Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 August 21

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 20 August	22 August >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:29, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Rawson[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:GNG and every other measure of WP:BIO. The sources are all either not fully independent or only provide passing mentions. Rawson is an educator, public speaker, and media personality, but not at a level that makes him notable. Same rationale as the previous AFD that concluded with Delete. This re-created article was declined when nominated for CSD G4.

Note that the re-creator of this article is a paid editor and has been indefinitely blocked for advertising or self-promoting in violation of the conflict of interest and notability guidelines. S/he also has a CU-confirmed sock account: User:Hellydolly4893 that has been blocked as well. Toddst1 (talk) 23:34, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable educator etc. I created this article initially and later nominated it for deletion. Rawson does not meet inclusion criteria or GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:53, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:33, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:33, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice. The threshold to include biographies of living persons is higher than this. TheBlueCanoe 16:05, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is part of a walled-in garden of linked articles and citations. There's no reliable sources at all. Bearian (talk) 15:23, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Per above, fails WP:GNG, 15:37, 25 August 2019 (UTC)Alex-h (talk)

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

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

The result was keep. Haukur (talk) 09:41, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Xtube[edit]

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

Limited sourcing, no significant coverage about the site found. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:NWEB. Störm (talk) 23:29, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Have you read the last AfD? [1] and [2] are solid, in-depth sources already. Also found [3], [4], [5],[6], [7], [8] and this [9]. Meets WP:GNG. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:42, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Riazul Islam BD (talk) 13:58, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- This account is a sockpuppet used for votestacking at AFD, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Masum Ibn Musa. Uncle G (talk) 03:17, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above sources - Meets GNG. –Dave | Davey2010^Talk 22:13, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Added some more sources to my vote which appeared in the scholar search. Clearly a notable topic at this point. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 23:01, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also to mention DGG seems to have found even more than I did in the 2nd AfD. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:48, 28 August 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) 00:30, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PornerBros[edit]

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

No sourcing, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 23:28, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources cited, and aside from listings of restricted websites, no reliable source coverage found in search. No evidence that it is anything but just another porn site. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - obviously. TheBlueCanoe 16:06, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom. Riazul Islam BD (talk) 14:00, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- This account is a sockpuppet used for votestacking at AFD, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Masum Ibn Musa. Uncle G (talk) 03:17, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails CORDEPTH & NWEB. –Dave | Davey2010^Talk 22:11, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per rationale given above. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:09, 28 August 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) 00:30, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RampantTV[edit]

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

Not notable, fails WP:NWEB. Störm (talk) 23:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails NWEB. –Dave | Davey2010^Talk 22:12, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable source coverage cited or found, therefore no evidence of notability per WP:NWEB. • Gene93k (talk) 22:25, 27 August 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) 00:30, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KRCD (company)[edit]

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

This article survived PROD in 2010 but the sources are all PR and deadlinks. There’s no claim of notability. Mccapra (talk) 22:11, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:11, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:11, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:11, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:40, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete This article looks like WP:PROMOTION and should be deleted. -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 14:38, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep once notable, always notable. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 07:12, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Question @Horse Eye Jack: what is it that indicates to you that this subject is notable? Mccapra (talk) 07:27, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Yup - show me the references. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:15, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any references which meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:15, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The argument of Horse Eye Jack doesn't stand because the company was never notable Wikipedia wise (and with no rationale for that). WP:NCORP is certainly not met, books searches leaves me no results, as does the scholar search. I was only able to find a press release on StarForce, and the source included in the article which alone isn't enough. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:17, 28 August 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) 00:31, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jill Sanders[edit]

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

Fails WP:NAUTHOR I could find nothing to back up the "New York Times best selling author" claim There seems to be no reviews or interviews outside of the blogs contained in the article. Dom from Paris (talk) 22:07, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 22:07, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 22:07, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Interviews in minor sources do not establish notability and neither do endless references to her own website. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:30, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm a little surprised neither surprised Amazon nor the local news reporter didn't vet her claim of being an NYT Best Seller, but I can't any evidence that she is a best selling author of any kind. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:40, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon publishes her books and sells them too so I suppose it's in their interests that people think she's a NYT bestseller. --Dom from Paris (talk) 12:58, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Obviously it is spam.-- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 04:34, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:56, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough independent reliable sources Alex-h (talk) 15:46, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self-promotional, little RS coverage. --Bangalamania (talk) 22:05, 26 August 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) 00:31, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Heebie Jeebies (2005 film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM. No SIGCOV, no proof that it was ever released to theaters. Rogermx (talk) 20:53, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 20:53, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 20:53, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 20:53, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 20:53, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there does not appear to be enough coverage from third-party, reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. Aoba47 (talk) 20:23, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant coverage per WP:NF. SL93 (talk) 23:58, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above ,not enough coverage to meet WP:GNG Alex-h (talk) 15:52, 25 August 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:23, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New York Circus Arts[edit]

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

The New York Circus Arts Academy is barely notable (and apparently now defunct), but the company that subsumed it isn't. No coverage that I can find outside a passing mention by the Napa Valley Register. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:02, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:08, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:08, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the references contain Independent Content, failing WP:ORGIND. A BEFORE search shows that the company exists but I am unable to locate any in-depth significant articles with independent content thereby failing WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH. The Napa Valley Register article can be seen here - still fails ORGIND. I've also nominated the related articles New York Circus Arts Academy and Cypher Zero. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:02, 28 August 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 no consensus. For sure, there's a certain amount of sock/coi/spa games going on here, but what makes this hard to close is that for the most part, the arguments on both sides steer clear of good policy-based arguments. Icewhiz provided a number of plausible-looking sources, but I don't see anybody evaluating them in detail.

StonyBrook, while ostensibly arguing to keep, says, mainstream coverage is noticeably lacking, which sure sounds like an argument for deletion.

Xxanthippe argues, Of only local cultural interest, but it's unclear how much weight to give that. WP:AUD is part of WP:NCORP, but it's not a part of WP:NBIO.

Ultimately, I don't see any clear consensus on either side. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:25, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yosef Yitzchak Jacobson[edit]

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

Was recreated after a May 2018 AfD resulted in redirect. The redirect was put back in place, as per the consensus of that discussion. The redirect was removed, with the rationale that the AfD was "Old discussion. see the dates." However, in the little over a year since the last discussion, nothing has changed. Current sourcing is still problematic, blogs, non-independent sourcing, and a student newspaper. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:43, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:43, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:52, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:24, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:24, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:24, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This small biographical article has 10 sources, many of them independent. In this connection I want to stress that the fact that some of the sources are Chabad affiliated, and Jacobson is a Chabad rabbi, does not mean that the sources are not independent. Just like a catholic publication does not loose its independence just because the subject of an article is a priest, as long as that priest is not directly related to the publication. Debresser (talk) 13:10, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I strongly question the subject's notability. The only book of his listed on the world's largest bookstore is "A Tale of Two Souls," and that was published in 2000 with zero reviews in almost 20 years. The author of this article Special:Contributions/Starthought created it with his or her very first edit and has only ever edited this page specifically, so there is a strong potential WP:COI, but I'm not going to make that call. PhobosIkaros ✉ 15:16, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Even if that editor has a connection to the rabbi, and I won't rule that out at all, that does not in any way detract from the notability of this rabbi (obviously doesn't add to it either). Debresser (talk) 18:05, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The "A Talk of Two Souls" om Amazon that I think you are referring to is put up by a book store as a buy used item for a exceptionally high price of $199. Which explains why it is not being purchased from there, since it is actually available for free and has been distributed first by tape, then by CD/DVD [10] and now online. See here: [11].

It has also been distributed as class sources for teachers to teach the content See: [12],[13],[14].

Regarding your point of COI, it is a fair point to bring up. I do not have a direct COI, however I am a avid listener of his online content and decided to undertake creating the WikiPage about him. I am unsure how to prove this, but I am open to suggestions. Having said that, in the current version of the page, I kept it very basic to ensure there are only facts that have sources. I invite others to edit the page with new sources they found (as allowed by the rules of Nominated for deletion pages), to remove any possible bias of this page having a single author. Starthought (talk) 3:52, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Keep. Der Rabbi und redaktor ist noutabal. For starters, one needs to recognize that our subject has a few different name forms, and that much of his coverage is in Yiddish whose online availability it spotty. BEFOREing for our subject, I found - this in Hebrew, and then figured out that in English he mostly goes by YY Jacobson - which led to [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]. More Hebrew (across denominations I will note - this is not Chabad press) - [20], [21], [22][23] - breadth of geographical coverage that has convinced me he's probably notable as a speaker (including against sexual abuse) and publisher. Icewhiz (talk) 15:41, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The claim of notability is backed by reliable and verifiable sources already in the article and (as noted above) by additional references available to be added. Alansohn (talk) 15:52, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The English language coverage is spotty and does not demonstrate notability in itself (although the extreme praise with which the subject is regarded in local Jewish presses suggests that other coverage may exist). However, the Hebrew language coverage is more significant, plus Icewhiz's comments re the likelihood of Yiddish-language coverage. Although uh Icewhiz, was that supposed to be Yiddish in your keep statement there? You may need some practice. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:54, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:BASIC notability has been established. As noted above, there is an undercurrent of various Jewish media to draw upon, although mainstream coverage is noticeably lacking. Significantly, much of the Jewish coverage isn't Chabad, which indicates that the subject has crossed over into the mainstream through his inspirational speaking, which is mostly what he is known for. Agree with Debresser that possible COI editing should not prejudice the subject itself being notable. StonyBrook (talk) 20:33, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Note I added a mention regarding Jacobson's lectures about Haredi sexual abuse, with a Hebrew source provided by Icewhiz; a subject which most WP:MILL rabbis will never air in public. StonyBrook (talk) 01:11, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just publishing stuff does not confer notability. It is having the stuff noted by independent others that does. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:36, 7 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]

That source isn't primary, it's some kind of Haredi media outlet that both reported on the lecture and fully translated/transcribed it. StonyBrook (talk) 01:51, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To respond to your concern about having stuff noted by independent others, I spent some time Googling and was able to find a lot of references to him, including many independent statements, I didn't include most, since I felt it would be counter productive, rather I included several types of links as samples to show that there is a broad set of independently sourced references. Examples include events where 200k people tuned in live [24], A site with notable thought leaders in New York, which includes him in a group of other Rabbi's that are on Wikipedia as Notable personages [25][26], Author with articles on IsraelNationalNews a major Israeli news outlet [27], There are lots of examples of events that are hosted all over the world that have him as the main speaker, some examples: [28],[29], [30][31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], He is also listed as an Author on the Algemeiner, which is a notable Yiddish news outlet [38], he has had articles posted on the OK website, which is a known kosher certification agency [39], His Articles have also been printed in multiple print magazines, I was able to find some that had an online version as well [40], Jewish Press Page 12 [41], Cleveland Jewish News [42], Baltimore Jewish Life [43], South African Jewish Report [44], 5Towns Publication [45]. He has been invited to speak on the Israeli TV Station Hidabruth [46]. He has been invited to speak at multiple radio shows including [47], Radio Public [48], Nachum Segal Network [49]. He is listen on the JewishPress as part of the Who's who in the Jewish world along Ariel Sharon, Rabbi Manis Friedman, Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks, Rabbi Dr. Abraham Twerski [50]. He is a featured speaker of JCW [51]. Some news articles that mention him [52], [53] Starthought (talk) 5:17, 7 August 2019 (UTC).— Starthought (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete. No improvement since last AfD. Inadequate sources, not in-depth. Of only local cultural interest. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Refs are inconclusive (many blogs, YouTubes, etc.), there is no conclusive claim of notibility, nor is this person notable per se. I understand that the SPA that resurrected this article after its deletion/merge about a year ago says that there are lots more sources, but a quick perusal of some (though not all) listed above again shows lots of web pages, newsletters, "stump the Rabbi" on blogtalkradio.com, etc. These go much more to existence than notability. Parenthetically, I will say that this case seems to be following a standard tactic characteristic of rabbinical BLPs (e.g. Tzvi Berkowitz, Avraham Friedman) that have insufficient referential support for notability: their AfDs are flooded with "keeps" that patronizingly explain why conventional rules don't apply to rabbinical bios, resulting in an overwhelming consensus to keep the article. That will likely be the result here. Agricola44 (talk) 15:37, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you ever nominate Avraham Friedman fro deletion, let me know, and I will lend you my delete vote. But surely you can't compare these two rabbis, both in the reach of their notability as well as in the number of sources in the article (and even more available as mentioned above by several editors).

