numerous hits in Science Fact and Science Fiction: An Encyclopedia and is in its index, while hyperdrive just gets a single hit in this volume, a mention in passing. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:34, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Haukur (talk) 19:32, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nigerian DJs

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

Per WP:LISTN, the term "Nigerian DJ" may not have enough of a definition as a group of people that has been discussed as a group in reliable sources. Note the article's present reliance on circular references. The list also does not nail down a definition of DJ and includes a hodgepodge of radio personalities, party spinners, and rapper backers. So far the list only includes people with WP articles, but it could get indiscriminate because Nigeria is a big place with lots of music. This topic could possibly be replaced with a new category. (Also, the following is not relevant for this particular list's notability, but note that some of the people in this list have had their personal notability questioned as well.) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:02, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:02, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:02, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:03, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I note that there is no general List of DJs, nor any more specific lists except for this one and List of club DJs, possibly because of the broadness of the term "DJ". However, I have no opinion of my own about this list. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 15:26, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:23, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to a list of broader scope; standard list of people by nationality and profession. We have a well-populated Category:DJs category structure (which includes Category:DJs by nationality...which in turn includes Category:Nigerian DJs), which undercuts the notion that editors can't figure out what such a title means. The nomination is rather incoherent and offers no true argument for deletion, apparently thinking "Nigerian DJ" is some term of art or subgenre, when it's simply simply a disc jockey who is Nigerian. The nominator also undermines their claim that this list somehow does not have a workable definition, by suggesting that a category based on that same definition would be fine. postdlf (talk) 21:53, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Call my nomination incoherent if you wish, but you have argued about the validity of the Category which is not part of the nomination, and glossed over what is supposed to be different about a Category and a List. The List article nominated here is just a pile of blue links for less than ten people, and so is the Category. Why have both? Per WP:LISTN the thing being listed in a List article does indeed need to have a definition, with the policy stating "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources" (italics in original). Therefore that definition is required in a List article, but not in a Category. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:00, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, just about everything you just said is incorrect, and you haven’t understood my comments. Both categories and lists require inclusion criteria, and where they cover the same subject with the same terminology are expected to use the same definitions. Neither “DJ” nor “Nigerian” has any usage here that is unique to this list. And see WP:NOTDUP. Re: LISTN, as its numerous qualifiers intend to communicate, it is sufficient but not necessary, and it’s indeed of little relevance here with such a standard list. On the number of entries, I addressed that as well with the merge alternative. postdlf (talk) 23:20, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I must request that you avoid condescending terms like "incorrect" and "incoherent" for someone who merely interprets policies differently than you. My interpretation is that "Nigerian DJ" is weakly defined. We have both made our case so perhaps future voters will be persuaded by either of us or neither. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:21, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:44, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems like it could grow into a useful list alongside the category. Since there is no mother article it makes sense to me to reference each entry, a process which has already partly begun. In addition that would stop cruft being added. Mujinga (talk) 16:42, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Wilmslow Road bus corridor. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:36, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Manchester bus route 42

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

Non notable bus route - Only independent source in article only about the company that operates route, and rest just timetables etc. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 18:28, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 18:28, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 18:28, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note I found some significant coverage [22], [23], [24]. Also this (non-RS?) explains the importance of the route. --Pontificalibus 15:15, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Keep or~~Merge as per OxonAlex - satisfied there is enough in the sources shown by Pontificalibus to establish some notability. Bookscale (talk) 11:29, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sorry, but I don't find any of these sources providing convincing notability - no deep and significant coverage in multiple reliable sources - more like run of the mill local news - Epinoia (talk) 01:23, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:40, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it's a bus route - WP:GNG says that even significant coverage in reliable sources does not guarantee that a subject merits its own article because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information - it's a bus route of local interest only - WP:AUD says "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability" - Epinoia (talk) 16:05, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Covered only by a couple of local news sources. A single bus route has little relevance or notability, especially as it has very little to talk about. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 07:33, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wilmslow Road bus corridor covers this route, so might be worth redirecting or merging. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 06:46, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'd support a merge in this case. Bookscale (talk) 10:04, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - I have changed my view to merge, which I think is more appropriate than keeping the existing article. Bookscale (talk) 00:43, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Wilmslow Road bus corridor as suggested seems like a sensible way to go. The route is covered in that article, which also makes clear the significance of the wider bus corridor. Dunarc (talk) 20:03, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Wilmslow Road bus corridor as that feels like the home for this article's contents, has overarching context. Apart from primary sources, the article's sources are only routine business announcements. -Lopifalko (talk) 11:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as improved. bd2412 T 03:53, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Breast Cancer Care

