Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 June 21

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 20 June	22 June >

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. ST47 (talk) 01:18, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FEBC International[edit]

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

Borderline G11 case, all coverage in independent sources is either database listings or ebullient coverage in sketchy trade publications. Does not meet WP:NCORP, WP:GNG. Previously nominated for PROD by Barkeep49, dePROD by initial editor. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:32, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:32, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:32, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As Rosguill notes there is no evidence of notability. There is no indication that the Supply Chain article is a reliable source and it is, by far, the best available source for this topic. As such fails NCORP/GNG. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:37, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I agree with Rosguill, the article fails WP:GNG , Alex-h (talk) 16:19, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the fact that it is the ONLY firm in the world that provides ISO-certified hospitality procurement services makes the entity notable, doesn't it? More references are added to the page to improve the third-party sources. Bharat.Contributes (talk) 10:07, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bharat.Contributes, there's no indication that being an ISO-certified hotel is important or notable. The fact that they received that certification in 2015 and no other company appears to have felt it necessary to follow suit is somewhat telling. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:21, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rosguill, they're not a hotel. I would request you to please read the article first before making claims on its notability. I also think you're being subjective with the notability guideline here as I think being the only company that has it is inherently notable. Is it important in the hospitality business? Maybe. But I think it is notable when they're the only one who can do something. Let me know what you think and please read the article. Bharat.Contributes (talk) 05:05, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me, I read the article when I first nominated it. I didn't say that the company was a hotel, I said that there's no evidence that hotels care about ISO-certification. At any rate, if this certification was that important, there would be articles written about it that don't read like ads. Such sources are currently conspicuously absent from the article, and the rest of the internet as well when I tried to look for them. Finally, remember that notability ≠ importance on Wikipedia, it's a specific term that refers to the level of coverage about a subject in reliable sources. Even if ISO-certification was extremely important, if no one has written about this company in a reliable source, there's no way we can write a Wikipedia article about it. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 07:31, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rosguill if you read the comment you posted, it is very easy to comprehend you meant the company was a hotel which you're trying to backtrack now. Your other points are valid but you definitely meant the company was a hotel and the fact that instead of owning your mistake, you're back pedelling because of ego. Thanks for your comments, if I find more reliable sources I'll add it to the article and we can arrive at a consensus when this discussion expires. Bharat.Contributes (talk) 12:04, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the current sourcing meets WP:CORPDEPTH standards, and I can't find anything that does. I don't see anything in any of the notability guidelines that suggests that meeting ISO standards is notable in and of itself, even if a company is the only one in its sector to do so (and I'm not seeing any reliable independent sourcing to say that it is the only one that does). Fails WP:NCORP. GirthSummit _(blether) 06:47, 27 June 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 1982–1992 (Europe album) -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:36, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1982–2000[edit]

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

The page serves no disambiguation purposes. The first entry is merely a redirect. The second entry is another redirect, a conflict that took place 3 years later and it is not known as "1982-2000" (refer to WP:PTM and WP:DABENTRY when I say 'known as') and the third one is the year 1982, which cannot be confused with the "-2000" here, 1982 does not even mention the word "2000" or events happening in this period–if any–(DABENTRY again). © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 22:22, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 22:22, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 1982–1992 (Europe album) because that is the only thing that can be called that without a qualifier. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:40, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)There is a bit of relevant discussion in the rather long RM at Talk:1982–2000 (Europe album). Still, it's difficult to see the point of this dab page. The tile, however, is the name of an album discussed at 1982–1992 (Europe album) (of which it is a re-release) so the page should be redirected there, matching the other redirect 1982–2000 (album)). – Uanfala (talk) 22:45, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per 2 editors above, and having read the RM. (I note that 1982–1992 is a valid disambiguation page). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:52, 23 June 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. ST47 (talk) 01:16, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Rind[edit]

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

This is the lead author of the study in the Rind et al. controversy. Having a separate article on Bruce Rind fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF.

Any 'keep' argument would likely refer to point 1 of WP:PROF: "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." However, I point to the "Specific Criteria Notes" - none of these criteria are satisfied. Two of these notes which are subject to some interpretation state (emphasis mine) they must be "an author of highly cited academic work – either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates." Or, they must have "pioneered or developed a significant new concept, technique or idea, made a significant discovery or solved a major problem in their academic discipline. In this case it is necessary to explicitly demonstrate, by a substantial number of references to academic publications of researchers other than the person in question, that this contribution is indeed widely considered to be significant and is widely attributed to the person in question." Neither of these seem to be met. [1] It is not clear what exact citation rates are being looked for, but his (in)famous paper is at 1,311 cites, a very similar paper is at 318 cites, and everything else is substantially fewer cites. Nor has he developed a significant new concept or discovery. I looked at the top 5 cites of his most cited paper, and none of them attribute significant new findings to him. The 1st was critical, the 2nd cites it to show gender difference, the 3rd is about the controversy, the 4th cites it to show prevalence, and the 5th cites it to support gender differences in effect as well as being one of several meta-analyses. Other than references to the controversy, these are all cites as of any other paper.

Of interest may be the fact that the user who created the article and wrote most of it is presently topic banned from human sexuality articles, including biographical articles. (Sexology arbitration case) The article does indeed have elements consistent with it being a POV push. It says unnecessary things to make its subject look good (he's a great chess player! Some nonscientist named Oellerich in a nonscience journal said his science was good!) while ignoring the subject's association with pedophile advocacy and age-of-consent reform groups, as documented in the Rind et al. controversy article.

I suggest we replace this article with a redirect to Rind et al. controversy. Crossroads1 (talk) 21:07, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Crossroads1 (talk) 21:18, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Crossroads1 (talk) 21:21, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was there when this article was created by the now subject-banned user. Based on evidence the came to light during that event, concur with the theory that it was intended as POV fork/push. It ignores mentioning the subject's various, shall we call them "suspect" behaviors, which while I understand the BLP policy means a high level of scrutiny towards libel, is nevertheless well documented. The article subject is otherwise not terribly notable and could be argued, has not really contributed to science in a meaningful way. His work mostly came to light due to media hysteria. I did not take action to AfD this article prior to this due to my minor involvement in the arbitration case, combined with article creator's history incivility, harassment, and petty acts of retribution against anyone who dares disagree.Legitimus (talk) 00:36, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article should be evaluated independent of the motivation of the article creator. It seems at least that the subject could be noteable due to the Rind et al. controversy and the subject has produced independent academic research that has been cited often. This is not the place to establish whether he developed a significant new concept or discovery but this should rather be evaluated in the context of scientific citations (e.g. by peers / scientists and not by us). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hannes Röst (talk • contribs)

Delete This is a very much POV-pushing article. It is largely an unjustified POV fork from the much better article on the subject matter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:25, 26 June 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. ST47 (talk) 01:15, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AgFunder[edit]

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

Notability? I see nothing about this online. Article also seems to have a COI issue. TheAwesomeHwyh (talk) 20:52, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. TheAwesomeHwyh (talk) 20:52, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. TheAwesomeHwyh (talk) 20:52, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. TheAwesomeHwyh (talk) 20:52, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Disclosure: Another editor asked about this article at the WP:Teahouse. After conducting a WP:BEFORE I advised the editor that while I didn't believe it met CSD:G11 criteria (which was a route suggested by another editor), the subject of the article, in my opinion, did not meet WP:GNG. As a result, I gave the editor advice on available deletion options. I am not able to locate WP:RS coverage on the subject of the article for it to pass WP:ORGDEPTH. Orville1974 (talk) 23:27, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article still has no reliable sources after 3 weeks. Can be recreated with better sources if there are any. Sandstein 07:56, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Denis Marti[edit]