I recommend you strike you parenthetical comment, which looks a bit like well poisoning to me. Debresser (talk) 21:06, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Do you really not see the pattern? A good example is StonyBrook's comment above, which says: "mainstream coverage is noticeably lacking", but then claims in the very next sentence that the "the subject has crossed over into the mainstream". How are we to interpret such a contradiction, which essentially boils-down to he's a mainstream figure, there just isn't any mainstream coverage? StonyBrook, who has edited many rabbinical bios, explains to us that it is because "much of the Jewish coverage isn't Chabad"...of course! This is part of a familiar pattern of special pleading on this class of articles. Any denomination could invoke this same type of pleading for their clergy because all denominations have their own literature, Catholics, 7th Day Adventists, LDS, and on down the line. But, we would not usually accept a notability argument for bios having most of their coverage concentrated in these outside-of-mainstream sources. Regarding your "surely you can't compare these two rabbis" comment, I would maintain that Jacobson is not notable per se. The closest claim to notability in the lede is that he is "the dean and Rosh Yeshiva of TheYeshiva.net". But this seems to be a website!! As far as Avraham Friedman, please don't wait for me. Go ahead and take it to AfD. That one is a closed chapter for me. In my estimate, you probably have enough consensus for "keep" anyway, so most of what I've said is likely irrelevant. ~~Signing off~~, Agricola44 (talk) 15:29, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My fault for not making myself clear. I meant to say no significant mainstream news coverage exists, although there is much mainstream (meaning non-Chabad) Jewish coverage, and that to me it is telling; he is a Chabad rabbi and speaker who appeals to general Orthodox audiences, which is unusual. I am for any denomination pleading for their clergy, because only they would know the relative weight their clergy carry within their own communities. They should be allowed to police themselves in this regard. I think it is interesting for an outsider to learn who are the main players in X faith system, such as towering rabbinical figure Joseph B. Soloveitchik in Judaism, who definitely belongs in an encyclopedia even though he doesn't seem to have been discussed much in The New York Times. StonyBrook (talk) 16:31, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Pardon, but this response very much illustrates what I'm talking about: an "insider" explaining esoteric reasons why WP conventions (like requiring mainstream sources) do not apply, essentially claiming special expertise to vouch for a notability status that "outsiders" are incapable of understanding. Ironically, this kind of provincialism is not seen in far more complex cases where generalist editors judge notability simply by the available claims and sources. Agricola44 (talk) 21:18, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You mention newsletters and blogs, but there are a significant amount of news outlets listen and other bodies that cannot be classified as blogs and news papers in the previous example. Including Israel National News, which is a major Israeli news agency [[54]], Jewish News of northern California [[55]], The Algemeiner which is a known Yiddish newspaper [[56]], The OK, which is a major kosher certification agency [[57]], The Jerusalem Post, which is another major Israeli News Agency [[58]]. These are many more sources that could be referenced, some already included earlier.

Based on WP:SIGCOV, there seems to be "Significant coverage", in that there are many sources that have significantly more than a trivial mention.

For the listed news agencies, I included some wikipedia links as references, there are many reliable sources, as per WP:SIGCOV Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.

There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. Sources do not have to be available online or written in English.

Besides the Algemeiner, where the subject was the editor-in-chief, the subject does not have an affiliation with those news agencies or most other sources quoted, thus qualifying under the "Independent of the subject" rule.

Reference is made to rabbinical BLPs and a flood of "keeps" that patronizingly explain why conventional rules don't apply to rabbinical bios".

I do not see that to be the case here. The subject is assumed to be notable based on WP:SIGCOV and WP:BASIC.

It can also be argued that the subject qualifies under the academics classification, which states that "Notability depends on the impact the work has had on the field of study". Many of the included references show that the subjects content is frequently used by others in the smae field as reference and source material. It also states that Starthought (talk) 12:35, 8 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Comment. These vast walls of text are becoming less and less plausible. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:07, 8 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:51, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:00, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BASIC. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 23:18, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Like Agricola44 I just don't see the necessary coverage in RS. Lots of non-RS, articles by the subject himself, etc are not enough. --Randykitty (talk) 08:34, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. User:Icewhiz makes the case here. Haukur (talk) 09:49, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - would just like to point out that WP:MUSTBESOURCES isn't really a valid argument. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:30, 29 August 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. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 21:25, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jaded (Drake song)[edit]

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

The only way to “expand” this article is with gossip that the song is supposedly about Jorja Smith. Other than that the song is not notable in the grand scheme of things. Trillfendi (talk) 23:30, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:51, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:52, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:52, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep just barely. I've added a link to a lengthy Spin review, a shorter one in The Independent (really a review of the album but a specific paragraph about "Jaded") and a short Rolling Stone article about the remix. The song did well on the charts, especially in Sweden for some reason, that's also a plus. As far as the Jorja Smith stuff, I don't think it's appropriate to speculate but I think it's ok to cite the Capital XTRA article which reports on the speculation within the Drake fandom. Pichpich (talk) 22:26, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:58, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:59, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A weak keep as there is some coverage to support WP:GNG. I agree with Pichpich's comment above about this. Aoba47 (talk) 02:21, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per strong charting as well as some coverage.—N Ø 11:49, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if it is charting and we have sources to back it up then we can expand on it. Jentinafan (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:05, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Charted in the main song chart of multiple countries, and there are just enough sources to WP:NSONGS and WP:GNG. Hzh (talk) 22:06, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per rationale given above. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:11, 28 August 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. Tone 19:56, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

La Bonche[edit]

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

I'm not seeing any independent media coverage. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:36, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing to establish notability - the one link to an independent review in Cuckoo Review is dead - the Evening Chronicle article is a press-release - local interest only - Epinoia (talk) 05:28, 28 August 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. Tone 19:57, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Walt Langendorfer[edit]

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

A guy who had some patents. No demonstration of notability. Mccapra (talk) 19:06, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 19:06, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 19:06, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 19:06, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While being involved in gun design (and patents) may be lead to notability, in this particular case I don't see how sources in the article establish notability and I don't see much more in my WP:BEFORE - fails GNG. Icewhiz (talk) 06:09, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be an inside-out article, a different topic being hammered unnecessarily into the shape of a biography. Not everything in Wikipedia should be presented in the form of biographical articles. Almost all of the article seems to actually be about gas-piston operation of firearms (see for example ISBN 9781466588813 pages 21–23), which would be a sub-article of Gas-operated reloading#Gas systems much like direct impingement is, including a simple namedrop of an inventor of one mechanism. Uncle G (talk) 08:30, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I agree with Uncle G. Though looking at Gas-operated reloading#Short-stroke piston I'm not sure what there would be to add to it from the article we're discussing as the description provided seems pretty comprehensive. Mccapra (talk) 10:44, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is not a biographical article, it is an article about his invention. Uncle G calls it an inside-out article, I call it WP:COATRACK. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:17, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable product designer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:19, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Seems like a notable inventor. passes WP:ANYBIO. Look at the search here. Perhaps investigate WP:PRESERVE WP:ATD Wm335td (talk) 19:38, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Wm335td: which of the links in this search do you think are reliable independent sources? Mccapra (talk) 05:00, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Was merely commenting on his contribution and how widely recognized it is in his industry. Wm335td (talk) 18:51, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see two things in that search that might be notable, sadefensejournal.com and smallarmsreviews.com, where Langendorfer gets a brief mention. The rest are all blogs, forums and similar that we don’t accept as reliable sources. So I still don’t see anything that helps him across the notability threshold. Mccapra (talk) 03:34, 28 August 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. Tone 19:57, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Leparulo[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No sources I can find support the notability of this subject. There are passing references and routine business PR but nothing more. Mccapra (talk) 19:01, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 19:01, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 19:01, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 19:01, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 19:01, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:50, 23 August 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 Cats and the Internet#Oh Long Johnson. I don't see any reason to drag this out much longer. There seems to be a rough consensus that this subject does not meet the requirements for a stand-alone article. Anny content worth merging to the redirect target is still available from the article history. Randykitty (talk) 12:36, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Long Johnson[edit]

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

Funny video, but not notable. I can't find anything about it pretty much anywhere. TheAwesome Hwyh 17:34, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. TheAwesome Hwyh 17:34, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. TheAwesome Hwyh 17:34, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm finding stories at least partially about it at the Vancouver Sun, the Washington Post, Metro, the New Zealand Herald (already in article), and Bustle (already in article). Furthermore, many of the articles talk about the video as if they assume the reader is already familiar with it. CThomas³ (talk) 18:59, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Oh, my bad then. I didn't see those sources. I think its notable now. TheAwesome Hwyh 19:52, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect Cats and the Internet#Oh Long Johnson already has more relevant information than this article does for a merge. Not every silly video that goes viral is notable, and the sources above that mention it in conjunction with other web memes do not independently establish it. The idea that being mentioned in some listicles means it needs its own article is silly. Reywas92^Talk 20:02, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article should be deleted since it’s just about a cat like it’s saying in the infobox, speaking of which, this is only a video two. However, I’m not sure if this is a good reason for deletion or ridriedt. Arthurfan828 (talk) 01:36, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- ...What? Why would we delete an article just because its about a cat? Am I understanding you right? TheAwesome Hwyh 04:09, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Arthurfan828: I would like to echo TheAwesomeHwyh. Can you provide a policy-based reason to delete the article? – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 04:41, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect, fully agree with Reywas92. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 11:38, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This talking cat Internet meme is now a permanently cemented part of popular culture. It won't go away and it's still being used by people and television. Too many to mention. Sadly Don Piano or Oh Don Piano didn't quite have the same catchy effect.
Some music to enjoy
DA FUNK OF OH LONG JOHNSON! (Now on iTunes!) - WTFBrahh
The Oh Long Johnson Song - By raguhmuffins (A sweet song by 2 young ladies)
Oh Long Johnson Song - Dubblestandart
Oh Long Johnson - PIANO CAT & STEFAN REMIX - STEFAN STEFANSKI
The 2nd Law: Oh Long Johnson Will Rise Again! - Grotesquerie
Oh Long Johnson (Talking Cat Electro Version)-Smokey Balls (BTW: This version rocks)
I could easily fill a whole page on how and where this has spread to. You don't have to be Einstein to work it out. Karl Twist (talk) 09:08, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment None of those are reliable sources- just a bunch of random YouTube videos. TheAwesome Hwyh 01:36, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to the above by TheAwesomeHwyh. They weren't meant to be reliable sources. They were just put in to show a little bit of how the "Oh Long Johnson" has taken hold. It was just a quikc grab of a first few I cam across. Karl Twist (talk) 08:34, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If they aren't reliable sources they don't count. Give me at least one, please. TheAwesome Hwyh 20:09, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I live in Iran-Qazvin and this crazy cat is famous here due to TV broadcast, I known him/her (! :)). 2 user have provided enough sources to keep the article, no more need to additional sources. Editor-1 (talk) 12:23, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Not sure what you're talking about. What TV show was that? And what do you mean you know them? TheAwesome Hwyh 01:36, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to the above by TheAwesomeHwyh. You may not have been up with the "Oh long Johnson" phenomenon. It has found it's way into popular culture. It has appeared in a few TV programs and is known around the world. Just check out the Long Johnson tee shirts here. Its status is also recognized on the Know Your Meme site. It's even found additional fame in the Mediterranean with Spanish band Miss Caffeina and their Oh Long Johnson album hitting the charts. It charted on March 7, 2019. And guess where they got the name for the album from?? I wonder if that's why a month later MSN have put the "Oh Long Johnson" Talking Cat video up the following month. Karl Twist (talk) 05:53, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect I know I said earlier that I think this is notable, but looking a bit deeper all the sources just seem to be listicles, so delete. TheAwesome Hwyh 01:36, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to the above by TheAwesomeHwyh. Not so! It has its own page on Know Your Meme and that gives an indication of where it's spread to. It had made its way info the Faith Hilling episode of the animated television show South Park. In that episode, people are putting themselves in precarious situations and saying "Oh long Johnson".*->, *-> Just recently, this year in fact: A band from Spain, Miss Caffeina have taken the words "Oh Long Johnson" as the title for their new album. See Betevé: Miss Caffeina, del mem a l’àlbum ‘Oh Long Johnson’, and 20 minutos, 25.07.2019 - Miss Caffeina cumplirá en el Low 40 conciertos de Oh Long Johnson: "Nuestra mejor gira, estamos más unidos que nunca" The album was in the Spanish charts for a total of ten weeks, peaking at #1 in March, 2019. See Acharts.co - Oh Long Johnson, HISTORIC PERFORMANCE, Spain Albums Top 100 - It's gone further and deeper than you realise. Karl Twist (talk) 07:48, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

