Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 May 31

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 30 May	1 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 redirect to Horizon Hobby. T. Canens (talk) 06:19, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Team Losi JR-X2[edit]

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

The topic seems to fail WP:GNG; I am unable to identify independent reliable sources that discuss the topic in detail. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:53, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 00:21, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 00:21, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Horizon Hobby, the article about the production company, since the subject of the contested article possesses no independent notability of note. -The Gnome (talk) 09:12, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Horizon Hobby. The subject has no real sources, and does not appear to have ever been able to pass the WP:GNG. However, since the parent company of the group that made the product has an article, a Redirect could work if other editors feel that is appropriate. Rorshacma (talk) 16:25, 7 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. T. Canens (talk) 06:19, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of alien species in the Honorverse[edit]

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

In-universe fancruft pertaining to a series of novels. Fails MOS:REALWORLD and WP:GNG with no discernible coverage of this particular subtopic in third-party reliable sources. Such content is better suited to fan wikis. Sandstein 21:26, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 23:22, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 23:22, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 23:22, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 23:22, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Honorverse. Dream Focus 23:40, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Partial merge into Honorverse. I would be willing to do the merge. Debresser (talk) 17:30, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose a merger because the content still fails MOS:REALWORLD, is not reliably sourced, and should therefore not be merged. Wikipedia is not a fancruft repository, in this or another article. Sandstein 16:50, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with no merger. Other than treecats (and genetically modified humans, which are nowhere in the Honorverse referred to as "alien" as far as I can recall), none of the examples are given more than passing mention. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:34, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since there are no sources verifying the independent notability of the subject. It's a purely unsourced text, the result no doubt of personal enthusiasm and seemingly hard work, but Wikipedia is not a place for fans' loving entreaties. We cannot merge away anything: When a text is unsupported by references to outside sources, we do not dump it elsewhere in Wikipedia; we delete it. -The Gnome (talk) 09:17, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As already mentioned, the article contains nothing but completely unsourced, in-universe WP:PLOT. Simply merging unsourced information from one article to another article does nothing to solve either of these problems. Rorshacma (talk) 16:28, 7 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. T. Canens (talk) 06:19, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of locations in the Honorverse[edit]

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

In-universe fancruft pertaining to a series of novels. Fails MOS:REALWORLD and WP:GNG with no discernible coverage of this particular subtopic in third-party reliable sources. Such content is better suited to fan wikis. Sandstein 21:26, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 23:21, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 23:21, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 23:21, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 23:21, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Honorverse. Wikipedia is no longer the place for this sort of thing, it can all be found elsewhere easily by those wanting to see this and even greater detail. Dream Focus 05:39, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(Very) partial merge into Honorverse. I would be willing to do the merge. Debresser (talk) 17:29, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose a merger because the content still fails MOS:REALWORLD, is not reliably sourced, and should therefore not be merged. Wikipedia is not a fancruft repository, in this or another article. Sandstein 16:49, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since there are no sources verifying the independent notability of the subject. It's a purely unsourced text, the result no doubt of personal enthusiasm and seemingly hard work, but Wikipedia is not a place for fans' loving entreaties. We cannot merge away anything: When a text is unsupported by references to outside sources, we do not dump it elsewhere in Wikipedia; we delete it. -The Gnome (talk) 09:22, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article contains nothing but completely unsourced, in-universe WP:PLOT. Simply merging unsourced information from one article to another article does nothing to solve either of these problems. Rorshacma (talk) 16:30, 7 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. T. Canens (talk) 06:23, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of organizations in the Honorverse[edit]