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

Rejected prod as deleted as a prod before. Is still an unsourced BLP that fails GNG and ENT Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:35, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 23:51, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 23:51, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:20, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:20, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:21, 7 June 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Comment: Seems to be more notable as a a chef and restauranteur in Prague these days. A rewrite and rename may be in order.[2][3][4][5][6] Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:14, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't speak Czech or Italian, so it's difficult for me to independently check for WP:BIO; thus, I'll just comment on the references left above. The first (vistanet.it) is an interview from an ostensibly non-notable source, even though the interview itself seems quite good; would be a good source for an article, but doesn't do much in the way of advancing "significant" coverage. The second (E15) doesn't talk about Marti/Coizza so much as it does quote him about the restaurant itself. The third article (La Nuova), while regional, is a legitimately good article that advances notability about Coizza. The fourth (Deník) again fails to talk about Marti/Coizza at any reasonable length. The fifth, Lidovky, is just a softball interview about Coizza's opinion of the Czech Republic. One article not included above is this one, also from La Nuova. Perhaps if there are more sources to be found between the restaurant and the chef, it could a Weak keep if combined into one article. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 20:59, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A relatively well-known actor and director in Europe. La Nuova Sardegna is an important newspaper in Sardinia, not connected with Adult entertainment industry. They write about Mr. Marti/Coizza, at least, two times. In this article, already mentioned above, is stated that Marti/Coizza has been included by Marcello Fois in a list of eminent people from Nuoro, alongside Grazia Deledda and Salvatore Satta (I hope you won't ask my opinion about that). Some choices are questionable, but this also indicates a certain notability. Not only the fame achieved in English-speaking countries should be considered. However, a rewriting of the article, including sources, is necessary, and the list of movies has to be removed, IMHO Westmanurbe (talk) 20:42, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:27, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:32, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: if the article needs a rename and a complete rewrite, might as well delete vs keeping a subpar BLP. Notability is marginal at best, so I'm not convinced that the subject is notable in the first place. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:35, 22 June 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. ST47 (talk) 01:14, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ero kawaii[edit]

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

Non-notable. Sources are a passing mention in an article about the term ero kakkoii and a dead link to a blog site. I was unable to find any reliable sources in either English or Japanese. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 19:17, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 19:17, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 19:17, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:49, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I fixed the broken link and added references. I think that singer Kumi Koda, supposedly the originator of ero kawaii, has (or at least used to have) a lot of influence on Japanese fashion. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:47, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work, but I think there are some problems with these references. One of them is a duplicate of the Buzzword: ero kakkoii article that was already cited; two are self-published (Wordpress and Weebly sites); and neither the archived Uniorb link nor the The New Paper article actually mentions the term ero kawaii. The term might merit a mention on Kumi Koda's page, but I don't think there's enough coverage for an article. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 22:44, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I was skeptical at first, as the term seemed to, at first glance, be a WP:NEOLOGISM that was coined by, and used exclusively to refer to, Koda Kumi. However, doing searches did bring up some results in various books on Japanese sub-cultures, though they were admittedly brief and little more than definitions. Looking for sources using the term "erokawa", however, brought up a few more, including this article. And while I don't have access to the journal, and did not pay the 14 dollars to view the online copy, it does show that there is genuine scholarly coverage of the sub-culture.Rorshacma (talk) 22:52, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP is not a dictionary. There is something here, but it's a Japanese neologism, without wide use, not an encyclopedic topic. In Japanese the expression is pretty transparent: it's as if someone described an English singer as "slinky-sexy", and this generated a WP:ja article on the "concept" of slinky-sexy. So I think there could or should be a debate on whether it merited an extry in wiktionary. Imaginatorium (talk) 03:09, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All of the cited sources seem questionable, and none of them actually describe it as a "subculture", several just describing it as a word. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:47, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is not well written and the subject is not notable. Barca (talk) 18:26, 26 June 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. ST47 (talk) 01:10, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tanya Hyde[edit]

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

Fails ENT and GNG. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:48, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:39, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:39, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:40, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:40, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:40, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:40, 21 June 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Keep Subject received AVN award, which according to this source "have more in common with Oscars than you might think". Seems to pass WP:ANYBIO for receiving a potentially significant (though entertainement is not my area of interest so cannot comment on that) award.Delete per Gene93k. Edit: Comments below seem to put in doubt status of award, previous corrected and !vote amended 107.190.33.254 (talk), 01:10, 22 June 2019 (UTC); edited 02:29, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The comparisons in the article are superficial. A fundamental difference is that Oscar nominations and wins are much more likely to receive non-trivial attention from reputable independent media. The consensus in dropping WP:PORNBIO is that winning a porn award without interest from good sources is not significant for satisfying WP:ANYBIO or WP:ENT. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject fails WP:BASIC, WP:ENT as a performer and WP:FILMMAKER as a director. Niche porn award wins without any support from good secondary sources do not establish notability. An independent search for RS coverage yielded only false positive matches for people with the same name. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fail WP:GNG, this article should be deleted.-Nahal (talk) 18:12, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Gene93k's sound analysis. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:02, 28 June 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) 05:06, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rita Faltoyano[edit]

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

Fails GNG and ENT. Being expelled from Mexico as part of a group should really be covered at an article about the event not a bio and that's BLP1E anyway. Can't see any sustained notability. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:41, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:41, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:41, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:41, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:41, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:41, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:41, 21 June 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:42, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:ENT / WP:BASIC. PORNBIO has been deprecated and there's nothing better. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:43, 29 June 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. ST47 (talk) 01:07, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Charmaine Sinclair[edit]

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

I don't think being Robert De Niro's gf is sufficient claim to fame to justify such a thin BLP. Fails GNG and ENT. In case anyone argues GNG for being a gf, I would counter with NOTINHERITED and BLP1E Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:33, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:44, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:44, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:44, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:44, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:44, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:45, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Of the current sources in the article, I can discern only two which seem to be reliable and independent: the interview from The Independent (in which she is described as being involved in a documentary) and the 2014 De Niro book. Therefore, it nothing else, BLP1E does not apply, and there is just enough coverage to meet GNG since there are 2 (therefore "multiple") sources. Previous AfD commentators seem to have found more coverage from other reliable sources. Though these have not been added to the article, I see no convincing reason to doubt they exist (especially if some of them relate to the celebrity gossip in which article subject was involved in the 90s) - the weakness of this argument is that nobody seems to have taken the time to take a look at those over the past 8 years: that could however be a case of WP:NEGLECT, which is not an argument for deletion. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 01:01, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An interview is not an independent source to meet N or GNG. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:08, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, the source is [7]; The title is "Interview" but it is far more than just questions and answers. In fact most quotes from subject are related indirectly as part of commentary by the journalist on related issues - thus it is a secondary source, if that is your concern. I fail to see how such a source published in an undeniable RS publication would fail to meet WP:GNG; in summary and to be exhaustive, it is a whole article about the subject [significant coverage, first criteria] in a reliable publication [criterias 2 and 3] which does not appear to be promotional in nature and is not written by someone directly affiliated with the subject (rather, a journalist which should be bound by the professional standards of her profession) [criteria 4]. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 13:19, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete interviews do not add to notability, there are clearly not enough valid sources to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:33, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. WildChild300^Talk 23:59, 28 June 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. ST47 (talk) 01:06, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Jordan[edit]