None of those contribute to notability. Random pop-culture refrences don't help. Can you show me at least one website or book that explores it in depth? I doubt it. TheAwesome Hwyh 22:23, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to the above by TheAwesomeHwyh. So you don't think a popular Spanish band (Miss Caffeina) being inspired by the meme and using it as the title for their charting Album which went to #1 and stayed on the charts for ten weeks *,*, * is an indication of what else might be out there or who else has seen but some others haven't. OK then. Well German author Verena Mermer, Wikipedia Germany page heard about the cat and mentioned it in her book Autobus Ultima Speranza. It was included in The Daily Show in 2013, 2017 and 2018.*, *, * In 2010 or 2011, a band called Convicted Killer Scientists put out a single, "Oh Don Piano". *, * OK, it didn't make #1 like the record by Miss Caffeina. Well, it has it's own page on Know Your Meme. and these two following articles are not listicles. They are about "Oh Long Johnson".
* Tyden.cz, 15.05.2012 - VIDEO: Mluvící kočka dobývá svět. Zahrála si i v South Parku
* Techinsight.jp, 2015年05月01日 15:45 【海外発！Breaking News】喋って歌うネコ。呂律の回らないオジサンみたいな動画が大人気。 by Joy横手
If you want to read them in English, just C&P the url into Google and press enter. You'll get the translated page. And just like User:Editor-1 from Iran-Qazvin said (at 12:23, 16 August 2019) …. "and this crazy cat is famous here due to TV broadcast, I known him/her". It shows that "Oh long Johnson" and "Oh Don Piano" have found fame in parts other than the West. It's notable! Karl Twist (talk) 10:39, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No. Give me a reliable, independent source. Know Your Meme isn't reliable. Show me a source that talks about the band Miss Caffeina being inspired- them being inspired on their own doesn't help notability. Same with Convicted Killer Scientists. TheAwesome Hwyh 20:07, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to the above - Why are you ignoring the 2 references I just gave you???? The Týden.cz ref is about the cat and Týden.cz articles are a many in Google News. Plus it's used often in Wikipedia !.
Same with the Techinsight.jp ref. It's in Google News a lot! So here they are again translated!
Týden.cz, 15.05.2012
VIDEO: Talking cat conquers the world. She also played in South Park
Link
And ....
Techinsight
2015.05.01 15:45
[From overseas! Breaking News】 A cat that sings and sings. Videos like Ojisan that doesn't turn around are very popular.
Link
Also, when you said .... QUOTE: "No. Give me a reliable, independent source. Know Your Meme isn't reliable. Show me a source that talks about the band Miss Caffeina being inspired- them being inspired on their own doesn't help notability". That doesn't quite make sense. OK, well here's proof the band was inspired by "Oh Long Johnson". The title of the album was inspired by the famous viral video of the Oh Long Johnson cat. (Reference 1) Betevé - Miss Caffeina, del mem a , ConvictOh Long Johnson’, (Reference 2) 20 minutos, 25.07.2019 - Miss Caffeina cumplirá en el Low 40 conciertos de Oh Long Johnson: "Nuestra mejor gira, estamos más unidos que nunca". And why would you nominate the Oh Long Johnson (album) page for deletion when charting albums are notable. And this album went to #1 . (Translated for those who don't speak Spanish), and confirmed here too. There's other stuff here too about the "Oh Long Johnson" album name. So why try and delete a #1 charting album page as well? What's up! Karl Twist (talk) 08:42, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE TO THE CLOSING ADMIN:, I can't see this article being deleted as there is a lot of spread by this meme. And recent news about a band having A #1 hit with their Oh Long Johnson album But if by some strange chance the wind decides to blow in one direction, I ask that the history of this article please be preserved and it directed to another page. Hopefully that won't happen though. Thanks. Regards Karl Twist (talk) 11:54, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Twist is the creator and major contributor to the contested article. -The Gnome (talk) 07:22, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Having a page on "know your meme" doesn't automatically confer notability, nor does a passing reference in South Park. No depth-of-coverage in reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:05, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. YouTube is not a Wikipedia source that by itself establishes notability. And, per WP:NWEB, web popularity is not to be assessed on its own, i.e. When evaluating the notability of web content, [we should] consider whether it has had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. None of that around, I'm afraid. Just lots of "I like it." As to the "popularity" arguments, if we do not accept Google hits for humans as proof of notability, I'm afraid we cannot accept them for other animals, either. -The Gnome (talk) 07:22, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to The Gnome - Here are 2 articles about the cat. Both of them reliable sources. The Týden.cz ref is about the cat and Týden.cz articles are a many in Google News. Plus it's used often in Wikipedia !.
Same with the Techinsight.jp ref. It's in Google News a lot! So here they are again translated!
Týden.cz, 15.05.2012
VIDEO: Talking cat conquers the world. She also played in South Park
And ....
Techinsight
2015.05.01 15:45
[From overseas! Breaking News】 A cat that sings and sings. Videos like Ojisan that doesn't turn around are very popular.
Thanks Karl Twist (talk) 08:53, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Being listed by Google News doesn't make a subject notable for being entered in an encyclopedia. The page does not meet any of the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (music). -- BhagyaMani (talk) 11:11, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to the above comment by BhagyaMani. Ah excuse me! Nowhere did I try to say that the article was notable for being listed in Google News. I only included that to show that Týden.cz appears in Google News a lot as well as being references here by Wikipedians a lot. Some people sometimes turn their noses up at sources from countries that are not considered Western. True! And this article here has nothing to do with music. Not sure why you brought music up. Karl Twist (talk) 11:18, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstood me : THIS subject 'Oh Long Johnson' being listed in Google News (or other search engines) doesn't make it notable for an encyclopedia. My vote stands for delete. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 11:23, 20 August 2019 (UTC) added BhagyaMani (talk) 11:24, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to the above comment by BhagyaMani: Not trying to say that notability of 'Oh Long Johnson' is confirmed by being listed in Google News or search engines. Not at all. And again,this article here has nothing to do with music. Not sure why you brought music up. Karl Twist (talk) 11:28, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You brought 'music' up yourself, see your argument from 16 August 2019 at 09:08. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 11:36, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to the above comment by BhagyaMani, Oh that. That's just a quick grab of a few clips on YouTube, just to give breadth to what I was talking about. Juist showing how it's flowed on to other people who have used it. It doesn't show or suggest in any way that this article is about Music. Anyway, talking about Music. Check out Sound Cloud. There's quite a few people that have taken on a bit of "Oh Long Johnson mania". The only musical connection with this article (if you like) is the Oh Long Johnson album by Miss Caffeina. It was in the charts in Spain for 10 weeks and went to the no 1 position. The album title was inspired by "Oh Long Johnson" cat. It's up for deletion as well but like this, it's notable as it charted and went to no 1. Perhaps sometimes, in the eyes of some folks, what's not Western doesn't really count. Who knows what people think. Karl Twist (talk) 11:49, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A further note to the closing admin:. Please if it looks like it's going to be leaning away from Keep. Could I please ask that the article not be deleted but be simply redirected to Cats and the Internet and we thus preserve the history. Perhaps in 12 months we could re-visit this by discussion and look at it being on its own again. But by preserving the edit history, leaving it intact would be the way to go. I'm sure there'll be more news articles in due course. Many thanks Karl Twist (talk) 11:56, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You already said that, Karl Twist. And you seem to be trying with your avalanche of postings to overwhelm the process, possibly inadvertedly. It's time to step back and allow this AfD to reach its conclusion, whatever it might be. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 13:34, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It's already taking up a pretty signifigant amount of my time trying to reply to your comments. Maybe its best to just walk away. TheAwesome Hwyh 17:16, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to The Gnome. Yes I already said that but I forgot to mention a re-direct to "Cats and the Internet". I don't like to go back and re-edit something (even if nobody's replied to it) if there's been a fair bit of activity following it. And as for Quote:"avalanche of postings to overwhelm the process, possibly inadvertedly". I totally reject that. I will admit though, that when I'm passionate about something or enter into a debate, I do tend to get stuck in there. Anyway, I won't get into what I think is right or what is wrong. I'm happy to just step back anyway. Que Sera Sera. Cheers Karl Twist (talk) 08:04, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:54, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. There's not enough encyclopaedic content to make an article out of this internet meme, but it's a plausible search term.—S Marshall T/C 21:44, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any salvageable content to Cats and the Internet#Oh Long Johnson. I'm not seeing any significant coverage from reliable sources, only trivial filler content. The information about the album and the South Park episode would be better covered at their respective articles. – Teratix ₵ 03:47, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Karl Twist, you've already made a dozen comments in this AfD and that's not even counting your !vote. I'd say the term "overwhelming" is accurate. As to your reason for the avalanche, this is the internet and almost always the reason is passion about the subject.