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

Promotional tone with only a single, primary reference. After a google search, I found no secondary sources covering the subject. Appears to have been written by someone close to the subject. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 19:54, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 19:54, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:01, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:01, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC were quoting them this week and the Guardian this morning. The article is poor, but it is clearly a notable organisation. Rathfelder (talk) 20:52, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rathfelder: would you mind linking them please? I didn’t see them when I searched. Eegards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 21:16, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've added them to the article, and some others. I found loads. Mostly, but not exclusively, reports of fundraising. Rathfelder (talk) 21:21, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are four independent sources sufficient to establish notability? Rathfelder (talk) 17:44, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:39, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - just added 2 new cites about merger with Breast Cancer Now this year, which will probably generate new MSM cites when it re-brands next April-ish. 6 independent cites, 4 pretty substantial, I think demonstrates sufficient notability. Rwendland (talk) 15:32, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:HEY Keep from the work Rathfelder did. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:48, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The keep votes deal solely with nfooty, which is a presumption of GNG. This has been challenged and whilst a number of sources have been added, delete arguments clearly show them to be routine reporting either not of significant length or only mentioning the subject briefly. Happy to undelete if substantial third party coverage can be found but the efforts here suggest that is not the case. Either way, it is always very unlikely that a player who has made such a small impact at a fully professional level and has never played internationally is going to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 07:20, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Toby Mulder

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

Browsing through a quick search on Google has seen him mentioned a few times but none throughout his time playing for the second tier which is how he eligible for WP:NFOOTBALL. HawkAussie (talk) 01:36, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 01:36, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 01:36, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 01:36, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Fails WP:NFOOTY, has a robust article in Dutch as well so any information can be found there. SportingFlyer T·C 01:45, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He actually barely scrapes by WP:NFOOTY. The coverage of his attack by supporters doesn't seem routine, but I'm not ready to endorse a keep here, am neutral on deletion. SportingFlyer T·C 23:11, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As a former professional footballer (both Eredivisie -first tier- and Eerste Divisie), subject clearly passes WP:NFOOTY/WP:NFOOTBALL #2, the WP:GNG, and has an article also at nl.wiki. If someone fails to find additional sources, and this happens all too often, strangely even with well-referenced articles, an AfD is not the answer. Rather, in such cases a refimprove request should do. This is a classic case of an unncessary nomination. gidonb (talk) 10:52, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:53, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL as he has played in a competitive match between two teams from FPLs. Plenty of cources out there to show notability. Needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 13:56, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article about non-notable, semi-pro footballer who was once contracted to a club in a fully-pro league, but only made a single appearance in a domestic cup for them. Online coverage is routine, with lots of transfer announcements (e.g., Algemeen Dagblad), and there are only match reports and squad lists covering his time with RKC. Comprehensive GNG failure and the narrowest possible passing of NFOOTBALL's bright-line equals a failure of the spirit of NFOOTBALL. Jogurney (talk) 14:32, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a routine claim people make at NFOOTBALL discussions. But does it hold water? Per WP:NEXIST I have looked at the sources and reached the conclusion that coverage stands out for being diverse, not routine, and includes besides actually very few transfers, an exceptional amount of injuries, victimhood in a violent attack by supporters, a leadership role, and goal contributions while the player is a defender. gidonb (talk) 22:39, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I reviewed the online English- and Dutch- language sources I could find via a Google search, and I disagree. Everything I saw was routine coverage. Please feel free to provide links to coverage that shows otherwise. Jogurney (talk) 14:24, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Much of it has been added to the article. Player moved relative few teams. Much of the coverage was on his health conditions (at depth) and victimhood of violence. Extremely nonroutine. Your response, however, was very routine for WP:NFOOTBALL discussion. It made me wonder if you actually looked at sources of this player or perhaps another or a previous one?! Maybe take another look. Plenty of sources in the article now. It couldn't be easier! gidonb (talk) 12:44, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - While I appreciate your efforts to expand and improve the article, none of the references included in the article represent SIGCOV (even the Algemeen Dagblad article I mentioned above). Everything is routine coverage for a footballer (a sentence or two for the most part) - footballer played in a match, footballer received a yellow card, footballer is injured, footballer signs with new club, footballer is released by club. The attack is unique, but I don't think the coverage is from a non-primary, reliable source, and by itself I can't see that getting this article over the GNG bar. Jogurney (talk) 16:57, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NFOOTBALL subject is 29 years and is currently playing.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:02, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (Round 39? Is everybody ready yet to have some kind of RfC on this so we aren't putting closers in a difficult position with every one of these "borderline NFOOTY/no GNG" nominations?) – Per Soccerway, this player has one NFOOTY-qualifying game in the second-tier Eerste Divisie (never played in the first-tier league), and it was nine years ago. Since then, he has been playing only in third-tier Topklasse, and for the past three years, in semi-professional Tweede Divisie. There is no indication that this player will have any NFOOTY-qualifying games anytime soon. Also, no WP:SIGCOV; the only thing I'm finding are a few brief mentions and routine game reports, etc., like [25] [26] [27]. The Dutch Wikipedia article is three sentences; shorter than ours. I appreciate Gidonb's recent expansion and rescue attempt, but I'm not seeing GNG-satisfying sources. AD and Gorinchem is routine with a couple quotes from the player. The AD injury report is, well, an injury report, not in-depth coverage of the player, but routine coverage of the injury. Het Kontakt is a primary source report about an incident in which the player was attacked, not in-depth coverage of the player himself. Without seeing WP:THREE GNG sources, for a semi-professional footballer with one appearance 9 years ago, my !vote is delete. – Levivich 02:14, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:BASIC to which WP:NFOOTY is subordinated. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:52, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:38, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (toy line)