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

There are two sources. One is a mere paragraph and the other not shown. Even if the second is a decent source there really is nothing else to say about this person and that's poor gruel for a biography. Fails ENT and needs two decent sources pass GNG, which it lacks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:25, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:46, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:46, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:46, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:46, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:46, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:47, 21 June 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Delete non-notable actress, does not meet GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:49, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability established. AmericanAir88^(talk) 14:54, 28 June 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. ST47 (talk) 01:05, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shabana Shajahan[edit]

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

Notability issue ~AntanO4task (talk) 17:14, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ~AntanO4task (talk) 17:14, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:17, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:17, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:17, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:17, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:18, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

comment Hello, i found some websites, [8] [9], should i add them to the article? :-) 🌝Lucas🌞B🌎1991 (talk) 21:44, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not really enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Most of the coverage is social media. It seems to be very early in her career. Fails WP:NACTOR. scope_creep^Talk 09:08, 28 June 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. ST47 (talk) 01:02, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lilug[edit]

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

A non-notable non-profit organization. Of the three references presented in the article, two are from the group's own site, and the third does not discuss the group at all, only tangentially mentioning it. I searched for additional sources, both under its acronym as well as under its full name, and came up with nothing that could be used. The utter lack of in-depth information in reliable sources is a pretty clear case of this group failing the WP:GNG. The article was previously nominated for deletion way back in 2006, and reached a "No Consensus" decision. However, the arguments for Keep were non-policy statements of "Its important" which would not fly today. Rorshacma (talk) 16:42, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:57, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:57, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:57, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Linux user group. I can't see how it can be notable, there are so many of them. scope_creep^Talk 09:13, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for sheer lack of sources to support notability.

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is clear, and sufficiency of sources is reasonably well-argued. bd2412 T 22:28, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coleman Hughes[edit]

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

There is insufficient RS coverage of this individual (in fact, there is no such RS content cited at the moment in the article). As far as I can tell (through a Google search), the only RS coverage of this individual relates to a single episode: testimony he gave in Congress a few days ago (he was one of many witnesses called). So, there is no RS coverage, except that which is limited to a single event. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:18, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I had no trouble at all finding significant coverage of Coleman predating the testimony in a very simple gNews search. I put a sampling of such coverage in my comment [10].E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:27, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It does seem that the subject is only notable for this one event which is not sufficient for an article. Indeed, performing a google search of: "Coleman Hughes" -wikipedia -hearing -testimony -reparations, brings up nothing notable TheSLEEVEmonkey (talk) 16:30, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:01, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:01, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I'm afraid that efforts to delete this BLP may reflect negative sentiment regarding the subject's controversial views. It is patently false that there is no RS content cited in the article. It is also patently false that there is no RS coverage of the individual beyond his congressional testimony on June 19th. Given that a date-restricted Google search turns up the below, and that this subject clearly meets the requirements in WP:BASIC, it's hard to understand why this article was ever nominated for deletion in the first place.

It's also important to appreciate that one of the reasons Hughes was invited to give testimony before congress in the first place was because his notability was enough to get him invited. Here's an example of RS coverage of the event in question- https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/19/reparations-slavery-ta-nehisi-coates-v-coleman-hughes And here's another- https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/coleman-hughes-slavery-reparations-defense/

I believe that this is a frivolous nomination made because of disagreement with the subject's views. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 17:12, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(1) There is simply no RS coverage in the article. It's all YouTube videos and op-eds. (2) With the exception of Newsweek, the Atlantic, Vox and the WaPo blog, none of those sources are RS. The Atlantic, Vox and WaPo blog pieces are also of the kind where there is no clear distinction between editorial and RS reporting. While they may indicate a little degree of notability, Hughes is not covered at great length in those sources. I've long maintained that Newsweek should no longer be considered a RS, but the unfortunate reality is that it still is. In the Newsweek piece, Hughes' commentary was added post-publication and added briefly at the end of the article. So RS coverage of this individual, beyond a single event, is sparse. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:28, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no requirement that an RS be equivalent to NPOV reporting. See WP:PARTISAN. Given the list I posted above, it's ludicrous to claim that the coverage is "sparse" beyond a single event. Again, I want to reiterate that I believe this is a frivolous nomination motivated by disagreements with the subject's controversial views.Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 17:35, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If there is a case for deleting this article, I think it would be WP:1E. But I look in the article history and find that the article was created well before Mr. Hughes' very notable appearance before a congressional hearing yesterday. I think that denying that this meets WP:RS appears to be a matter of wishful thinking. If this is deleted due to lack of RS, I'm sure it will reappear soon, as the right-wing media will make him a superstar whether one likes it or not. Finally, there was a concerted effort to shut down this young man yesterday during his Congressional testimony, with open booing of his statements. I must say, that's a rare event and I wonder—is Wikipedia now going to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with those who want to silence certain viewpoints? Un school 18:49, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - With regard to WP:1E, Reason described him as "one of the most prolific and insightful commentators on race and class in the United States" back in March, well before the hearing. I also am inclined to think the deletion request is backlash to his appearance before Congress this week. I have listened to and read some of his work before and think the article can be improved to give a more wholistic presentation of his views. I never really saw him as right-wing but more as someone with a different vision of progressivism. IntOMIatrA (talk) 20:00, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@IntOMIatrA: I never really saw him as right-wing but more as someone with a different vision of progressivism.. Oh, I totally agree with you, in fact, it should be noted that Mr. Hughes did agree with Mr. Coates' call for reparations for those people still living who were victims of practices like redlining. He's clearly no ideologue. My comment ("the right wing media will make him a superstar") was not because I think he's a conservative, but because right wing media love to see African-Americans bucking the Democratic Party. Un school 20:26, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like other editors to note the bizarre timing of the nomination of this article for deletion. It should seem suspicious that in the immediate aftermath of the subject's participation in an extremely notable event (Hughes' testimony before congress) and the wide RS coverage of his involvement (again, two examples https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/19/reparations-slavery-ta-nehisi-coates-v-coleman-hughes and https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/coleman-hughes-slavery-reparations-defense/), only now is his article nominated for deletion. How does that make any sense at all? Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 20:11, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is the suspicion? Does it not occur to you that I might have first heard of this guy due to his appearance at that hearing and subsequently checked his Wikipedia, only to find that the whole Wikipedia page was sourced to YouTube videos and op-eds? What is the grand conspiracy? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:16, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't make sense to nominate a BLP for deletion in the immediate aftermath of an event that has made the subject of the BLP even more notable than he was when the article was first created. In other words, there is more coverage of this individual in secondary sources, not less...and now the subject has "insufficient RS coverage"? Again, this is a frivolous nomination for deletion made because of the content of the subject's controversial views, not his notability. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 21:21, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reason did not call him that. Nick Gillespie, the editor-in-chief of Reason, called him that. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:16, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments like this make it really clear to me that you're not acting in good faith. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 21:24, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep subject is notable per sources provided by Global Cerebral Ischemia. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:49, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is not a question of WP:1E, because his page existed prior to that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DolyaIskrina (talk • contribs) 18:23, 24 June 2019 (UTC) DolyaIskrina (talk) 18:27, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As noted above, the subject was already well known for his published commentary prior to his testimony at the Congressional hearing. Secondary sources are wide before and after the hearing. Easily passes WP:GNG and WP:Basic. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 01:21, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep subject is notable and has enough coverage. Barca (talk) 17:12, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Global Cerebral Ischemia. Loksmythe (talk) 15:57, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ta-Nehisi was young once too. At a certain point, no matter how young you are, teh coverage is persuasive. E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:12, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above I find the subject notable with enough coverage Alex-h (talk) 15:39, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just wanted to add to the discussion on this as I seem very clearly to be in a minority opinion. It seems to me that, as the article currently stands, if you remove the section about testifying to congress, you are left with this line:

"Besides writing for Quillette,[6] Hughes has contributed to The Spectator[7], The New York Times[8], and on the Heterodox Academy blog.[9]"

To be clear, the sources cited here do not mention the subject directly, they are just articles which the subject has written. Although the subject clearly contributes to notable publications, do we think this in itself satisfies the WP:AUTHOR notability requirements? There are surely countless authors and pundits who contribute to various news and media outlets, however as I understand the notability requirements, this alone is not sufficient to just have articles published.