You're doing the right thing by stepping away. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 11:26, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to comment made by The Gmome at 11:26, 22 August 2019. Yes I've made a few because I felt that other participants were incorrectly addressing certain things here and concentrating on things that were not even attempts to portray notability. Well, I made a dozen which is about 4 more than TheAwesomeHwyh. Also the term "avalanche" is quite a bit inaccurate as well as reckless. Thanks. Karl Twist (talk) 09:49, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just simply let go. -The Gnome (talk) 20:57, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please take note: User:Sandstein re-listed this at 18:54, 21 August 2019 to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Any further comments need to be made in the new section as per QUOTE:"Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks". Now, as to not cloud this any more with comments or discussions that don't directly relate to the debate about whether this is notable or not, I have opened up the Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Oh Long Johnson Talk page.
Many thanks Karl Twist (talk) 07:10, 24 August 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. Tone 19:56, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cenap Samet[edit]

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

The article reads like an autobiography and is entirely unsourced. I also couldn't find any secondary or independent sources about him on the Internet. Keivan.f^Talk 18:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:06, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:06, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass notability guidelines for actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:41, 24 August 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. Tone 19:56, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

INX Media case[edit]

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

Routine scandal coverage with a risk for negative BLP. WP:NOTNEWS. Does not meet WP:NCRIME. -- Dloh cier ekim 18:07, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Snow Keep Notable scam of India which had recieved significant coverage in the Indian Media. Passes WP:GNG and this has added enclyclopedic content further on wikipedia.-- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 18:12, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Harshil169: No, as scams and political mudslinging go, this is just more routine mudslinging coverage.-- Dloh cier ekim 18:35, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Dlohcierekim: I shifted your comment below mine one because I think you pinged me at wrong place by mentioning under someone's comment. No , This is not routine and mudslinging coverage. Inquiry on this case was happening at least from 4 years. Subramanian Swamy went to Supreme court and Delhi high court, to various investigative agencies. Karti Chidambaram-Son of P. Chidambaram was arrested in 2018 by ED for inquiry regarding this case. The case is long pending and it is alleged that Chidambaram took bribe when he was finance minister means in 2007. It is obvious that it provides negative image for Chidambaram but that doesn't mean page can't be created. This page will enclyclopedic content on the Wikipedia and will serve the purpose. -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 04:26, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read what snow keep means. One should know something well before using it. :)--DBig Xrayᗙ 06:16, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:16, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:16, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with nom User:Dlohcierekim that it fails WP:NOTNEWS and Does not meet WP:NCRIME. There is special interest from political opposers into this, but it does not mean we will water down our BLP requirements. This is an ongoing enquiry, nothing is proved yet. Only political mudslinging to gain political points. per WP:ATTACKPAGE --DBig Xrayᗙ 18:30, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't see anything about the case on this page, only about one person's arrest. There is probably material out there for a page, but this is not the way to go about it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:04, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Changing my !vote as the content has significantly improved. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:25, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per WP:RAPID and extensive coverage from Indian media develioping into a major political and financial scandal,Asian Age Times Now ,India Today ,The Economic Times,Business Standard,Firstpost,News18,Indian Express ,,OutlookTimes of India earlier and almost all major Indian major newspapers will cover this case particurly after P. Chidambaram 's arrest even the BBC mentions it briefly .Note this is ongoing court case and it will get extensive media coverage.Both P. Chidambaram and his son Karti Chidambaram are clearly WP:PUBLICFIGURE in India my a mile.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:31, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- This is all about P. Chidambaram, who already has a page. Where is any information about the case? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- There is extensive coverage about the case and expect more coverage about the case after his arrest ,it is ongoing these are several articles about the case.
  - What the INX Media case is about ,Times of India
  - WHAT IS INX MEDIA CASE , Business Standard ,
  - Explained: What is INX Media case against P Chidambaram? , Indian Express
  - INX Media case: Timeline of scam that has CBI, ED looking for P Chidambaram , India Today
  - Chronology of events in INX media corruption case , Deccan Chronicle
  - What is INX Media case? , Times Now. Clearly passes WP:GNG and do expect to be lasting as this very high profile case. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:29, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks. Now we know the information exists. The next question is, do we have anybody interested in writing a proper page on it? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:44, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - I had classified the points and organised in a better way to make them readable. However, I am ready for contributing in this article. Extensive information is available on various source and this is not small and routine scandal. Former Home Minister and his son is directly involved in the case, court has denied them bail, investigation is happening atleast since 2016 and people like Subramanian Swamy took this court to the government,courts and various agencies. This deserves Wikipedia page; this is not possible to include in the existing page of Chidambaram. -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 04:16, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Pharaoh of the Wizards, mostly we agree at AfDs but sad to see us strongly disagreeing here. Not everything that gets printed in newspapers get its own article. As the nom had elucidated above Wikipedia has strong bar for BLP and content that may have negative impact on a person in real life. Do we really want to create a page full of allegations, that is basically going to serve as an attack page on the subject ? Nothing is proven at this point of time and this in itself is strong reason to delete the page. --DBig Xrayᗙ 06:15, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for your reply.Feel the case is notable and it is one of the big cases in India which will be getting substantial media both local and International coverage which is clearly WP:RS .Now the subject is a WP:PUBLICFIGURE In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it.However we do need to include the the subject has denied such allegationsand accusations of political vendatta in the article . Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:15, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Pharaoh of the Wizards if it is noteworthy, add it into the bio, dont create a seperate WP:ATTACKPAGE on it. --DBig Xrayᗙ 09:51, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - @DBigXray: This is a BJP case.... this is alleged too....isnt this an attack page? Unnao rape case - Propaganda page, why should this go and the BJP one stay? DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 11:50, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NOM. --Gazal world (talk) 07:01, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is surely no need for a separate distinct breakout sub-article about this when INX Media is such a short and poor article. Uncle G (talk) 08:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I am a beginner, just could give a suggestion. Why don't we just add this case to original INX Media and make INX Media artical better? Flight112b (talk) 08:36, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - That would be the way that I would do it. Indeed, that has been the way that I did it, with I Monetary Advisory, which you will note is not at its original title of IMA scam. There is no need to include "case" here any more than there was to include "scam" there. Those are headlinese and not in accordance with how Wikipedia articles are named. The actual names of the subjects are the companies.
    Note also that I Monetary Advisory does not include arrests or politican-makes-pronouncement non-facts, and is not spread out in pieces across the biographies of the people involved.
    Incidentally note that we are still missing Special Investigation Team (India), which is not a Special Investigation Team by my reckoning. ☺
    Uncle G (talk) 08:52, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Flight112b Why don't we just add this... because it is an WP:ATTACKPAGE--DBig Xrayᗙ 09:17, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - @DBigXray: Isn't this an attack page then? Why should this go and that stay? - Unnao rape case - DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 11:46, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major scam that is right now being investigated by the High Court with a former cabinet minister and incumbent MP facing arrest. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 08:50, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- … for which we already had an article on the company. Uncle G (talk) 08:52, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The scam is not related to company alone. Scam is related to four bodies, IMX, Mexis, Aircel and Chidambaram father and son who allegedly took bribe for giving them permission or that sort of. These much information can’t be added on everyone’s Wikipedia page, so, it’s perfect to have different Wikipedia page dedicated to INX Media case and Aircel-Maxis case which both are different and detailed. Regards,— Harshil ^{want to talk?} 10:52, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Scam ? or Allegations of Scam ? Has there been any convictions ? Any indictments ? You are missing the central problem here and beating about the bush. Understand that Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWSPAPER that will start create WP:ATTACKPAGE articles on the basis of unvetted and unproven allegations to score politicial brownie points by becoming a means of WP:PROPAGANDA. --DBig Xrayᗙ 11:32, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. Major allegations of a scam. Nevertheless, it still satisfies WP:GNG. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:39, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DBigXray: Unnao rape case - this article is alleged. Why did no one complain when I created this page? DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 11:43, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:OSE lets not get into WhatabouteryDBig Xrayᗙ 11:49, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rsrikanth05, When an article is being used as an WP:ATTACKPAGE which negatively harms a WP:BLP then the bar is much much higher. WP:GNG cannot be used to justify attackpages. Almost every attackpage ever created on wikipedia contains newspaper coverages and yet they are deleted. --DBig Xrayᗙ 11:49, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DBigXray: If the person is allegded in a major scam it may seem like an attack page, but at that rate every alleged scam and case is an attack page. Don't randomly throw around Wikipedia policies please. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 11:52, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DiplomatTesterMan: Exactly! Allegations were made by Rajya Sabha MP and former national president of Janta Party which are not minor. @DBigXray: attack page is the page in which no source or poor sources are available. This is not case here; one user has already quoted various articles and allegations regarding scam. If Unnao rape case can have page, which has same standard of just allegations, then this also should have page. This page also harm reputation of Kuldeep Singh Sengar. Also, the subject is classic case of WP:NEGATIVESPIN in which unnecessary length of controversy will be increased in Chidambaram’s Wikipedia page.— Harshil ^{want to talk?} 13:33, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a major scam of political corruption in India involving then Finance and Home minister of the country. Shyamsunder (talk) 11:46, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be notable topic passing GNG. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 12:25, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no reason for this article to be deleted as per wikipedia deletion policy. This article definitely needs to be improved with addition of content but that will be done in the coming days. This article is related to a high profile case and hence the politician and there supports might be asking for deletion. But that should not be a ground of deletion at all. The article is not maligning any person and if it is, then it should be corrected rather than deleting the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adityak01 (talk • contribs) 13:54, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this issue is being raised in the media for quite some time and has gained a lot of attention. The article needs to have some more details so that it can qualify for an article. clickheretogototheuserpageofAggarwala2727 (talk) 19:06, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question @Kautilya3: Why was this article moved from INX Media case to INX Media case against P. Chidambaram? Please remember WP:AFDEQ. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:26, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was going post an explanation here after the page move, but got too tired at that point.

I moved the page to a title that correctly describes its content. From the first sentence to the last, this page is only about the case against P. Chidambaram, not one on INX Media. I also retitled a section that called itself "Investigation" but only described the arrest of the subject. This page is likely to show up high on Google hits as the case hots up, and it is important to present a correct picture to the readers, much more so than our internal bureaucratic processes.