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

In-universe fancruft pertaining to a series of novels. Fails MOS:REALWORLD and WP:GNG with no discernible coverage of this particular subtopic in third-party reliable sources. Such content is better suited to fan wikis. Sandstein 21:25, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've read most of the novels, I like the series, and I like David Weber as an author, but, as Sandstein says, it is fancruft and fails MOS:REALWORLD and WP:GNG, with the only source cited being David Weber's blog. It has been nine years since the last AfD, and no one has been able to find another reliable source for this? It appears that the coverage is just not there. - Donald Albury 22:33, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 23:20, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 23:20, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 23:20, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 23:20, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I concur, honorverse wikia is the place for such stuff. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:09, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Honorverse. Wikipedia is no longer the place for this sort of thing, it can all be found elsewhere easily by those wanting to see this and even greater detail. Dream Focus 05:38, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- poorly sourced fancruft. Does not pass our notability requirements. Reyk _YO! 08:56, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Honorverse. I would be willing to do the merge. Debresser (talk) 17:28, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is no coverage of this content to be found in independent reliable sources. I'm also confused by the calls for a merge. The article is virtually unsourced, spreading unsourced content across the encyclopedia goes against WP:V. RetiredDuke (talk) 10:34, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. The content is sourced to the books. In any case, if sourcing is the problem, then after a nerge, feel free to tag whatever needs to be sourced. Debresser (talk) 14:39, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose a merger because the content still fails MOS:REALWORLD, is not reliably sourced, and should therefore not be merged. Wikipedia is not a fancruft repository, in this or another article. Sandstein 16:49, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sandstein rationale. Lubbad85 (☎) 21:52, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since there are no sources verifying the independent notability of the subject. It's a purely unsourced text, the result no doubt of personal enthusiasm and seemingly hard work, but Wikipedia is not a place for fans' loving entreaties. We cannot merge away anything: When a text is unsupported by references to outside sources, we do not dump it elsewhere in Wikipedia; we delete it. -The Gnome (talk) 09:39, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article contains nothing but completely unsourced, in-universe WP:PLOT. Simply merging unsourced information from one article to another article does nothing to solve either of these problems. Rorshacma (talk) 16:31, 7 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. overwhelming consensus to keep. (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 04:38, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Wringe[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACADEMIC and WP:GNG as a result of WP:SIGCOV. StudiesWorld (talk) 21:07, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 23:18, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 23:18, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found (and added to the article) 15 reviews of 6 books by him. That's enough for WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:12, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per David Eppstein. I had searched for stuff about him before nominating him, but I couldn't find any book reviews. Given what David Eppstein has found, I think that he is clearly notable. StudiesWorld (talk) 09:30, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- To be fair, the reviews were less immediately visible than they often are. Most of them were buried within longer book review columns rather than being individually-searchable publications. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:37, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 10:55, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep in light of the recent improvements by Eppstein. Subject meets WP:AUTHOR.Thsmi002 (talk) 10:57, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets notability criteria as per WP:NAUTHOR. Spyder212 (talk) 14:45, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:AUTHOR at the very least. --Tataral (talk) 22:05, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:AUTHOR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:18, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per David Eppstein.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:58, 6 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. Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Mhhossein ^talk 13:38, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Draplin[edit]

Withdrawn by nominator per ThatMontrealIP's advice 9H48F (talk) 12:17, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Promotional page. Not notable per WP:BIO 9H48F (talk) 20:54, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 9H48F (talk) 20:54, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. 9H48F (talk) 20:54, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:00, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:00, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:00, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep there is a lot of coverage available for this designer of a recent US postal stamp and the well-known Field Notes notebooks. He also has a significant book published about his work. I had no trouble finding in-depth sources (coverage links: Wired, Design Week, Alt Daily Adweek, the Design Observer, the Missoulian, the Globe and Mail) and the New York Times. If you search, you will also see that he has been an invited speaker at dozens of design schools and conferences. I gave up counting after I saw 40 announcements of him speaking somewhere significant. He therefore meets WP:ARTIST point 1: "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors". This should not be at deletion. I have trimmed some of the promotional aspects of the article.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:16, 1 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 deleted per CSD A7 - the article did not make any claims of notability for this company. Nick-D (talk) 01:59, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BTC Markets[edit]

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

Non-notable cryptocurrency exchange. The best source I could find was this article in The Australian Financial Review. The next best would be these two [1] [2] in the lesser known "iTnews". Blumpf (talk) 20:41, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:00, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:01, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:18, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Brodsky[edit]

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

zero notability outside of his companies (they are the same company, one owns the other) . DGG ( talk ) 20:36, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:01, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:01, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have proposed changes for adding new sources such as Telegraph, EY Hall of Fame, Union Leader, Bloomberg, INC, Business NH agasine etc to establish notability. Please refer the article's talk page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Howard_Brodsky

TP495 (talk) 20:10, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's not surprising he gets some mentions in the press, but coverage is shallow and always in the context of his companies. Not independently notable. Hugsyrup (talk) 12:26, 7 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:48, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David DeRosa[edit]