I do see of course the massive list of links which Global Cerebral Ischemia has dumped in the talk page without any context or without actually sharing what each link contains. However, after a cursory look through each article individually, it appears to me that the only reputable sources among those links only mention the subject in passing.

I am of course happy to discuss and be convinced, I just want to be sure that opinions are being made based on the actual content and quality of the coverage, and not just on the volume of the link dump above. TheSLEEVEmonkey (talk) 16:42, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to assume that Hughes became notable because he testified at a Congressional hearing. However, my searches showed that this very young man has recently written a remarkable number of opinion essays in places like the New York Times and Wall Street Journal that are notoriously choosy about which op-eds they publish. Please consider the possibility that Coleman was invited to testify because opinion essays he writes had made him notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:32, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this is convincing, however I must admit that I have no idea how the Congressional hearing decides who it does or does not ask. I imagine that in this instance, a primary concern would be getting a wide range of opinions, which would include people with marginal or controversial opinions. I think we can all agree that the subject definitely has controversial opinions. However I'm not sure that being controversial, in and of itself, makes you notable.

By way of a comparison, in the UK recently there was a parliamentary committe hearing about (among other things) microtransactions in video games. One of the people asked to testify was Matt Weissinger, marketing director at Epic Games. Weissinger is clearly considered important for this hearing by the committe members, however he is also certainly not sufficiently notable to warrant a wikipedia page about him.

For the sake of argument, could we imagine hypothetically if the subject had not been asked to testiy at the congressional hearing? What would the article say and would it be notable? "Coleman Hughes is a writer with controversial opinions who has been published in a number of journals, including..."? Is this sufficient to pass WP:AUTHOR? I would genuinely be interested in the opinion of other editors on this. TheSLEEVEmonkey (talk) 10:13, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AUTHOR alone cannot be used as notability criteria for the deletion of any BLP (nor can it be used as minimum criteria for inclusion): "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." It is never necessary to justify a BLP's existence by categorizing the subject. However, what can be used as sufficient minimum notability criteria for the inclusion of a BLP are WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Since those criteria alone are all that's required, and the subject easily passes both (as another editor noted above), then WP:AUTHOR is completely irrelevant. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 13:22, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well personally I'm yet to be convinced that it does pass WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, even in light of your WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. TheSLEEVEmonkey (talk) 17:00, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point regarding WP:LOTSOFSOURCES, but it's worth noting that I checked each the links above to make sure that they weren't just false hits on user-comments and trivial mentions before I posted them (each source is independent as well). Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 20:26, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Er... WP:OTHERSTUFF aside, the hearing and the consequent coverage happened.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:07, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to the "link dump" posted above, I encourage any editor reading this to actually click and look through each linked article themselves in order to assess the accuracy of the claim that the only reliable sources listed mention the subject in passing. Worth stating yet again for the record, I believe this is a frivolous nomination. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 01:45, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Many~~ While some of the links in the dump are paltry, most are supportive, albeit sometimes briefly, of notability. ~~presumably posted by an inexperienced editor.~~ But Hughes' biography - youth and ancestors owned by Thomas Jefferson at Monticello has drawn coverage. Mostly, however, he is notable because his ideas are being engaged with by serious people in the way that makes opinion columnists notable. The Guardian :"Should America pay reparations for slavery? Ta-Nehisi Coates v Coleman Hughes", national Review: "In Defense of Coleman Hughes", "Obama’s black Columbia University brother Coleman Hughes recently followed a stirring rebuttal to McConnell by firebrand writer Ta-Nehisi Coates before the House Judiciary Committee's subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. Hughes amazingly argued that he would actually feel “victimized” if reparations were granted and Americans would be divided. He delivered a performance that surely made the likes of Clarence Thomas, Ward Connerly and Shelby Steele proud. Scott, Obama and Hughes are not alone in their opposition to reparations. Up to one-third of African Americans are also against the idea. It is a simultaneously odd and understandable statistic.". The Nation: "Columbia philosophy undergrad and columnist at the willfully contrarian magazine Quilette Coleman Hughes.... Anti-reparations testimony from Owens revolved around the degradation of the black family and the pathology imbued in the term “baby mama.” Hughes lobbed up obscure academic theories on the statistical insignificance of racial disparities found in 2015 Census data that political economist Julianne Malveaux spiked down, referring to young Hughes as a naive, “Kumbaya brother.” ", Newsweek: "Coleman Hughes, an African-American writer, spoke against blanket reparations for slavery, citing his own privileged upbringing as a reason he should not receive them despite being descended from slaves. "If we were to pay reparations today, we would only divide the country further, making it harder to build the political coalitions required to solve the problems facing black people today," Hughes said. These are just the firs few in a gNews search, but I'll finish with the bottom feeders, The Daily Dot goes low: Anti-reparations speaker has a SoundCloud album called ‘My D*ck Works Fine!’ , And Even, God help us, the Daily Mail in classic tabloid style:

"Revealed: 'Presumptive' witness who sparked boos at Congressional hearing for saying reparations would be an 'insult to many black Americans' is also a rapper whose latest mixtape was called 'My D**k Works Fine'

Coleman Hughes, a Columbia University student and writer for Quillette, was quickly identified by stage name 'Coldman' after his remarks on Wednesday

Coldman came out with an album in 2017 called 'My D**k Works Fine' and also has an EP called 'I am a p***y'

For the music video of his song 'Fake,' Coldman runs around New York City in his underwear and at one point raps that 'Jesus Christ is a f***ot'

Hughes was one of the few dissenting voices at the 'H.R. 40 and the Path to Restorative Justice' hearing H.R. 40 is a bill which would seek to form a commission that would study reparations and how to successfully implement them for African Americans

Audience members booed Hughes as he described how reparations would divide the country even further

Subcommittee Chairman Steve Cohen resorted to banging his gavel as the spectators continued booing Hughes, telling them to 'Chill, chill, chill, chill!' " That is just the headline. E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:07, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Edited to reflect that the comment I was responding to has been removed) A reminder of basic guidelines that seem to have been ignored in nominating this article for deletion:

WP:NNC "Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article" The reason given for deletion above explicitly cites the lack of RS content in the article itself, even though this is utterly irrelevant to any justification for deletion.
WP:NTEMP "Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." Given that the article was created before the congressional hearing, and given the unambiguously "significant" coverage of that hearing, how likely is it that the subject is less notable than he was before? Again, two examples- https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/19/reparations-slavery-ta-nehisi-coates-v-coleman-hughes and https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/coleman-hughes-slavery-reparations-defense/ It doesn't matter if Hughes never wrote another article, never did another interview, and disappeared from public engagement for the rest of his life; none of that would have any relevance regarding notability.
WP:PARTISAN "...reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs." Contrary to misconceptions posted here, there is no criterion whatsoever that an RS must be equivalent NPOV reporting. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 13:58, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But engagement with Hughes and his ideas by other opinion makers is what makes an opinion columnist notable, such engagement predating the hearing includes: Charleston Gazette-Mail: Coleman Hughes recently wrote a compelling piece in the online journal Quillette titled “Rethinking Abortion Advocacy,” calling for a more reasoned and logical approach to advocating on the subject. He is critical of the approach both sides take — namely how each seems to want there to be a “bright line” in the identification of legal or ethical personhood..., Reason (magazine): 23-Year-Old Coleman Hughes Is Reframing the Discussion on Race: Podcast; Meet the undergrad who is recovering the legacy of gay, socialist civil-rights activist Bayard Rustin while explicating Kanye West's conservatism., Yascha Mounk in Slate (magazine): Yascha Mounk talks to Coleman Hughes, a young black writer quickly making a big name for himself, about how to fight discrimination against minorities without making group membership more salient than it already is. , Megan McArdle in the Washington Post : In a recent article for Quillette, Coleman Hughes, who is himself black, looks at the data on spending and opts for the cultural explanation. The “fact that blacks spent more on cars, jewelry, and clothes explained fully 20 percent of the total racial wealth gap,” writes Hughes, an undergraduate at Columbia University but already a thinker to be reckoned with. Turning to a 2015 study by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis called “The Demographics of Wealth,” he sees that black people are dramatically less likely to engage in healthy financial behaviors such as “saving any amount of money, paying credit card bills on time, having a low debt-to-income ratio.” Income or education didn’t play a mediating role: When the researchers looked at educated middle-class families, Hughes writes, “the racial gap in financial health-scores didn’t shrink; it widened.” , Conor Friedersdorf in The Atlantic: Coleman Hughes, the freelance opinion journalist and Columbia University undergraduate, asserted that reparations is “something of a misnomer because the wrongs of history are generally too deep to actually be completely compensated.” What reparations should mean, he said, is “a full-hearted recognition that a wrong was committed, that something happened that should not have happened––and more than that, it’s an apology that feels more sincere because you’re attaching something tangible to it, because words are very cheap.” and more. E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:13, 28 June 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. Already relisted once, still unsourced. WP:REFUND applies if sources meeting WP:GNG can be found. ST47 (talk) 01:04, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

El Gilano[edit]

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

Contested prod. Previously deleted by prod in 2016. Per WP:NRIVALRY, sports rivalries do not have inherent notability, so this would need to meet WP:GNG, which it does not do. Hugsyrup (talk) 14:16, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hugsyrup (talk) 14:16, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Hugsyrup (talk) 14:16, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It could meet WP:GNG. I have no idea. A Farsi-language search will be required. An English-language search shows it at least passes WP:V, but sigcov is possibly understandably lacking. SportingFlyer T·C 18:12, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment' I have to agree with SportingFlyer here. You cannot claim that it fails WP:GNG until you can confidently say that there are no Farsi-language sources on the topic. The AfD is already listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Iran so that might attract a competent reviewer. Pichpich (talk) 21:11, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AmericanAir88^(talk) 15:06, 21 June 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 Delete. Article already deleted as WP:G14. (non-admin closure) CThomas³ (talk) 23:20, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alcumus (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Alcumus (Art of Problem Solving) was deleted in 2011 and the red link has no incoming links, Art of Problem Solving makes no mention of Alcumus, and there are no mentions of Alcumus in any other article. Leschnei (talk) 13:12, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88^(talk) 15:13, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as WP:G14. I've tagged it as such. schetm (talk) 17:10, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per above. AmericanAir88^(talk) 18:51, 21 June 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:51, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Late Night Delight[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC. There are a good amount of references, but almost all of them are either user-curated blogs, proven to be unreliable over at WP:EM, or links to YouTube videos and MP3s. The only usable sources I can see are the Tiny Mix Tapes, Esquire, and Geek.com ones, which definitely isn't enough to show notability. Micro (Talk) 01:52, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Micro (Talk) 01:52, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:04, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree this is not notable - it is only listed on some sites as an example of vaporwave music. The esquire article does not even refer to the album, it is only used to support claims made about the music genre itself. TheSLEEVEmonkey (talk) 15:24, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Only routine retail/streaming sites and minor social media promos can be found. It has no coverage in reliable sources. I wonder if they got proper authorization to put their song on top of the old McDonalds commercial and call it a video. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:43, 27 June 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. ST47 (talk) 01:01, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hit Vibes[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC. There are a bunch of references, but only the Tiny Mix Tapes and DIY Mag ones are usable. Others are either user-curated, proven to be unreliable over at WP:EM, or links to blogs with unreliable/no editorial team. Micro (Talk) 01:44, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Micro (Talk) 01:44, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:40, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:03, 21 June 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. Sandstein 07:55, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vaidyanatha Dikshita[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. ∯WBG^converse 18:23, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 18:23, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:33, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 18:52, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mhhossein ^talk 18:55, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to pass WP:GNG with coverage in two reliable sources. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:45, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Eastmain, the first one is a non-reliable astrological book, which mentions one of his works. I have no clue about the linked GBooks preview, but as far as I guess, (from the citation-records), one of the books, authored by the subject, has been published by a religious press. ∯WBG^converse 14:35, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 12:08, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is a 15th century writer from Tamil Nadu Vaidyanatha Dikshita who gets an encyclopaedia entry in ISBN 9788126012213, an entry in ISBN 9780143414216, and mentions in books on Hindu law. But the list of works has no overlap with this so it is unclear whether they are the same person. The one in the other encyclopaedia is a lot better documented than this one, if they are two different people. Uncle G (talk) 01:12, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge. According to the article. "Not much is known about his life except for his statement in Jataka Parijata." If that's the case, the article could be well merged into Jataka Parijata. We can not write article when there is nothing to write about.Viztor (talk) 12:03, 22 June 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:52, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nogrid[edit]

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

No significant coverage per WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 23:07, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:50, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:51, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:38, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet WP:CORP criteria and appears to be a WP:BROCHURE. Of the sources listed, one of them seems to only be available on the company's website as far as I can tell, and the only other one which is freely accessible does not mention the company at all, only the process. TheSLEEVEmonkey (talk) 15:43, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NCORP. --qedk (t 桜 c) 11:25, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP applies in this case. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:56, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ateneo Blue Eagles[edit]

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

Fanpage, advertising The Banner talk 11:38, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep - a plethora of sources (here's just one) makes this an easy decision. It needs a major cleanup though. schetm (talk) 12:43, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article is an absolute train wreck and desperately needs to be cleaned up, however as far as I can tell it does not meet any of the WP:DEL-REASON — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSLEEVEmonkey (talk • contribs) 15:53, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Than you have a different view on advertising than I have. The Banner talk 18:34, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - The issue is the obvious promotional tone and not a notability issue. There is a lot of puffery about Ateneo varsity athletes being exceptional and other subjective values. College sports is a big thing in the Philippines (at least the UAAP teams) like in the United States and has been frequently covered by the third-party national media sources. I have attempted to overhaul the article, but one significant contributor keeps reverting back the contentious content and seems to be overzealous of editing schools. There is a lack of feedback from them if they contest a reversion.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:04, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Clearly notable. No valid reason was given for deletion. SL93 (talk) 22:03, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Advertising is no valid reason for deletion? The Banner talk 23:57, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes. Tag it for cleanup or something instead of nominating a notable topic for deletion. SL93 (talk) 23:59, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Aha, the classic promotion of advertising by doing nothing. The Banner talk 01:19, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - Aha, you're not changing my opinion and debating this with me will be fruitless. SL93 (talk) 01:29, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        At least you are honest enough to say that you will not act upon your own words. 07:20, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
        When did I say such a thing? SL93 (talk) 16:02, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Promotional content does not qualify for deletion. Cleanup is just needed. AmericanAir88^(talk) 14:53, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:34, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie Turner (disambiguation)[edit]