I realize that the page move makes this AfD somewhat of a "mistrial". Perhaps it should be withdrawn so that a more appropriate AfD on the grounds of WP:POVFORK can be brought forward? Dlohcierekim, thoughts? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:29, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think moving it during the AfD unnecessarily complicated things. And no "mistrial". The AfD and/or the content must rise and fall on their merits regardless of what the name of the article has been changed to. Noting that this is mostly a page designed to attack a particular person does, in my mind, strengthen the argument for deletion.-- Dloh cier ekim 09:37, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The original intent of the page was to cover the complete INX Media case. You moved it to make it focus only about Chidambaram thus diluting the topic and making it look like a POVFORK. One can maliciously again move it to "Chidambaram's arrest in INX Media case" and thus make it more strong case for POVyness. Does the article not talk about Mukerjea and Chidambaram's son? The article was AFDed within a day not leaving time to add much info. All the arguments calling for deletion for being fork should be quashed as those are content issues, not of notability of topic. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:11, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to move it back if you expand the content to cover the whole case. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:44, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable scam. --Ashok Talk 18:44, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above. ∯WBG^converse 14:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable scam. I can volunteer to improve the page. Csgir (talk) 04:03, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable topic but article needs improvement. If you have an issue with the article's tone/content, discuss it at the relevant talk page instead of incorrectly citing ATTACKPAGE at AfD. Dee 03 18:50, 27 August 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) 19:02, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alna Group[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is, in fact, an advertisement. All substantive contributions are by three WP:SPAs who are almost certainly linked to the subject, and Google Translate shows that the "sources" are press releases. This was a speedy keep last time based largely on WP:AGF, but analysis of the sources then also found them to lack WP:CORPDEPTH. It's a small privately owned IT company with no notable people associated. Guy (Help!) 17:38, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:58, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:58, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion. I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. References in the article are largely based on PRIMARY sources or based on company announcements, failing WP:ORGIND. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:35, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:46, 27 August 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's no doubt that this has reviews. The only question is whether the reviewers are "nationally known critics", and there's debate about that. I don't normally fret too much over a close NC/Keep call, and I tend to give more weight to comments added later in the discussion, so I'm going with Keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:38, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Virgin Queen of St. Francis High[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article about a film, not reliably sourced as passing WP:NFILM. As always, every film is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because it's technically verifiable as existing — the notability test for films requires evidence of importance, such as winning a notable film award and/or having published reviews in real media from professional film critics, but this has no such claims, and cites no notability-supporting references at all. Even the external link to Rotten Tomatoes (which is often one of the first lines of salvage for a poorly sourced film, since it lists published film reviews) lists zero reviews in this case, and the other two external links are just IMDb and an IMDb-clone directory, which are not evidence of notability — and I cannot find a single notability-boosting source on ProQuest or Google searches either. Even the purported sources that got this article kept the first time (but never actually got added to the article) failed to show up at all, and literally the only review I can actually find is from a non-notable blog which is so unreliable that it got National Film Board of Canada documentaries classified as B-movies the last time somebody tried to use it as a reference for Wikipedia content. As well, it bears note that earlier today, this got hit with a revert war over unverifiable claims that the director has recovered the copyright on the film and is retroactively renaming it back to his original working title, which escalated to that user getting editblocked within four hours for making legal threats — and while that's not a deletion rationale in and of itself, it does suggest conflict of interest intentions that are incompatible with the goals of Wikipedia. Bearcat (talk) 21:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Unable to Judge - as nom says, fails to meet NFILM. There are, in fact, a few reliable reviews that I found - radiotimes, allmovie, generation multiplex (that's sort of a reviewing large footnote) - however none of them passed SIGCOV. The COI issues aren't particularly relevant in this case, afaict. I also want to clarify that I checked for the sources mentioned in AfD1, and couldn't find any of them as even existing, let alone verifying they're suitable. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My system is being odd with the sources, and am unable to view them. However, individuals below have confirmed they are in fact there. As such I've struck my !vote as unable to accurately participate in the AfD Nosebagbear (talk) 10:08, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Really? [59] I have no doubt the other sources mentioned in AFD 1 also exist.[60]--- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:59, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That first source is coming up with a string of characters in the URL but I'm not getting anything. I've also tried it with a location VPN to check it was just a GDPR-wall issue. @Bearcat: or anyone else looking in, can you take a look at it? Nosebagbear (talk) 23:07, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The LATimes review is working for me and it is a full national review so that counts but Im not getting a link to the Variety review, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 19:05, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 02:40, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet WP:NFO: "The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics" - does not meet WP:GNG: has not "received significant coverage in reliable sources" - Epinoia (talk) 00:29, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reviewed by Variety, Los Angeles Times ([61]), The Laser Video Disc Companion, as well as brief reviews in books such as the VideoHound guides, The Motion Picture Guide 1988 Annual, etc. --Michig (talk) 06:37, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on account of subject evidently failing WP:NFILM. Listings in list-everything publications, whether off- or online, mean nothing at all, in terms of notability. -The Gnome (talk) 08:29, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews in The Los Angeles Times, Variety, and The Laser Video Disc Companion are not 'listings in list-everything publications'. --Michig (talk) 09:02, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is only one proper review and it's the dismissive little piece in LA Times. (The one in Variety is inaccessible, supposed to be in a colletcion of yealr reviews.) Nothing else! All those so-called "reviews" in list-everything catalogues such as The Laser Video Disc Companion, the VideoHound, The Motion Picture Guide 1988 Annual, and so on, mean absolutely nothing in terms of notability. So, the subject film does not meet WP:NFILM and specifically its criteria #2 and #3 (it blatantly fails the rest). To wit, the film has not been widely distributed nor has it received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics. And it has not been in at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release. It's a joke, really. -The Gnome (talk) 17:25, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - To the latter 3 !voters, have you been able to access the Variety review? Nosebagbear (talk)

I can't find the original review online, but it is included in the book Variety's Film Reviews 1987-1988. --Michig (talk) 09:02, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:31, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the multiple reliable sources identified by Michig so it passes both WP:GNG and criteria 1 of WP:NFILM as LA Times and Variety are nationally known reviews Atlantic306 (talk) 18:02, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFILM #1 demands that the film must have been widely distributed, which is has not, and must have received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics, which, again, it has not. The LA Times critic (in the sole review that's available for examination) is not a "nationally known critic." Not even a Wikipedia article on the man. -The Gnome (talk) 17:25, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A search on ProQuest indicates that the film was reviewed (scathingly) by Mick LaSalle in San Francisco Chronicle, December 9, 1987, page E4. Between that and the LA Times review by Michael Wilmington, I feel there is enough here. Wilmington was a well-known critic,[62] writing for a major publication. Haukur (talk) 10:16, 29 August 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 no consensus. Arguments are all over the map, with substantial sentiment behind any of keep, redirect, merge, or delete. The main item of disagreement here is whether being a "recognized" breed is a requirement for having an article. I don't see any killer arguments either way, nor am I aware of any WP:NDOGBREEDS that might give me guidance on that.

The article as it currently stands is woefully lacking in WP:RS, and has been tagged as such for three years. Normally, a lack of sources would mean an automatic deletion for failing WP:V, but there are enough sources presented here in the AfD text, that WP:V is clearly satisfied. So, we're back to there being no consensus about meeting WP:N.

Given the volume of discussion here, and the amount of time this has been going on (I came here from WP:AN/RFC), I don't see how further discussion is going to lead to a consensus. Apologies to Randykitty for stepping on their recent relist. Likewise, I'd encourage people thinking of re-nominating this per WP:RENOM, to instead work with your fellow editors on the talk pages to either find better sourcing or work towards a consensus for one of the possible merges mentioned in the discussion. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Catahoula bulldog[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:V and WP:OR - not a recognized breed, no breed standards, cited sources are neither reliable nor do they establish notability ^Atsme _Talk 📧 12:41, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 12:41, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE TO CLOSER - the opening few sentences in the lead state:
:::The Catahoula bulldog is a crossbreed dog created by crossing the Louisiana Catahoula Leopard Dog and the American Bulldog. Currently, they are not considered a breed by any major fancier and breeder organization. WP:NOT applies here - there are millions of Heinz 57 bred dogs, crossbreeds and individual crosses assumed to be a breed when they are not even a consistent type of dog because the information is anecdotally based and is unverifiable. If anything REDIRECT or MERGE to Louisiana Catahoula Leopard dog. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 03:55, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Common enough crossbreed dog over a very long time. Not owned by people interested in 'show dogs'.
- A google search for "Catahoula Bulldog" brings up 1.3 million hits, and over 200,000 if you include the quotation marks for the search.
- This source [63] (as do many others) says the breed has been around for over 100 years, are well known among hunters and farmers, and though they're not recognized by the AKC there's enough specimens and demand for the breed that they are usually bred to each other (not first generation crossbreeds). Also this website [64]. Here is a new article about the breed [65] two months ago.
- The Wayback Machine archived a webpage [66] mentioning the first certified breeder of Catahoula Bulldogs in 1968. This webpage was by Animal Research Foundation, a registry of dogs dedicated to recording pedigrees prior to a breed's acceptance into official kennel clubs such as the AKC. A similar rendition of that webpage was archived from 2001-2010.
- The American Canine Assoc (Vet health tracking canine registry) has a page for the breed [67].
- The National Kennel Club has a breed standard for a Catahoula Cur, [68] reputed to be the same breed of "pig catch dog".
- The C.B. is mentioned in these Wikipedia articles: Dog crossbreed, List of dog breeds, Catch dog, Natural bobtail, Dogs in the United States, and List of fatal dog attacks in the United States (2000s) (a 2007 death involving a Catahoula Bulldog).
- This 2002-archived webpage states the breed origin was "late 1800's". [69]
- This page [70] mentions more of who and when the dog breed was developed further in the 1950's & 1960's.
- Here is a 2010 message board thread [71] discussing Catahoula Bulldogs, including several people who mention having them or knowing someone who has one, and pretty much describing them as working dogs for hog catching.
- Craigslist has several mentioned for sale or rehoming.
- C.B. is noted as one of the top 25 "Most popular mixed-breed dogs" (2016) [72]
- This article shows that C.B. is one of the top googled dog breeds in Louisiana, USA. [73]
- This article mentions a family that lost their C.B. in a kennel incident in Canada [74], and this German-language article [75] translated to English [76] states "In the USA, the country of origin, the Catahoula Bulldog is quite common; in Europe he is almost unknown."

Over all, this breed seems notable enough for a standalone article in Wikipedia. Recognition by a kennel club or having no show dog status and no breed 'standard' (which is a feature of show dogs), does not disqualify this breed from having its own article in Wikipedia. Nomopbs (talk) 01:54, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge Seems to be a common cross and so there are alternatives to deletion such as merger with a parent or into a list such as list of crossbred dogs, which we prefer per our policy WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 09:20, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong Keep: This dog breed is notable and should have it's own article. Aquatastetalk 11:09, 7 August 2019 (UTC)~~[reply]

Sockpuppet account. Cavalryman (talk) 14:06, 17 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Keep per rationale given above. Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:36, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is definitely notable enough to remain. HAL 333 02:14, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Let's have some more discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 18:44, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Definitely notable, requires citations added to the article. AvalerionV 20:24, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- AvalerionV, what part of WP:GNG did you read that convinced you an article with no citations is "definitely notable"? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:51, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Atsme: Articles aren't notable or not notable, topics are. See WP:N. It is unacceptable for you to make snide remarks towards ANY editor. See WP:CIVIL, WP:HARASS. For the record, you were the one to delete all but one remaining citation today after discovering your AfD attempt had failed. [77] (Decision was 'Keep'.) Reducing or eliminating all citations doesn't change the notability of the topic. See WP:CONTN. — Nomopbs (talk) 04:43, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Focus on content and stop the aspersions and hounding. 2nd warning. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 12:02, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Misidentified dogs are being euthanized. Winograd stated:

"Not only do shelters misidentify breeds as much as 75 percent of the time, but as used by shelters, law enforcement agencies and even courts, “Pit Bull” is not a breed of dog. It is, according to a leading advocacy organization, “a catch-all term used to describe a continually expanding incoherent group of dogs, including pure-bred dogs and mixed-breed dogs. A ‘Pit Bull’ is any dog an animal control officer, shelter worker, dog trainer, politician, dog owner, police officer, newspaper reporter or anyone else says is a ‘Pit Bull.’” When it comes to dogs we call “Pit Bulls,” PETA is not only killing them based on meaningless stereotypes, they are asking shelters to kill dogs they mistakenly think fit those stereotypes by the way they look."