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

Not notable as an artist per WP:BIO 9H48F (talk) 20:31, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 9H48F (talk) 20:31, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. 9H48F (talk) 20:31, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:02, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough sources found in a search.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:49, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet general notability criteria, just like countless other artists... Spyder212 (talk) 14:46, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails WP:NCREATIVE. -The Gnome (talk) 09:43, 6 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:17, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

James Dillon Wright[edit]

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

Not notable artist / graphic designer per WP:BIO 9H48F (talk) 20:17, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 9H48F (talk) 20:17, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. 9H48F (talk) 20:17, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:04, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete inadequate sourcing for GNG.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:52, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet general notability criteria. No significant coverage from independent, secondary sources. Spyder212 (talk) 14:47, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails WP:NCREATIVE. One of the three sources cited is his personal one. -The Gnome (talk) 12:58, 6 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:44, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Radoje Dedić[edit]

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

Not a notable graphic artist and designer per WP:BIO 9H48F (talk) 20:01, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 9H48F (talk) 20:01, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:06, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a search finds very little in terms of sourcing.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:54, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet general notability criteria. No significant coverage in independent, secondary sources. Spyder212 (talk) 14:51, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:24, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since subject fails WP:NCREATIVE. There are no sources aside from his personal site. -The Gnome (talk) 12:59, 6 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:42, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David Cragg[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO. Cannot find any secondary sources on this individual. Article appears to be strictly promotional. Rogermx (talk) 19:31, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 19:54, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 19:54, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTPROMO and the fact the subject meets no notability standards. GPL93 (talk) 22:19, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet general notability criteria. No significant coverage in independent, secondary sources. Spyder212 (talk) 14:50, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTPROMO. Unless some ambitious editor can seek out GNG references. Lubbad85 (☎) 18:10, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another one of far too many articles on non-notable businessmen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:53, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely agree about the surplus of non-notable articles on businessmen. Artists too. Rogermx (talk) 16:27, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since subject fails WP:NPERSON. The aroma of vanity begins to permeate the premises. -The Gnome (talk) 13:02, 6 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. T. Canens (talk) 06:33, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hill people[edit]