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

This fails WP:TWODABS as there are only two entries. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:28, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - open and shut TWODABS violation. schetm (talk) 12:45, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:05, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:05, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:05, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:06, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:06, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:06, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above - Fails TWODABS. –Davey2010^Talk 17:13, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary. PamD 12:07, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Turner Laing isn't known as Turner. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:09, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hi, i think sophie turner already has a page, it looks good :-) 🌝Lucas🌞B🌎1991 (talk) 21:38, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE! This page is a FAILURE of WP:TWODABS. 111.68.115.165 (talk) 07:24, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This page serves no useful purpose given there are only 2 entries and one of those is not even called Sophie Turner. Dunarc (talk) 22:52, 27 June 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. Primefac (talk) 15:33, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Banayoti[edit]

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

Deletion requested by article subject (OTRS#2019061610003984). The subject contests that the article is inaccurate, as are many of its sources (for example, the sources differ over whether he was King Abdullah's son-in-law or brother-in-law), and states that his considers himself a non-notable, private individual.

AFD filed on subject's behalf; I myself don't have an opinion at this time. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:22, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 12:24, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 12:24, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 12:24, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Statements are about as reliably sourced for these sorts of notable business shenanigans as one can expect (the linked journalist was one of the key players in the Panama Papers before being assassinated.) I recognize the sensitivity of WP:BLP but we're only reflecting the notable activities of a notable businessperson. Simonm223 (talk) 12:59, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is not particularly well written and could do with being cleaned up somewhat, however it does appear that the subject is notable and has received significant coverage multiple times from various reliable sources (albeit under his previous name). Besides, on the subject's own website, they claim that: "Edward Banayoti is known to be a trusted voice by so many heads of states, and world leaders in addition to many world leaders" as well as " Edward Banayoti sits on various international boards and has also been granted various recognitions for his service" - so it would seem that even they consider themselves to be a notable businessman. TheSLEEVEmonkey (talk) 16:09, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Subject meets WP:GNG with in-depth coverage from multiple reliable sources. Note: A search reveals that on many other platforms, including in the past on this one, he promotes himself as noteworthy, contradicting his recent claims to the contrary here. For instance, If he insists he is non-notable and a private individual, why does he have a link on the bottom of every page of his website to his article on Wikipedia: "Edward Sawiris Banayoti has a distinguished record of ethical leadership"?^[1] Orville1974^talk 23:43, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Edward Banayoti | Multi-national Businessman & Renowned Ethical Leader". Edward Banayoti. Retrieved 2019-06-22.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. In light of " I was initially going to propose a merge, but looking into it more, I agree with the nominator that this current article is fairly worthless when it comes to information on the trilogy, as it is just information, and sources, on each of the individual movies and not on the trilogy as a whole, thus merging seems somewhat pointless" and because there is no consensus on a redirect target; people can add redirects at editorial discretion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:29, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Animal Trilogy[edit]

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

This is merely a content fork of paragraphs from the articles for the individual films. None of the sources, or this article discuss this so-called "trilogy" in depth. There may be a case for an article that considers the artistic merits of the trilogy as a whole (properly sourced of course), but this is not it. WP:TNT applies here, as this article is pretty worthless as it stands. --wooden superman 09:16, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:39, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:39, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see sources referring them as series. If this is an uncommon name for the three movies by the same director, then a sentence the director's own article should suffice, there is no need for an additional article to explain a simple noun. Viztor (talk) 10:40, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dario Argento. The "Animal Trilogy" is definitely a commonly used title for the three movies, as plenty of references can be found that refer to them as such. However, nearly all of these don't talk about the trilogy as a whole in any meaningful way - they talk about the individual movies that are part of it, while referencing the fact that they are dubbed "The Animal Trilogy", but that's it. I have only found one source that actually talks in-depth about the trilogy as a whole, which is here. And, while decent, I don't feel that this is enough to support an article. However, the term "Animal Trilogy" should definitely be kept as a Redirect to the director's article, and the information on the trilogy that is already in that article can be bolstered. I was initially going to propose a merge, but looking into it more, I agree with the nominator that this current article is fairly worthless when it comes to information on the trilogy, as it is just information, and sources, on each of the individual movies and not on the trilogy as a whole, thus merging seems somewhat pointless. Rorshacma (talk) 15:48, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I would redirect to Giallo#Titles because this particular "trilogy" of unrelated films started a fad during the 1970s and 1980s, which is best discussed in that article, because it isn't confined to the one director. See ISBN 9780786486090 p. 71 and ISBN 9781461664161 p. 170. Uncle G (talk) 01:57, 22 June 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) 09:47, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Allegiance Title Co.[edit]

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

no evidence of notability -- it's not a company hat offers insurance, just an agency that sells policies from other firms. This is not even likely enough to be appropriate for a move to draft space. The refs are mere notices. Given that the contrib has written nothing else, this is presumably undeclared paid coi editing in violation of he terms of use. DGG ( talk ) 08:32, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:38, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:38, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. No evident of meeting WP:GNG and fails a big margin of WP:NCORP. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:42, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article reads too much like a blurb than a Wikipedia entry.TH1980 (talk) 14:54, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:COI, WP:PAID violations from the company's marketing/communications department in order to WP:PROMO the company. --Yamla (talk) 11:13, 23 June 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 as WP:TOOSOON. bd2412 T 04:08, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Caitlin C. Rosenthal[edit]

An assistance professor with only one book in publication - fails WP:NPROF

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

CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:15, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:15, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:15, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as far WP:Too soon. Assistant professors are usually not notable and this is no exception. Tiny citations on GS do not pass WP:Prof and lack of independent in-depth sources fails WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:55, 21 June 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 11:32, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Citation counts are not particularly relevant for this subject but one new book with only one review that I could find in a quick search [11] is not enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:12, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NPROF. --qedk (t 桜 c) 11:27, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON, wait for some more publications.___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 12:45, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass the notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:16, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with previous editors about WP:TOOSOON. An assistant professor with few citations, it's hard to see that she meets any WP notability criteria. Papaursa (talk) 00:20, 27 June 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 Origin (TV series). Closed as redirect per strength of arguments, and no argument clarifying how outright deletion of content in this case is an advantage. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:53, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sen Mitsuji[edit]

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

With only 1 role in released film and starting acting in 2018, it is WP:TOOSOON to have a page in Wikipedia as it fails WP:NACTOR CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:46, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:46, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:46, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:10, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:11, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:11, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:12, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No significant coverage as of yet. SL93 (talk) 00:43, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not significant enough to warrant article - WP:TOOSOON & WP:NACTOR Mrbuskin (talk) 05:04, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete for now~~ I'm sure one day he will be a star of flim and tevelevision, but for now I don't think he's nobotable enough to have a Wikikipededia article. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:52, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Duffman. I'll have one too! Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:31, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Per nom, it is WP:TOOSOON to have a page in Wikipedia as it fails WP:NACTOR - MA Javadi (talk) 13:27, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as a valid alternative to deletion, target Origin (TV series) where he has a significant role. This provides a useful redirect and preserves sourced content for ifwhen the TOOSOON mentioned above becomes NOW which casting for Brave New World (upcoming TV series) suggests will be very soon. Pinging those that say not yet, User:CASSIOPEIA, User:SL93, User:Mrbuskin, User:Hijiri88, User:MA Javadi. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:05, 27 June 2019 (UTC)tja[reply]