Other articles of note: USC.edu, Plos, Smithsonian, and on and on. It is of the utmost importance that we get these dog articles right, and that our core content policies are strictly followed with regards to dog breeds, breed types and types of dogs. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:46, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, probably into Louisiana Catahoula Leopard dog, with sources. Relevant material may also work in the list of crossbreeds. An article with zero sources clearly fails notability and WP:ILIKEIT is not a rationale for keeping. Montanabw^(talk) 23:01, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Mongrel. I can appreciate the work that's gone into this article, and I applaud collaborative work that's built the article to its current state. Still, I don't see where it has made any claim to have established notability, and as it is I feel it comes up short of our WP:GNG section of that policy. I suppose merging with the list of cross breed dogs or even with Louisiana Catahoula Leopard dog is an option - but I think the most logical choice is to save what we can to the mongrel article. — Ched : ? — 23:37, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious merge and redirect to what is presently Louisiana Catahoula Leopard dog; they're just multiple names for the same breed (or cross-breeds involving it). Move the merged result to Catahoula Cur, the name used by the registry (a reliable source), and also per WP:CONCISE. While there's lots of Internet chatter about "Catahoula bulldog", e-commentary in forums and blog posts by nobodies are not reliable sources; nor are websites of dog breeders and breed/cross-breed promotion groups (they have a monetary interest, ergo they fail WP:INDY.) There's nothing reliable here that establishes that a "Catahoula Bulldog" has somehow breed-forked from the rest of the Catahoula dogs and is accepted by the public as a breed in its own right; that's just WP:POV and WP:COI and WP:SOAPBOX. WikiProject Dogs, after its re-start a while back, has been successfully merging various WP:CONTENTFORK articles, and this should continue. If two organizations (kennel clubs, breeder groups, etc.) have two different names for essentially the same dogs, that's a single breed, covered by a single article, with its multiple names listed. Crosses get mentioned in summary form at the articles on the parent breeds. Sub-breeds are covered at the main breed article. Same goes for cat breeds, horse breeds, etc. 00:05, 15 August 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AReaderOutThataway (talk • contribs)
Delete or merge to Louisiana Catahoula Leopard dog. Fails GNG and has done since it was created 2008. Cavalryman (talk) 15:01, 17 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Further, if consensus is merge, only reliability sourced content should be included in destination page. Cavalryman (talk) 15:02, 17 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Redirect to Louisiana Catahoula Leopard dog, since the subject of the contested article clearly lacks independent notability, which is why the text is free of the necessary & appropriate outside references. There is nothing to use as a Merge: Unsourced text is not dumped elsewhere in Wikipedia but deleted. -The Gnome (talk) 07:06, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:19, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, not being a proper breed is not in any way a valid reason for deletion, and I see no benefit in merging. There are multiple books about this dog. Many of them are self-published, (some of the authors may meet WP:SPS, I haven't investigated) but this book has substantial coverage from a RS publisher. SpinningSpark 19:08, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I’m not aware of multiple books about the Catahoula bulldog. The book to which you linked includes a long paragraph that mentions crossing a Catahoula Leopard dog with Bulldogs - that alone does not make the cross verifiable or particularly notable for a standalone article, especially since it is based entirely on anecdotal information. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 05:57, 22 August 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 C.W. Nicol. Tone 20:00, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sail Down the River[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM - cannot find any SIGCOV on this album. Rogermx (talk) 16:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 16:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 16:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 16:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 16:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to C. W. Nicol. I found a short article about this album here (it is from Newspapers.com so a subscription is required to view), but I could not find anything further. It would be a helpful link for the target article. However, since there does not appear to be significant coverage, it should not be an independent article, but it could be a viable search and any information about the topic could be contained in the target article. Aoba47 (talk) 02:20, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Aoba47's reasoning. Ss112 14:51, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- As nominator, Redirect is fine for me. Rogermx (talk) 16:47, 25 August 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 Jeopardy! tournaments and events. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:54, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jeopardy! Battle of the Decades[edit]

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

AfDs related to this article:

Articles for deletion/Jeopardy! Million Dollar Celebrity Invitational

Articles for deletion/Jeopardy! Tenth Anniversary Tournament

Articles for deletion/Jeopardy! College Championship (2nd nomination)

Articles for deletion/Jeopardy! Teachers Tournament

Articles for deletion/Jeopardy! Seniors Tournament

Special event one-time tournament episodes of a game show. While Jeopardy! is a widely notable television show and part of pop culture, a largely unreferenced article about a single 25-episode tournament held once during a series of 8,000+ episodes does not meet WP:N.

Google search produces links back to this article and other Jeopardy!/game show fandom wikis.

Five references in article, none of which meet WP:SIGCOV:

Zap2It—Jeopardy! Stages Battle of the Decades Tourney For 30th Anniversary — One paragraph article about upcoming tournament.
80's Week kicks off Jeopardy! Battle of the Decades Tournament — Local news coverage.
"Here's How We Created the Most Exciting Jeopardy! Tournament in 30 Seasons!". Jeopardy! News on Tumblr. Sony Pictures Digital/Jeopardy Productions. — Missing URL for article. Promotional material from production company based upon publisher noted in ref.
Arkansas 'Jeopardy!' Champion One of Five Fan Favorite Candidates for Decades Tournament — Article from local college describing former student appearing in the tournament.
Darinda. "Jeopardy! Battle of the Decades: About the Tournament". Sony Pictures Digital/Jeopardy Productions. — Dead link. Based upon URL (www.jeopardy.com), presumably promotional material from production company.

AldezD (talk) 16:26, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:37, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject fails WP:GNG. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:03, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect To List of Jeopardy! tournaments and events. Definitely fails WP:GNG, but serves as a proper redirect for list meant for it. AmericanAir88^(talk) 19:37, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect To List of Jeopardy! tournaments and events where it can be briefly mentioned. Pichpich (talk) 02:44, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Jeopardy! tournaments and events seems like the most appropriate course of action per the above discussion. Aoba47 (talk) 13:16, 23 August 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:24, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Mark Dougan[edit]

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

Per WP:BLP1E. The editor who created this article has COI issues. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:09, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:09, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:09, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:09, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:09, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is surprising how able both Marshala2036 (talk · contribs) and Alekborodina (talk · contribs), the author of John M. Dougan (AfD discussion), are to take professionally-posed close-up photographs of the subject, which seem as good as those of Ruphotog (talk · contribs) a.k.a. OlgaLeonova (talk · contribs), whom ″they″ have only met for one interview, photographed the girlfriend of in Dubai, or seen at a TV interview from the crowd. There possibly is some undisclosed PR work going on here. But those are not the sole contributors to this article. Uncle G (talk) 17:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fringe figers need better sourcing than is found here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:56, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do not see WP:BLP1E, I see two events 2012 and 2016. I also see multiple WP:RS and WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE RT 2018 Wm335td (talk) 19:27, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think much has changed from the last afd. Szzuk (talk) 21:20, 28 August 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) 16:55, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Muslim doctors[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Muslim athletes

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

Religion has nothing to do with their profession. It is very difficult to prove that they became doctors because of their religion. Not useful by any mean. They are already covered in a better way in lists which include scientists of Islamic Golden Age. Störm (talk) 15:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:09, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Should we also have List of Christian doctors? Or List of Muslim barbers? Or List of orange presidents of the United States? ...Ok you get my point. Strong delete. Squeeps10 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 16:53, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:47, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:48, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete List of doctors have nothing to do with wikipedia or Wikipedia is not a board of advertiment.Hispring (talk) 14:25, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a well researched sugbject, especially no reason to mix medival and modern people as a cohesive group.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely indiscriminate cross categorisation. Ajf773 (talk) 08:59, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this intersection category violates WP:EGRS. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:16, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete per 5 editors above--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:44, 27 August 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) 16:55, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pakistani Shia Muslims[edit]

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

Most of the entries are because their surname suggests that they might be Shia. Then, there is a possibility that they might not be practicing. As religion is a sensitive issue, so such lists for navigation purpose are not useful. Categories are a better way to go. As such, the list doesn't provide sourcing that they are practicing. Störm (talk) 15:39, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:10, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:10, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:49, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a list like this needs adequate sourcing, not guessing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:48, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE and a non notable cross categorisation. Ajf773 (talk) 09:30, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. --SalmanZ (talk) 20:34, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:LISTPEOPLE cautions that "Special care must be taken when adding living persons to lists based on religion" - WP:LISTCRITERIA says "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a directory, repository of links, or means of promotion, and should not contain indiscriminate lists, only certain types of list should be exhaustive. Criteria for inclusion should factor in encyclopedic and topical relevance, not just verifiable existence." - Epinoia (talk) 04:58, 28 August 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.

Please delete this page. It has no factual basis and is under investigation yet — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.176.64.109 (talk) 16:16, 27 August 2019 (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. Per Epinoia's argument, but redirects can be added at editorial discretion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:56, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gretchen Custodio Diez[edit]

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

Outside of recent news coverage, the subject is not notable WP:BLP1E. Meatsgains^(talk) 14:41, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 18:01, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 18:02, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 18:02, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 18:03, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to SOGIE Equality Bill, the subject's arrest sparked a national debate on bathroom usage for transgenders but the subject herself is not notable. Her notability is tied to a single event (her arrest). While the proposed legislation is not all about bathroom use. It has been frequently cited in news coverage, debate, etc. and a section discussing the subject's arrest and its context on transgender bathroom use may be discussed there.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 23:30, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. WP:NOTNP. Agricola44 (talk) 13:51, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clear violation of our one event rules. Also a violation of not news.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:51, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a news article not encyclopedic content. Hintswen Talk | Contribs 16:29, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:ONEEVENT - I would recomment a Redirect to SOGIE Equality Bill, but although the Gretchen Custodio Diez article says the incident resulted in calls for passage of the SOGIE Equality Bill, the article on the SOGIE Equality Bill does not mention Gretchen Custodio Diez or the incident - Epinoia (talk) 04:42, 28 August 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. The nomination was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Störm (talk) 14:42, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile phone industry in Pakistan[edit]

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

Started by me way back when I created my account. No progress, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:39, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:09, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 18:01, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Honestly this seems to have changed so little I think a db-author speedy would go uncontested. Nate • (chatter) 18:04, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Keep Based on vast improvements the nominator could've made themselves; please stop using AfD as a cleanup venue. Nate • (chatter) 00:41, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't see why this should be deleted--that it's a bad article doesn't mean it has to be; the topic is pretty much intrinsically notable. See Mobile phone industry in Japan, and all the other comparable articles. Drmies (talk) 19:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Which part of WP:GNG does this fail? The sources provided are solid (referring to mobile phone usage in Pakistan, thus significant coverage), and the article itself seems to cover a major topic. Sam-2727 (talk) 01:35, 24 August 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) 16:56, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Say No! to Architecture[edit]

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

A lack of proper citations and establishment of notability leads to a failure of WP:MUSICBIO. A search has brought up nothing. AmericanAir88^(talk) 14:12, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:16, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:16, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:MUSICBIO. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:47, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. SpinningSpark 18:38, 21 August 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) 16:56, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Imense[edit]

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

Can't find any detailed coverage of company - although name makes it slightly difficult to find. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 13:30, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 13:30, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 13:30, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. SpinningSpark 18:39, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Hard to find anything significant about the company online, all sources given in the current article either not independent [78][79] or primary: [80] Sam-2727 (talk) 01:11, 24 August 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 prodecural. Procedural close - article deleted as a sockpuppet creation 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:23, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Westman (artist)[edit]

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

We have recently deleted Edwin Westman and Kenneth Westman (writer) as hoaxes - see this AfD discussion. Roger Westman is by the same author. Of the few references where I could see anything, the content about the guy is minimal. So I am nominating this article as "non-notable" rather than hoax. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:34, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 13:06, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 13:06, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 13:07, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this is not a hoax, too. However, there are two problems with the subject. First, as mentioned, the actual sources are not in depth at all. The 1957 studentship award is a directory listing of award recipients containing just a name and a year. The 1981 exhibitions are a 1 sentence footnote in a book and a 1 sentence example in New Scientist respectively. Second, nothing that I can find conclusively links the student in the 1950s and the crewmember on the television series in the 2010s named Roger Ulick Branch Westman with the Roger Westman of the 1980s, given 1-sentence mentions in the sources with no context as to who xe actually is. This is a biography constructed by stitching together factoids that are two to three decades apart from each other, with no published source showing that those factoids are actually connected via one person.
All that said, I recommend a visit to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ItchyJP via Draft:Roger Ulich Branch Westman and Special:Diff/899034327.
Uncle G (talk) 16:03, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Roger Westman (artist) and Roger Ulick Branch Westman on IMDb are one in the same. He does meet Wikipedias notability guideline as a noted architect-turned-artist and has made considerable contributions to architecture from his time leaving the AA until recently. This article should not be put up for deletion but should instead have a template suggesting links to sources that validate his notability. A quick glance on IMDb biography shows that they are indeed the same person - https://www.imdb.com/name/nm10312457/bio?ref_=nm_ov_bio_sm. It would be a mistake to speedily delete this page when there are sources online to validate notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bauhaus1919-33 (talk • contribs)
- IMDB makes no mention of the Roger Westman of the 1980s. These are disconnected factoids over several decades, as I said, and you offer nothing to substantiate anything else, or indeed to show that this person's life and works have been documented in depth anywhere. Uncle G (talk) 09:56, 28 August 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 Sunrise (company). Tone 19:59, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sunrise Beyond[edit]