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable toy line TTN (talk) 00:58, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- poorly sourced toy catalogue. No useful content to be preserved, and the title is not a plausible search term. Reyk _YO! 05:56, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable toy line with useful content to preserve. --24.101.156.239 (talk) 16:42, 10 September 2019 (UTC)Sockpuppet of permabanned troll A Nobody. Reyk _YO! 05:39, 11 September 2019 (UTC) [reply]
Delete - This is nothing but a catalog of toys, with no reliable sources being used to demonstrate notability. It is an implausible search term, making it useless as a redirect. Rorshacma (talk) 17:10, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Mz7 (talk) 20:21, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Visual Capitalist

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

Not notable - while its work has been referred to in a handful of significant sources, that doesn't equate to significant coverage. The first source (Forbes) is the only one that has any discussion of the company, and I'd call that interview/tangential coverage. Thus, WP:GNG and WP:NORG aren't met. creffett (talk) 00:33, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 00:33, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 00:33, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 00:33, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 00:33, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:32, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Logos University (International)

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

Per discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Logos_University_(International)_-_owner_editing_it_after_paid_editing_notice, non-notable university. Fails WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES because it doesn't appear to be accredited by a recognized organization; they claim to be accredited by AAHEA and IOED, but the former is on list_of_unrecognized_higher_education_accreditation_organizations and the latter doesn't appear to actually do accreditation. The mention of "Academic Impact of the United Nations" isn't so much an award as an organization they're voluntarily a member of. No evident claim to notability. creffett (talk) 00:18, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 00:18, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 00:18, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 00:18, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 00:18, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Likely a Degree mill praying on poor kids. Such content should be deleted with prejudice. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:30, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This organization purportedly in Miami is not to be confused when searching with Logos University claimed to be in Jacksonville. Uncle G (talk) 09:06, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and this spanish language article Mujinga (talk) 12:45, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 22:29, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete . The El Espectsador article makes a clear case for this being a degree mill. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:13, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttps://www.timesofisrael.com/lithuanian-court-rejects-lawsuit-against-state-honors-for-nazi-collaborator/

[2] ttps://www.politico.eu/article/wwii-lithuania-history-soviet-occupation-confrontation-wartime-past/

[3] ttps://www.haaretz.com/world-news/europe/lithuanian-court-rejects-lawsuit-against-state-honors-for-nazi-collaborator-1.7062988

[4] ttps://www.delfi.lt/news/ringas/politics/lggrtc-genocido-tyrimo-centras-nepasiduos-vulgariam-spaudimui.d?id=80566671&fbclid=IwAR3wfTl3J_-TOIT66BNHmTAxK886HquUcNkYf0GPJWuPkonP9jgcQfoAYE4

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]