:Comment: No use to redirect. Article can always be created when subject meets the notability guidelines. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:03, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@CASSIOPEIA: "no use to redirect" isn't really standard operating procedure. If there's a valid redirect target (and Duffbeer presented one forme), the page really should be redirected unless there is a strong reason to remove the current contents from public view (BLP violations, libel, copyright violation), and I don't see such a reason here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:53, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

:Comment: Did not state standard procedure - that was a comment as it is common for WP:TOOSOON subject, especially an actor or musician to recreate the article when notability is met.. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:01, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but why does it have to be a new page with the previous history deleted? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:46, 28 June 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. I see the concerns about the NYT sources (or more precisely, the sources derived from it) but it looks like editors have found additional sourcing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:25, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zulfikar Ali Bhutto (artist)[edit]

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

This article might not meet wikipedia's notability guideline. The coverage, subject of the article got is solely because of his family. Like the NYT story. The NYT story has been source of some of the Pakistani press coverage where Bhutto name is enough to be subject of a news article. And the huffpost article is completely passing mention. That is why I think this article should be deleted. ABCDE22 (talk) 04:51, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:39, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:39, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:40, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:40, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep as article is already well-referenced and meets WP:GNG guidelines. Störm (talk) 08:41, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject is notable. The NYT article [12] provides extensive, in-depth coverage of the subject. Vice, Dawn and Pakistan Today published articles that are specifically about the subject. The Huffington Post article does indeed only mention the subject briefly. That citation can probably be removed; "Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, another Bay Area-based artist" doesn't really support "Bhutto is a practicing Muslim and currently lives in San Francisco" anyway. Vexations (talk) 12:25, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:- I agree with my fellow editor Vexations that the NYT coverage is extensive. But here as nominator I will like to highlight something to the admin who will review the afd discussion.

The title of the NYT article, "The Scion of a Pakistani Political Dynasty Comes Out", the phrase "The Scion of a Pakistani Political Dynasty" seems enough to suggest that why he has got the coverage. The coverages in Pakistan Today and Dawn has been taken from NYT. So it seems enough for me to prove that he does not deserve a stand alone article.

Also the article describe him as an artist. But the article does not even meet the first criteria of WP:ARTIST. According to WP:ARTIST, "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." but let go alone being cited by peers and successors the article's anly information about his art work is, "He has worked on creative projects such as Mussalmaan Musclemen, The Third Muslim: Queer and Trans Muslim Narratives of Resistance and Resilience, The Alif Series and Tomorrow We Inherit the Earth", which cites only one source. Other informations are completely about his personal life.

Finally, I will again like to insist my point that this article does not deserve an stand alone wikipedia page and also I will like to request my fellow editor and admin to consider these points before voting and reviewing. ABCDE22 (talk) 10:50, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ABCDE22, If a subject meets the WP:GNG, it doesn't matter that they don't also meet WP:NARTIST. Subject-specific notability guidelines like NARTIST do not override the GNG. As for "deserving" an article, in stead of asking if a subject's accomplishments merit an article, I prefer to think of it as: "Do we sufficient reliable sources to create an article from?" If I were to introduce my own bias about what matters, we'd have to remove all kinds biographies about people are just famous for being famous. That's a sad state of affairs, and I wish it weren't so, but we should show the world as it is, not as we'd like it to be. Vexations (talk) 14:35, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vexations, Thanks for voicing your opinion but I don't agree with your point if an artist has no requirement of meeting WP:ARTIST, then there was no reason to have it at the first place. In wikipedia we deleted article of Barron Trump, Bhakthawar Bhutto Zardari and Aseefa Bhutto Zardari's article on the base of not having independent notability. 3 of them have got much more press coverage than this one and that also far more in-depth and extensive. Moreover, which I already have pointed out that the article of ZAB (artist) has only one actually extensive coverage which is in NYT. So maybe your own point does not standing up in this case. Bests ABCDE22 (talk)

Keep the NYT article is high level and in-depth coverage. With the other sources, GNG is met.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:13, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Additional coverage:

Broadway World ""In performance, creative collaboration becomes a form of political solidarity", states Artistic Director Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, "As artists we use Islam as a springboard for the imagination, taking inspiration from its mythos, mysticism and the evolution of its politicization in order to envision a radically different world where black and brown bodies take center stage."
The Guardian: "“It was a particularly fraught moment for queer and transgender Muslims because the attacker was unfortunately a Muslim,” said San Francisco artist, writer and curator Zulfikar Ali Bhutto."
SF Weekly: "“One of the things I am most exctied about is to see what the drag queen-performance artist named Faluda Islam [aka Zulfikar Ali Bhutto] will do,” Benatar tells SF Weekly. “It is sort of beyond the binary in a lot of ways but it is really knitting together a lot of critical narratives around living in war, and the immigrant experience and what they bring with you to new contexts. We need to be hearing from queer Muslims right now.”
SF Chronicle:"“Alif Is for A(n)nals,” another world premiere, was the most technically elaborate piece of the night. A substantial video, featuring the Urdu voice and fleeting images of San Francisco Muslim drag queen Faluda Islam (Zulfikar Ali Bhutto), accompanied live actors Jose E. Abad and Gabriel Christian (co-creators with Bhutto)."

There is clearly enough here for GNG. One need only do a Google News search to see he is widely cited. The above is mostly quotes, but the NYT article and others used in article give SIGCOV.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:37, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep subject of article passes WP:GNG as per reliable sources listed above. Netherzone (talk) 23:13, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep Passes notability as article is already well-referenced and meets WP:GNG. -MA Javadi (talk) 16:02, 25 June 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 Abdul Sattar Abdul Nabi. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:24, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Sattar (Maharashtra politician)[edit]

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

Duplicate article, there's a better article for the same politician; SEE Abdul Sattar Abdul Nabi GreaterPonce665GreaterPonce665 03:48, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:04, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:04, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Choose the more appropriate name of the two, and then merge the information to that name. Change the article with the less appropriate name to a redirect. Nothing needs to be deleted. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:06, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the other article. Although these are about the same person, they're not actually duplicating each other in terms of content: one focuses almost entirely on his pre-MLA career background and then briefly mentions his election to the legislature, while the other focuses entirely on his term in the legislature while almost completely eliding the career background — apart from containing just enough overlapping information to establish that they're the same person and not just unrelated people who happen to have similar names, the two articles are otherwise covering completely different aspects of his career instead of duplicating each other. I don't know enough about Indian politics to know which name should be retained as the primary title and which should be redirected, so I defer to more knowledgeable editors on that question — but they should be merged into one more fully rounded article, at one title or the other, rather than one just being deleted. Bearcat (talk) 14:31, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I second the above sentences. Masum Reza^📞 03:29, 23 June 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:04, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Troy Harley[edit]

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

Not yet notable Russian singer and musician.--Kirill Samredny (talk) 03:18, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 June 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:36, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:49, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:49, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:13, 21 June 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. Fenix down (talk) 21:19, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sergei Sulik[edit]