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

Originally, the Sunrise is this article was linked to an article about the sun rising, but now that the links are correctly linked to Sunrise Inc., the parent company, I can see that as a subsidiary approx 5 mos old, it fails N (which is not inherited). ^Atsme _Talk 📧 12:17, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:25, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:25, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:25, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but a redirect or merge to the main article might be appropriate. DGG ( talk ) 01:25, 22 August 2019 (UTC) to the[reply]
Delete/Merge possibly to Sunrise (company) if there's anything appropriate to merge. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:15, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Sunrise (company) if there is anything to merge. Namcokid47 (talk) 03:41, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge possibly to Sunrise (company). --SalmanZ (talk) 20:31, 25 August 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) 16:57, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Players' Bill of Rights[edit]

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

This is 100% based on primary searches and WP:BEFORE of reliable sources turns up only passing mentions of a related concept in soccer. This seems to be widely discussed on gaming forums, but not in RS. Happy to see it kept if real sources can be found. Guy (Help!) 12:16, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:26, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing in the article constitutes what Wikipedia considers a reliable source. Fails the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 12:40, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the WP:GNG almost to the point of A11 (Made up by creator with no significance). AmericanAir88^(talk) 19:39, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unable to find any reliable sources to fix what is now an article that does not demonstrate notability. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 21:44, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Namcokid47 (talk) 23:17, 21 August 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 speedy deleted as hoax. El_C 06:04, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John A. Palmer (Lawyer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL. Not notable local politician or lawyer. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:32, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:32, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:32, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:32, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NPOL. Barring that, I'm not seeing the WP:SIGCOV demonstrated within the article (or from performing my own quick search outside Wikipedia). —MelbourneStar☆^talk 11:59, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete don't see any evidence of notability. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 15:41, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ Snow Delete - Besides the article being completely incompetently written [81], and almost bare of references, the subject is a minor local official who does not pass WP:NPOL. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:46, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on WP:GNG and WP:NPOL grounds. SportingFlyer T·C 17:05, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete. Run-of-the-mill lawyer and small-town politician. Does not pass any notability guideline of any stripe. TJRC (talk) 02:57, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Possible hoax. I can find no evidence that the town of Quenson, Florida has ever existed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:51, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I find no evidence that Evansville, Florida has ever existed. This increasingly looks like a complete fabrication. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:55, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - His claimed birth town of Antonville, Florida also does not exist, and the name and occupations are anodyne. Hoax. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:59, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Burn it with fire. (But... "anodyne"?) TJRC (talk) 05:30, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yeah, a hoax should've occurred to me when we had no articles on any of those places, when Palmer's listed stint in the army went past his listed civilian occupation dates, by the odd number of times "Jack" appeared in the article in various names, by finding no reference to "Florida First Cemetery" on Google, by the photo having been listed as appearing in the American City Manual I can find no record of the US Gov't Printing Office ever publishing, and other irregularities. @Cullen328:, as a hoax isn't it speedy deletable under G3? Also, shouldn't the block on the creator, John Doe Texas, be extended to indef, and the photo be deleted as well? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:32, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        I think that the course of action you suggest is the proper one, Beyond My Ken and I endorse it, but I prefer that another administrator make that judgment, based on the growing evidence of a hoax. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:40, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        I've reported it at AN/I, here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:00, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        
        El C seems to be on it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:02, 22 August 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) 16:58, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of international awards of David Warner[edit]

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

More listcruft. Per this discussion at the Cricket WikiProject, and this previous AfD, community consensus is against this type of list. Harrias ^talk 10:37, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Harrias ^talk 10:39, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Harrias ^talk 10:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with a very selective prose-based merge if appropriate to their player pages (I've been convinced that redirect is unlikely given the search term needed). I remain unconvinced that player of the match awards are notable in any but the rarest cases. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:30, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom and BST. These are just a dumping ground of trivial information. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:22, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per per WP:NOTSTATS WP:LISTCRUFT. We don't need intricate details of every 'man of the match' performance in international matches. Ajf773 (talk) 20:13, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per what Ajf773 said, centuries and five wicket hauls above a certain number should be listed, MotM awards and other LISTCRUFT should not be. StickyWicket (talk) 13:21, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all lists of awards for people almost never are justified as seperate articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:58, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all agree with nom Riazul Islam BD (talk) 14:28, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- This account is a sockpuppet used for votestacking at AFD, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Masum Ibn Musa. Uncle G (talk) 03:18, 26 August 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) 16:58, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Vision Quest[edit]

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

An article about a non-notable organization that was created by a single purpose account. Fails WP:ORG. SL93 (talk) 07:51, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 07:55, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 07:55, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:50, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:51, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:53, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion. I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:11, 24 August 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:21, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Wackerbauer[edit]

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

Despite being former member of the Red Bull Junior team he hasn't any career achievements to pass WP:NMOTORSPORT Corvus tristis (talk) 06:08, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 07:16, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 07:16, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 07:20, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:37, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My search only found what I would consider routine sports reporting. His time was spent in junior and developmental circuits which I don't believe shows notability. According to driverdb.com, he hasn't competed since 2015 when he was 20. I'm not seeing any indication or claims of notability. Papaursa (talk) 00:07, 24 August 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. A weak keep is still a keep. Tone 19:59, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Drivewyze[edit]

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

Non notable, and promotional. All available refs seem to be mere notices Even if there is some underlying notability, thearticle would needto be rewritten. DGG ( talk ) 05:08, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 07:17, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I did a News search which shows that Drivewyze has received sustained coverage since 2013 in multiple reliable independent sources, namely trade press for the road haulage sector. Given the nature of the product I would not expect reporting in the mainstream media, but there’s certainly enough in the specialist press to support the notability of the topic. I agree with the nominator’s view that a rewrite is probably needed, as I don’t think all of the current content is well supported, and some possibly not at all, but that’s a case for editing rather than deleting. Mccapra (talk) 03:23, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:36, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:51, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:52, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:52, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I found a review here and a writeup here - it seems like a legit company serving a niche market (trucking), which is now international (having recently expanded from the USA into Canada) - this may be enough to satisfy WP:ORGCRIT which requires "significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable secondary sources" - Epinoia (talk) 00:54, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I think Epinoia is correct. It's marginal, really marginal, but notability might just be satisfied. I was wondering about the independence of the first one, but a more in-depth read of the review actually does make it read more fairly, particularly at the end. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:55, 28 August 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. The current article consists mainly of a bulleted list of features and advantages, and is hardly an article. Some participants have advocated outright deletion, but the option to redirect to a related article also appears acceptable. Two articles have been proposed as the redirect target. At my editorial discretion, I am redirecting to AngularJS#Angular_Material since there already is a "Angular Material" heading there, although redirecting to Angular (web framework) is also arguable. (The choice of redirect target does not require admin attention.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:45, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Angular Material[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. WP does not need a stub for every software project or component Imaginatorium (talk) 06:13, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:49, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:49, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:49, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect to AngularJS per WP:OVERLAP.~~ Angular Material is a library exclusively for AngularJS that is maintained by the same developers as AngularJS. There is no need to have a separate article for this library. — Newslinger talk 09:56, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Does it even need a redirect? If discussed in AngularJS, a search will find that article, which is what the reader needs. If someone enters "Angular material", what is the probability they are looking for AngularJS versus just any sort of angular material? Imaginatorium (talk) 09:58, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete.~~ There's some ambiguity between AngularJS and Angular (web framework), and it's unclear which one this article should redirect to. The subject of this article is only associated with the former, but there is another library named Angular Material that only works with the latter. If there were a clear redirect target, I would insist on a redirect because this library does meet WP:GNG with the article's cited sources, and there is no other topic on Wikipedia with the name angular material. — Newslinger talk 10:15, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge into AngularJS.~~ Angular Material is a library that implements Material Design for AngularJS. All 3 of the subjects (Angular Material, Material Design, and AngularJS) are developed by Google, and there is considerable overlap between Angular Material and AngularJS. The Angular Material article in its current state is highly promotional and its content relies almost entirely on primary sources, even though there are secondary sources cited. A merge of the citations and the lead sentence should be sufficient. Since there are two different Angular Material libraries, one targeting AngularJS and one targeting Angular (web framework), and it is unclear which article Angular Material should redirect to, the Angular Material page should either be deleted or converted into a disambiguation page after the merge. — Newslinger talk 22:49, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OMG. lack of understanding.:) refer github to understand which library is it. that is a separate library. AngularJS is a JavaScript library, we can merge AngularJS to Javascript too: it does not work like that. Angular Material is a Meterial design library. Seperate article is needed. You can find many books about Angular Material. There is no overlap: only lack of understanding of the subject. Thanks.

I am fully aware that AngularJS and Angular Material are in two separate Git repositories, and I still don't think Angular Material deserves a separate article. Angular Material is only used within AngularJS projects, and both Angular Material and AngularJS are developed by Google. This shows significant overlap and warrants a merge. There is nothing wrong with writing about Angular Material on Wikipedia, but it should be done in the AngularJS article because Angular Material is essentially a subtopic of AngularJS, despite being in a separate repository. All of the books you listed only refer to using Angular Material within AngularJS (or Angular (web framework), but that's a different Angular Material repository than the one described in the article). We don't have separate articles for Vue Router (repository) or Ember Data (repository) for the same reasons: they are closely associated with and are not used outside of their parent frameworks (Vue.js and Ember.js). Wikipedia is not a directory or a package registry, and articles don't need to have a one-to-one correspondence with Git repositories. In general, we would prefer to have one very comprehensive article on AngularJS and its associated libraries than to have separate articles that are less comprehensive. — Newslinger talk 02:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your logic. The issue here is people might query angular material as a phrase. There are books about it separately. Material design is a different topic which is different from general web design. With regarding future expansion, it will be important to have a seperate article for angular material which is effectively a sub-set of material design than AngularJS. (e.g. we are not going to include all the JavaScript frameworks under the article JavaScript, for, the same reason). In design viewpoint, it should be under material design not AngularJS as the usage is different. Thanks.Shevonsilva (talk) 15:56, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to AngularJS § Angular Material. I've merged in the sentence and the secondary book sources. If this article is redirected, I will add a {{redirect}} hatnote from this section to Angular (web framework) to eliminate any confusion between the two frameworks. — Newslinger talk 01:02, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As originator of this AfD, thanks for your effort - and redirect now seems the obvious choice. But the sentence you added (the entire "content" of this "article") is uncontroversial, and does not need five references. Please reduce to (about) two. Imaginatorium (talk) 06:10, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I've condensed the citations with {{refn}}, which makes them take up less space in the article text. The book sources are included to help interested editors to expand the section. If the editors who expand the section decide that some of the sources are not necessary, they can remove them. — Newslinger talk 06:30, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Keep: I got really a problem here. Angular Material is used in many places in software development as a dependency and it is really a popular library. There is no issue in notability (refer references). This is really disturbing my contribution. These articles should be reviewed through experienced and IT expertise people. I find it really disturbing placing deletion tags' without even understating the content. Do not redirect as usage of AngularJS and Angular Material is different as Angular material is a part of material design. Angular Material is probably one of top 10 material design framework.[82][83] There are books mainly targeting Angular material (https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=3gvpDAAAQBAJ). There are many tutorials about Angular Materials [84] (Note: Articles should be reviewed by experienced people. If you cannot understand the content, please place a message in my talk page or here, I will answer as I have time for that.) Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shevonsilva (talk • contribs) 10:46, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Shevonsilva (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.