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

This article is a collection of short descriptions of ethnic groups which have just one thing in common: they "live in hills and mountains". Although much of the information in the individual sections is well-sourced, there is no source given that deals with the subject in toto. As such, the underlying concept of the article is OR (including the commonplace characterizations in the lead), which is the primary reason for this deletion request.
The deletion of the article will have little impact on WP, since less than 50 pages link to it. Austronesier (talk) 15:31, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Austronesier (talk) 15:31, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Austronesier (talk) 15:31, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Austronesier (talk) 15:31, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article since 29 May 2019 has been almost completely different from the one that was proposed for deletion originally, and the drastic changes largely attempt to address the problems raised in the discussions carried out before the date. Usedtobecool (talk) 03:57, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Aymatth2:@Usedtobecool: The revamp is on a good track. Usedtobecool has described–in much more detail than I have–the problematic aspects of the "previous" version, and Aymatth2 currently is in the process of creating a completely new article which concentrates on various aspects of human settlement in high altitudes, instead of the earlier ethnographic random-fashion panorama. Huddleston, Ataman & Fè d’Ostiani (2003) is a good starting point for the article, and the title "Mountain people" is fine. Since there have been other delete-votes in the discussion, I cannot unilaterally withdraw the nomination, but I vote Keep now. –Austronesier (talk) 09:54, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies:, @Otr500:, @Elmidae:, would you like to share your opinions on the article as it has become now? Usedtobecool (talk) 10:15, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Usedtobecool, sure, thanks. I still think "delete". I am not convinced "hill people" is an actual term (and the Himalayas aren't a hill). The sections "Extent" and "Climate" are filler; they're neither about hills nor about people (they're about mountains). The Physical adaptation section explains they're not genetically different nor isolated. I note also that throughout the revision the term "mountain people" is now used more, and that's only a step away from "people who live in the mountains" (which is the title of that chapter from Mountain Geography), indicating that we are not dealing with a real subset of people. By analogy, one wonders about coastal people and flatlanders. Sorry. Drmies (talk) 12:49, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think we are getting towards a useful format here. Some of the newly added sources are just what is needed for an encyclopedic treatment of the general topic (as opposed to a synthetic treatment of lots of individual bits) - e.g., that FAO report is excellent stuff, and provides good summaries of economical and ethnological angle. I would however agree with Drmies that the "Extent" and "Climate" sections still don't have much business being there. - At this point I think that maybe a move to draft would be preferable, to see what can be developed? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:25, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think the short "Extent" and "Climate" sections are needed to give context - what is meant by "mountain region", which excludes some high plateaus but includes lower hills, and what conditions the people have to cope with. Mountain people would be a better title, since that is what the sources tend to use, but that title is taken by a page with history that now redirects here. Maybe someone can move Hill people to Mountain people over the redirect. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:36, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This serves as a useful disambiguation page. "Hill people" is a legitimate search topic that a disambiguation page can help resolve. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:25, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A well-sourced and well-illustrated overview of a broad topic draws readers into exploring Wikipedia. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:49, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no no no this is not a good article. If it were, it would be one of two things--a kind of DAB page, or a more sociological and historical essay on "hill people" in general. It's neither, and it's certainly not the second because, in the end, it's just a collection of information about various groups of people who live, eh, on hills. Or something. Drmies (talk) 00:53, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: The question is not what it is, but what it could be. A section at the front could draw on sources like Lorna Grindlay Moore; Judith G. Regensteiner (1983), "Adaptation to High Altitude", Annual Review of Anthropology, 12 (1): 285–304, doi:10.1146/annurev.an.12.100183.001441, Patrick J Webber (8 March 2019), High Altitude Geoecology, Taylor & Francis, ISBN 978-0-429-72735-1 or Raquel Gil Montero; Jon Mathieu; Chetan Singh (2009), Mountain Pastoralism 1500–2000: An Introduction, White Horse Press discussing the general challenges that all hill people address. The nominator has failed to show that there are no such sources. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:19, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, not so: we also delete articles if they are possibly on a notable topic but irredeemably promotional, so it's not always about "potential". This article is not about hill people. "Overview page", as Spinningspark says below, is nice, but this isn't even that. Look at it this way: the lead is a possible start for an article on "hill people", but it's tagged all over the place, and the rest of the article is something altogether different. Instead of arguing the impossible here, why do you not write up three decent paragraphs with sources on the concept of "hill people"? I don't care about what you all refer to as hill people: if it is to be a notable topic it needs to prove itself to be thus. Drmies (talk) 01:29, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First we decide the topic is valid, then we invest in improving the article. There is nothing promotional about this well-sourced article. Hill people have adapted to life at high altitudes and have much in common as well as many differences. There are plenty of scholarly sources, and the article should use them to give more on general topics like oxygen levels, agriculture, livestock, communications and so on. An overview of the individual groups is also relevant, and perhaps of greater interest to our readers. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:55, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Aymatth2: I think you will agree that nobody can show (=prove) that such sources do not exist, we can only falsify it by presenting such sources. Which so far you haven't done. I am well aware that there are loads of valuable studies that deal with the impact of high altitudes on all aspects of human life, and this even includes studies in my own field, linguistics, where reseachers e.g. investigate the impact of low air pressure on phonological systems. But the subject of this article is simply "hill people", and this suggest that this a valid ethnographic category, especially by the way the article is structured. Thus to falsify my claim that presenting "people living in hills and mountains" as "hill people" is OR, you would need to present us an ethnographic source which classifies let's say the Dani people, the Amhara people, the Aymara people and the Romansh people as "hill people" by the sole criterion of inhabiting territories in higher altitudes. Again, as I have pointed out in my nomination, the individual sections are well sourced. The subject that holds them together, however, is not. –Austronesier (talk) 12:48, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The title is compact, as it should be. I can think of no better one. The subject is "people who live in the hills", and should cover general topics such as adaptation to oxygen scarcity, high-altitude farming and pastoralism, and even phonology and waste management (see Mountains, People and Waste - a map of population density in mountain regions). It should also include a survey of the different ethnic groups who have adapted in their own ways to the mountain environment. As with any broad-brush article, it should be littered with {{main}} pointers to more detailed articles on specific aspects. The subject has rich potential. The present version is just a start. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:15, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Aymatth2: What you describe here looks to me like an essay rather than an encyclopedic article (@Drmies: would you vote keep if it were a good essay?). Broad-brush articles are fine as long as the subject itself exists outside of WP. Of course, hill people (= people who live in hills and mountains) do exist and are alive and struggling like all of us, and facts about them are definitely notable and have high potential for creating a host of good articles in WP. But for an encyclopedic article, the umbrella subject "hill people" itself as an abstraction needs to have a source in anthropological studies. –Austronesier (talk) 16:27, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Broad articles about distinct groups of people such as Late bloomer or Film director do not have to be approved by the anthropologists. They just need sufficient reliable independent sources. But in this case, there is no shortage of anthropologists. High Altitude Geoecology, cited above, is largely concerned with hill people in general from an anthropological point of view as is Martin F. Price; Alton C. Byers; Donald A. Friend; Thomas Kohler, Larry W. Price (24 August 2013), Mountain Geography: Physical and Human Dimensions, Univ of California Press, ISBN 978-0-520-95697-1. A list of sources in Bernard Debarbieux, Martin F. Price (2010), "Mountain Regions: A Global Common Good?", Mountain Research and Development, 32 (s1), Perth lists sources (or essays) such as