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

Russian football goalkeeper. Does not meet WP:BLPPROD requirement of articles containing no sources in any form. However, it does not meet the requirement of All BLPs must have at least one source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article.--Kirill Samredny (talk) 03:00, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 June 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:20, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:42, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:42, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:42, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:35, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL as confirmed by Soccerway (and numerous other references already on the article). Needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 10:37, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per NFOOTBALL (meets point 2). --qedk (t 桜 c) 16:51, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL - here's another source. Nfitz (talk) 01:24, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NFOOTY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:48, 22 June 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 Sam Raimi. I've referenced it at Sam Raimi and have redirected this there. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:03, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clockwork (film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Unsourced and has been a stub since 31 January 2007. Sources found in search results turn up empty. Mysticair667537 (talk) 00:48, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 June 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:02, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:14, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:14, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per nominator. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NFILM, as pointed out. Seems like an unnotable film with no sources online to back it up. QueerFilmNerd^talk 05:55, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect To Sam Raimi. I have a found a few scant mentions of the film, but nothing that comes close to be substantial enough to support a stand alone article. However, I think a redirect to Raimi's article would be be appropriate. Rorshacma (talk) 16:14, 21 June 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:53, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Darrin Doyle[edit]

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

Highly promotional and probably non-notable Ref , in an unreliable review publication, is an interview where the author is talking about his own work, which is an unreliable source for anything. Ref 2 is an unreliable review publication ; ref 3 is another self-serving interview, this time in a local paper.None of the others are even remotely 3rd party sources--they are blurbs from the publisher. I have difficulty believing that an author could be notable where these are the best available sources . But even if there are better, this needs to be removed, with no prejudice to an article by a contributor who knows what count as reliable sources (This is the only article the present contributor has written, so I assume undeclared coi, perhaps from the publishers PR agent)

There were similar attempts at using WP for advertising at thetime of publication of his previous books. DGG ( talk ) 01:02, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. DGG ( talk ) 01:02, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:19, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Could he be notable as an academic? Here is his faculty page at the university where he teaches. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:11, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

he has no scholarly publications; he teaches creative writing. According to WP:PROF, academics whose importance is primarily in another field are judged by the standards of that field. This is a typical example--so are those teaching music performance rather than musicology, creative arts rather than history of art, etc. DGG ( talk ) 04:36, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:52, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doyle's first novel got a warm, 1 paragraph review in the NYTimes [13] and a review in the local, Baton Rouge, paper (Salvatore, Joseph (29 May 2009). "Fiction Chronicle (brief review)". New York Times. Retrieved 26 June 2019.),( Langley, Greg (19 April 2009). "Revenge one of funniest, most satirical books in years (book review)". The Advocate (Louisiana). paywalled and not viewable in full text via Proquest). plus PW reviews, which count for little since PW reviews virtually all trade books that a reputable publisher is pushing. Not quite enough to pass WP:AUTHOR]].E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:06, 26 June 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:52, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cowrywise[edit]

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

not yet notable, according to NCORP. DGG ( talk ) 08:52, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:09, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:09, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:09, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:09, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:11, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. A digital start up company has yet to pass the requirements of WP:NCORP.

Keep I don't see how the subject failed WP:NCORP, for the subject to have been covered significantly by Business Day and INC as one of the new 50 global startup to watch and making it as the only startup from Africa to make the lists while receiving funding from a major organization like Kairos shows how distinguished the organization is and hence worthy of a wiki article. The subject also have enough independent detailed secondary sources and clearly meet WP:GNG and WP:ORGCRIT. Kaizenify (talk) 05:25, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The Business Day reference is based on an announcement and contains no content not clearly attributable to a connected source, fails WP:ORGIND. Similarly, the INC reference is a small profile (provided no doubt by the company along with the photo) which fails in a similar manner. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:29, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While close, it still fails WP:NCORP. The applicable link would be WP:ORGCRIT and the references out there simply don't qualify. They are mainly blogs, brief mentions, or general announcements which are typical of a startup. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:46, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: I'd notice the source [14] ([15]) which appears like an independent review against a competitor by Business Day (Nigeria).Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:06, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There is hardly any information on the company, only the product and that is patchy at best. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:32, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:58, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Per nom. I think according to WP:NCORP, it's not yet notable, MA Javadi (talk) 19:27, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Probably WP:TOOSOON for this company, not enough references to meet the criteria for establishing notability. Fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:29, 27 June 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 Real Country: Music and Language in Working-Class Culture. Randykitty (talk) 15:12, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Fox (musicologist)[edit]

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

Non-notable Amber388 (talk) 22:33, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 23:41, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 23:41, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:22, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. His book Real Country: Music and Language in Working-Class Culture has enough reviews to be independently notable [16]. And Fox has published a couple of other well cited works, but very few, long ago, and one of them was a review article. From 2006 on, Google Scholar shows only 14 publications, none with any citations. It doesn't really look like the kind of career trajectory that has taken or will take him beyond the ordinary associate professor level he is at now. So I'm leaning towards "make an article on the book and redirect to that", or, if nobody cares enough about the book to take that step, then deletion. But I'd prefer to hold off expressing that as my actual !vote for a little longer, in case more evidence comes in or someone wants to try to change my mind. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:18, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:01, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete or redirect per my above comment and the lack of interest anyone else has shown since in trying to change my mind. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:01, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ title of book was given incorrectly on page, which made him look non-notable whena I search ed for th ebook (because he has a common sort of name) . Passes WP:AUTHOR with reviews in general circulation newspapers and academic journals of a book that shows up in gScholar as widely cited.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:53, 20 June 2019 (UTC) I am coming around to David Epstein's POV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:27, 21 June 2019 (UTC) make that one review in a general circulation magazine, added to the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:28, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I added the first half dozen academic book reviews that came up in a JSTOR search (there were more), just to keep the page up while we wait for an editor with an academic interest in country music to upgrade it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:09, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:54, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Associate prof who published one scholarly book, that got a number of academic reviews, but little attention in the years since despite the fact that he writes about country music. He doesn't even appear to get quoted much in the press. Nor can I find WP:SIGCOV of his life or career. looks like a non- notable, WP:MILL professor.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:53, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the book is wikinotable (plenty of reviews) and should have a standalone article, author probably not. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:10, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, as suggested by Coolabahapple and David Eppstein, I created a sourced stub on Fox's book: Real Country: Music and Language in Working-Class Culture.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:58, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Real Country: Music and Language in Working-Class Culture.E.M.Gregory (talk)
Redirect to Real Country: Music and Language in Working-Class Culture as logical target. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:21, 28 June 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:54, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Uno Bolt[edit]

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

Not notable, promotional with links to promotion articles, and what information about it could probably be added to the film's article. Also, the creator of the article seems like a SPA but I can't confirm that with the information available. It's odd to have the article and then see the "v2" of this item was featured in a film which just makes this all seem promotional. – The Grid (talk) 18:58, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 18:58, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 13:42, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:52, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ROUTINE and WP:SUSTAINED. schetm (talk) 12:50, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable and per WP:SUSTAINED. Barca (talk) 17:14, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A lot of programs on kickstarter are searchable, however, that does not mean they deserves an article. This program specifically have less than 50 backers. Wikipedia is not a product catalogue, not to mention that it does not have sustained coverage. Viztor (talk) 12:17, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] "Edward Banayoti | Multi-national Businessman & Renowned Ethical Leader". Edward Banayoti. Retrieved 2019-06-22.

[1]