Among all of the sources you listed, only the book qualifies as a reliable source, and its coverage is within the scope of the AngularJS article. — Newslinger talk 22:52, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I have included many books about the subject

Kotaru, V. Keerti (2016-08-25). Material Design Implementation with AngularJS: UI Component Framework. Apress. p. 4. ISBN 9781484221907.
Noring, Christoffer; Deeleman, Pablo (2017-12-08). Learning Angular: A no-nonsense guide to building real-world apps with Angular 5. Packt Publishing Ltd. p. 315. ISBN 9781787125940.
Hajian, Majid (2019-05-22). Progressive Web Apps with Angular: Create Responsive, Fast and Reliable PWAs Using Angular. Apress. p. 30. ISBN 9781484244487.
Kasagoni, Shravan Kumar (2017-05-29). Building Modern Web Applications Using Angular. Packt Publishing Ltd. p. 173. ISBN 9781785880032.
Clow, Mark (2018-02-20). Angular 5 Projects: Learn to Build Single Page Web Applications Using 70+ Projects. Apress. p. 245. ISBN 9781484232798.

Material Design is a seperate implementation and is not a part of AngularJS. Shevonsilva (talk) 23:14, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maven dependency for AngularJS is

   <dependency>
   <groupId>org.webjars</groupId>
   <artifactId>angularjs</artifactId>
   <version>2.0.0-alpha.22</version>
   </dependency>

Maven dependency for Angular Material is

   <dependency>
   <groupId>org.webjars</groupId>
   <artifactId>angular-material</artifactId>
   <version>0.7.1</version>
   </dependency>

Two different artifacts means two different projects. Keep the article as this is a separate artifact. Shevonsilva (talk) 00:09, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on merge proposal: Problem is, what would you merge? The "content" of the article consists of two bulleted lists: the "Features" appear to be just marketing fluff; the "Advantages" are largely inscrutable. @Shevonsilva: can you explain what "DI" means, for example? If it is CS slang, it should be explained or linked. Imaginatorium (talk) 03:20, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I am repeating: these articles should be reviewed by experienced writers and IT experts. :) DI is a really really popular and common short form (in IT) for Dependency Injection. Thanks. Shevonsilva (talk) 12:11, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(And you are an "experienced writer", are you?) If DI is CS slang, it should be explained. In any case, it is not a coherent "Advantage". Imaginatorium (talk) 15:20, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"experienced writer" -> about myself doesn't matter :) ; DI is not a CS slang :) ; coherent "Advantage" -> these articles should be reviewed by experienced writers and IT experts. :) Thanks. Shevonsilva (talk) 00:43, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Angular (web framework) where it is mentioned as a component of that framework 5 times - the five books referenced in the Angular Material article are all about using Angular (web framework) and using Angular Material as part of Angular projects, so it is not notable outside of that context - If the article can only be understood by experienced writers and IT experts, then it falls under "Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal" WP:NOTMANUAL. Writing better articles says that articles should be "accessible and understandable for as many readers as possible" and "Aim for a balance between comprehensibility and detail so that readers can gain information from the article" and should "make sense if the reader gets to it as a random page" and "if we cannot explain to readers why something is important, then it is not important" - I can't see any way that this is important as a stand-alone article, therefore, redirect to main article - Epinoia (talk) 00:18, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Personally I feel that this library hasn't gained enough significance to fulfill WP:NOTABILITY, and that design libraries in general take some time to catch on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldosfan (talk • contribs) 11:25, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is computer code, not a language, not a library. I could live with redirect. Szzuk (talk) 18:46, 29 August 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. RL0919 (talk) 05:07, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Albert K. Chin[edit]

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

Cannot find sufficient RS for him, it seems to be a part of UPE, previously created as "Albert Chin". Meeanaya (talk) 05:06, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 05:06, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 05:06, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:30, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The previously-deleted article Albert Chin is unrelated; it was about a semiconductor engineer [85] not a surgeon, and was deleted as a copyvio of the link I just linked. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:55, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:53, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. User:CCDLLC's first Dr. Albert K. Chin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article with the same content was tagged and speedily deleted per {{db-g11}}, then re-created, then redirected by another editor (on the grounds that wikipedia doesn't use "Dr." or "Mr." or "Mrs." etc. in page names) to the page name nominated here. CCDLLC (talk · contribs) identified the users of that registered account as "Dr. Chin and myself" (diff). – Athaenara ✉ 09:46, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:N. Comatmebro (talk) 19:11, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The h-index is quite high (above 70, according to GoogleScholar), so arguably satisfies WP:PROF#C1. However, almost all citations appear to be to patents, rather than to research publications, which is an unusual situation for WP:PROF. Probably should be evaluated as an inventor (that is, based on WP:BIO) rather than as an academic. The main problem is that the current text of the article is highly promotional, essentially in the G11 territory, and WP:ORish. The only references cited are to the subject's own work, and there are WP:COI/WP:AUTO issues on top of that. The current text does not appear to be salvageable. Nsk92 (talk) 01:22, 25 August 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) 🐱 09:00, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michele Carlson[edit]

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

GNG and WP:ARTIST fail. She has been fairly widely published as an author of magazine articles (see ext links section), but there is scant coverage, if any, that deals with her or her work. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:04, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:04, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:32, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:32, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: editor of Art Practice online art magazine, notable enough to have passed the eagle eye of Randykitty, seems to push towards notability.Pam D

I see where you are going there, but editing a web magazine or being looked over by particular editor are not policy-based arguments for keeping an article. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 12:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No RS and checking just showed lots of web stuff. Weak claim to notability and orphan. Agricola44 (talk) 15:37, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Virtually nothing as far as reliable sourcing goes. Curiocurio (talk) 17:05, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 22:01, 23 August 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. RL0919 (talk) 05:01, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sonu (composer)[edit]

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

Non-notable producer, lacks in-depth coverage. Meeanaya (talk) 05:01, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 05:01, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 05:01, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 05:01, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I note that there have been multiple previous deletions of Suwarndeep Sinha, the person's real name, and that the article title has now been salted. The article fails to establish notability per WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO, and looking for sources I couldn't find anything better (although searching for a composer just called Sonu was made more complicated by the existence of a composer called Sonu Nigam, so it's always possible that I might have missed something, especially in non-English sources). GirthSummit _(blether) 09:08, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Punjabi Composer -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 14:40, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable composer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:17, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question@Johnpacklambert:, @Harshil169: - Please could you expand on your comments? The article has no in-line references, only an external link to a promotional press-release. Is it possible that you have confused the subject with Sonu Nigam, who is an eminently notable composer and singer? If there are any sources about this person, I'd be grateful if you could point them out, so I can consider changing my vote. Thanks GirthSummit _(blether) 16:25, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Or indeed Sonu - Songs from the Homeland, a folk music project, or Sonu, a track by Shankar Tucker? I just looked again, and I got lots of musical hits searching for 'Sonu', but failed to find anything significant about the subject of this article. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:40, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it to what I meant to say.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:22, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet WP:COMPOSER - of the three links in the article, two are to sites where tracks are posted and one is to a Google search - no "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable" - does not meet WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO or WP:MUSICBIO, therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 21:29, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject is 18 years and recently released his album EK fails WP:COMPOSER and WP:GNG as of now .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:00, 28 August 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 List of townlands of County Donegal. I am treating the addendum to Epinoia's stance as an effective "merge" argument; with respect to the delete argument only one of them is against a merge and "there are no other examples of this solution" is not a compelling counterargument. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:24, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cormullion[edit]

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

Only one entry and it's an alternative spelling; there is no mention of Cormullion in any article Leschnei (talk) 02:09, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:23, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:24, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: if it was mentioned as an alternative spelling in List of townlands of County Donegal it might be worth a redirect ... but there don't seem to be redirects to that list even from the standard spellings eg Cormullin and Adderville. PamD 10:32, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and PamD. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:42, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the list article as an alt spelling. Existence, at least, seem verifiable.[86][87][88]. SpinningSpark 18:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:54, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of townlands of County Donegal and add Cormullion as an alternate spelling for Cormullin - Cormullin (or Cormullion) - Epinoia (talk) 21:12, 27 August 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 film and television accidents#2010s. Tone 19:58, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

James Emswiller[edit]

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

Does not meet GNG - sources are nearly all related to the manner of his death on a movie set. Has had notability tag since 10/2018. Chrysaor (talk) 01:51, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Chrysaor (talk) 01:51, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - His story is indeed tragic, but Wikipedia cannot and should not become a shrine or a repository of grief. This case is not notable per WP:1E and any reliable sourcing on his demise can be discreetly tucked away into the article on the movie rather than by creating an overt content fork! Michepman (talk) 03:25, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:26, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:27, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - won an Emmy Award, meets WP:ANYBIO #1 ("The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor"). Needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 07:48, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge I agree that detailed info about this person seems quite scarce but here's another source. The worst case is a merger into A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood – the movie in question per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 09:25, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He's won an Emmy, which means he passes WP:ANYBIO. To be fair, that guideline states that meeting a criteria doesn't guarantee inclusion, but 99% of the time we treat a major award like an Emmy as sufficient in and of itself. And in this case, we also have the substantial news coverage surrounding his death, which means there are a tonne of RSs giving information about his life sufficient to flesh out an article. On it's own that might be a WP:BLP1E case, but take it with the Emmy, and notability is clearly established. Hug^syrup 14:44, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are very many recipients of technical Emmy awards who are not notable and do not need Wikipedia pages. I believe that Emswiller is one of these individuals, as the only sources that reference him are in relation to his work on an anticipated film and his tragic death tangentially related to the production. KidAd (talk) 20:42, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The headlines of the obits are playing up the Emmy, but I have to agree with the above comment. The Television academy gives out thousands of awards every year in multiple divisions. His was for a marquee show (on HBO) but was not among the marquee awards we normally confer for Wiki notability (unless one is a significant multiple winner across many years). His Emmy was of the technical variety, awarded at a separate “Creative Art’s” ceremony. He was one of 25 people to be awarded Sound Mixing Emmys at that year’s dinner, one of five on the team that won for HBO’s “Bessie” in the category of “Outstanding Sound Mixing in a Limited Series or Movie.” See: [89] It’s a great professional accomplishment that I’m sure led to better assignments among Sound Mixing projects, but I don’t believe it’s the type that meets WP:ANYBIO. Otherwise, all that’s left--as noted--is wide coverage of his on-set death, but WP:NOTNEWS. Seems like he was an accomplish professional with many credits, but without SIGCOV during his lifetime, it's as ordinary as any successful person, but not encyclopedic worthy. ShelbyMarion (talk) 21:42, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - an Emmy has not quite the prestige of an Oscar. I stand by my belief that winning an Academy Award, even for the most technical, creates automatic notability. Bearian (talk) 15:20, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, however WP:ANYBIO doesn't say 'has won an award with the prestige of an Oscar'. It says 'has won a well known and significant award'. Are Emmys not well-known and significant?

Redirect to List of film and television accidents#2010s where this is already covered - no need for a separate article - Epinoia (talk) 21:03, 27 August 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. RL0919 (talk) 04:20, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Guillaume Corpart Muller[edit]

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

The subject of the article has not received significant coverage for his artistic output. A Google search will yield only his Wiki page, personal website, his generic profile on "artnet" (?) and the LinkedIn profiles of individuals with the same name. KidAd (talk) 03:27, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to add that a look through some of the cites sources reveals mostly dead pages and a few Wordpress blogs. Hardly anything to establish credibility. KidAd (talk) 03:38, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can’t find anything to support notability. Mccapra (talk) 05:03, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:07, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:07, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:55, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:55, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could not find SIGCOV in a search. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:41, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage Taewangkorea (talk) 03:07, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only indication of notability I can see is that one of his works was sold at auction. Despite his claim on his own website I've won a bunch of awards, exhibited in cool places I can't find any record of awards or exhibitions. A google search finds a link to Blurb, Inc. a self-publishing platform, a number of Wikipedia clones and Facebook. Vexations (talk) 12:46, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable photographer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:51, 24 August 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.