Barkin D. 2012. Communities constructing their own alternatives in the face of crisis: Economic globalization in mountain regions. Mountain Research and Development 32(Suppl):S12–S22.
Barkin D, Dominy M. 2000. Mountain lands: Regions of refuge or ecosystems for humanity? In: Debarbieux B, Gillet F, editors. Mountain Regions: A Research Subject? Brussels: European Commission, pp 71–77.
Huddleston B, Ataman E, de Salvo P, Zanetti M, Bloise M, Bel J, Francheschini G, Fe d’Ostiani L. 2003. Towards a GIS-Based Analysis of Mountain Environments and Populations. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
Ives JD. 1997. Comparative inequalities: Mountain communities and mountain families. In: Messerli B, Ives JD, editors. Mountains of the World: A Global Priority. Carnforth, United Kingdom: Parthenon, pp 61–84.
Meybeck M, Green P, Vorosmarty CJ. 2001. Global distribution of mountains and other major relief classes with regards to water runoff and population density. Mountain Research and Development 21(1):34–35.
United Nations General Assembly. 2009. Sustainable Mountain Development. Report of the Secretary-General. A/64/222. New York, NY: United Nations.

It is a huge subject. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:32, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, write that then... If you cut everything and verify the first paragraph, you have something. Drmies (talk) 23:24, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After this discussion is closed I may add some information on hill people in general. There are plenty of sources. I see no reason to remove the information on ethnic groups, which is well-sourced and will surely be of interest to our readers. That drastic change can be debated on the article's talk page. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:44, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Eastmain in spirit, although this is more in the way of an overview index page than a disambiguation page. I can see sources that discuss the many and varied hill peoples of Southeast Asia as a group (Hill Land Farming: An International Dimension and Ethnic Groups Worldwide: A Ready Reference Handbook) and it is not especially OR to extend our coverage to groups worldwide as long as we don't make our own generalisations. All these groups have, or should have, main articles to point to, and for those that do not this page will serve as an encouragement for someone to write them. SpinningSpark 00:57, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am not familiar with an "overview index page". Synthesis: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources., which would be original research (OR) amounting to "what Wikipedia is not" as an indiscriminate collection of information and accordingly the article fails to be notable. Being well sourced does not justify editors "presenting their own points of view in articles.". If one area and group of people (hill people) are added to the article, unsupported by source, it is OR. Stating "After this discussion is closed I may add some information on hill people in general.", boldly assumes that a consensus will deem it is alright to keep an article because it may be cool, even possibly somewhat "informational", or maybe just because we like it. If the article is to remain without being a blatant violation then prove it by significant coverage, in reliable sources that are independent and directly in support of the subject, meaning discussing the collection of "hill people". Like it or not these are policy and guideline based reasoning. If we don't like those this is not Otr500 (talk) 16:41, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Otr500: The article as it stands is a list, a valid construct for Wikipedia. A number of reliable independent sources that discuss hill people as a whole are given above. The article could easily be expanded using these sources to become a more complete dissertation on hill people in general. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:59, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or stubbify This is the always weird case of an article that is well-written, well-sourced, and quite unsalvageable due to basic structural problems. It throws together geography, geology, history, and anthropology in a wide synthetic sweep, under an umbrella topic that is so wide that it really allows only two approaches: a really terse hub article that links to in-depth treatments - in essence, the DAB page that Drmies alludes to; or an encyclopedic summary that deals with the topic in the abstract - restricting itself to statements that apply to all examples. That's where the lede is kinda-sorta going. As the article stands, it is a nice basis for a Sunday supplement article, but I don't see how it can become a WP article of acceptable form short of decapitation below the lede (which would then have to be sourced). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:39, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Elmidae: I was thinking of developing content on hill people in general, using the sources identified above among others. There is clearly a lot that can be written on the overall topic: some writers have devoted their careers to the subject. I would like to also leave the paragraphs describing the different ethnic groups, as a sort of appendix. I think our readers would appreciate a survey like that. But I do not want to scramble to add content and then have the article deleted anyway. Thoughts on the best way to proceed? I suppose one option is to rename this one and start a new one, but that seems a bit odd... Aymatth2 (talk) 22:51, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:BROAD guideline directly cotradicts both your assertions. On disambiguation: ...if the primary meaning of a term proposed for disambiguation is a broad concept or type of thing that is capable of being described in an article, and a substantial portion of the links asserted to be ambiguous are instances or examples of that concept or type, then the page located at that title should be an article describing it, and not a disambiguation page. And on including summaries of specific instances: Each of the examples of the concept or type of thing should be included at some point in the article, possibly in a list, so that no information is lost from what would have been presented in the disambiguation page format. Consider using summary style to incorporate information about the subtopics into the main article. SpinningSpark 00:00, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But as noted, what we have here is a combination of geography, geology, history, and anthropology coverage; basically a series of mini-essays. That is not suitable for any topic. Cut all that out, source the lede, and you have your hub article: a summary treatment of material applicable to all entries, with pointers to separate treatments. That's a 90% cut though. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 00:22, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We can surely develop articles on broad topics. Authors like Martin F. Price are not afraid of discussing all aspects of mountain people from high-altitude adaptation to spirituality, or of making general assertions and illustrating them with specific cases. This version of the article is imperfect, but that is not a reason to delete it and flag the subject as one we do not dare to address. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:14, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've no idea why you think this article covers geology, it doesn't. As far as I am concerned geography, history and anthropology are all entirely relevant aspects of the article topic. I would be surprised if you can support that position in guidelines, whereas WP:BROAD supports inclusion, ...it covers the sometimes-amorphous relationship between a wide range of related concepts. SpinningSpark 09:08, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually getting somewhere now I believe; see comment above. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:25, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ or change into a list of peoples commonly considered hill peoples. The article is trying to create an overarching theme of commonality between peoples based on the commonality of terrain. I don't see sufficient evidence presented to justify that attempt. So, I agree it veers into OR when it tries to do that, and if it didn't try to do that, it would only be a random list of various peoples of the world. Usedtobecool (talk) 11:31, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Usedtobecool: So if we rename the article "List of hill peoples" and change the lead to give a paragraph or two of scholarly stuff about the definition and common characteristics of hill people, citing some of the sources identified above, then it is o.k. to keep? Aymatth2 (talk) 13:51, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would think exploring another option, if consensus can be found, is better that trying to ride a dead horse. I do believe in miracles so the horse might still get up, but not likely. Otr500 (talk) 15:20, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aymatth2I would be ok with an article titled "hill people" or "list..." thereof which says [The first sentence of the article] and lists all the people who have been described precisely by the term "hill people" by at least one source. I would also be ok with an article titled "hill people" that tries to write about an overarching theme of commonality between all peoples who reside in the high altitudes, if it is well sourced. It seems to me, such an attempt in academia is few and far between. So, it would have to be reflected in the article with something like "several researchers attempt to find said theme of commonality in such and such works and provide such evidence and draw such conclusions" instead of trying to portray it as though it is scientific consensus that -- all hill peoples are basically the same--, without adequate research to support the theory. It's probably possibleto have both those articles, the abstract about the hill people and a list page for peoples referred to as hill peoples in various contexts. Here's some other problems I have with the content of the article, that exists and is being discussed. It is self contradictory. It tries to say they have commonality just as much as it tries to prove they are a diverse bunch. The content of the sections don't do anything to try and justify the lede, and instead look like independent pieces that ended up in the article by accident. Let's take the example of the Himalayas that I am familiar with. The picture of the bearded hermit is not of a hill person, it's someone from the Indian plains that happened to be photographed in Nepal. When "hill people" is used to refer to certain groups of the himalayas, there's always a context and usually a contrast. There is no way all the people between Persia and Malaya that happen to live in the hills are mentioned in one breath in one context. And there is not a single sentence in the section that does it either. On the contrary, there is nothing in there about being from the hills at all. First para is geography and geology. Second para is about the intermingling and hybridisation of people, which is true of any place that lies in between or has the comings and goings, like the Palestine or Texas. And Gurkhas. Well Sikhs are famous for their bravery too. It doesn't even try to claim bravery came from living in the hills. Need I say more-- about the third para? Or the fourth? By the way, it ends with a list of musical instruments and not one is a horn or horn-derivative (not that they don't exist) like the lede leads us toward (GoT much? :D). So, where would this kind of content fit, in either of the possible articles? I think nowhere. It's a shame because it is well-sourced and beautifully written. Usedtobecool (talk) 15:42, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Usedtobecool: The article could definitely use improvement. Some potential sources are listed earlier in this discussion. Anthropologists tend to focus on particular ethnic groups, but there are generalists who have written about hill people (or mountain people) as a whole. An example is " Martin F. Price; Alton C. Byers; Donald A. Friend; Thomas Kohler, Larry W. Price (24 August 2013), Mountain Geography: Physical and Human Dimensions, Univ of California Press, ISBN 978-0-520-95697-1." Obviously each group is different. Equally obviously, those who live at higher elevations are acclimatized to low levels of oxygen, and to often-extreme swings of temperature between night and day. Most are engaged in agriculture. Climate change is a threat. Many of the groups, but by no means all, are marginalized. The term "hill people" is often used in a derogatory sense. Young people are drawn down to the cities, abandoning the traditional life. And so on. There is plenty of material for a fairly substantial article based on academic writings, perhaps similar to Nomad or Hunter-gatherer. It seems a legitimate subject, even if the present version needs an overhaul. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:53, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Aymatth2: This is confusing. For a veteran wikipedian, I feel like you are concerned here more than is due. Deletion isn't the end of the world. Most deletes here including mine are per WP:TNT. You can just create the new article when this is deleted, one which fulfils the potential you speak of. This article in its current form is hopeless, is all we are saying. The body doesn't make sense under any title. The section headings could make some kind of a list maybe. The lede could make sense under the same title if only it were cited. The potential you discuss of can be realised in a new article that will follow this one. As TNT says, editors are generally squeamish about blanking a page and starting over in an active article, but it might happen more readily once it's redlinked. If you think this article can still be salvaged, just copy it to your sandbox, work on it to realise your vision and move it to mainspace when this one is gone, and your new one is ready.Usedtobecool (talk) 18:22, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Usedtobecool: To me the natural structure for this article would be a short, academically sourced outline of the common properties of hill peoples, followed by a continent by continent survey of specific peoples, which should relate back to the outline. How would you structure it? Aymatth2 (talk) 22:10, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Aymatth2: What would follow the lead would depend on what lead says and vice versa. I don't see how a continent by continent listing of hill peoples by geography would justify a lead that tries to establish academically, similarities between all hill peoples. If all hill peoples have similarities as per lead, the following sections would probably need to show how for example, the mountain priests of Morocco and Buddhist monks of the himalayas are related; or, how buddhist monks of the himalayas are related to the muslim imams of Kashmir. But my major concern is on listing all peoples of a region together. The Pahari and Kirant peoples of Nepal, for example are markedly different in almost all metrics. If you want to talk about biological similarities of altitude, the listing would just be redundant. If you try to establish a further link between peoples, the work better be damned good. Coz I can already see what would happen if you for example try to prove the Sufi muslims of Kasmir and Animists of Nepal are spiritually bound by the Gaia of the Himalayas, both from a scientific as well as socio-political standpoint, not to mention verifiability issues. Any further speculation would be just as useless as this one already is, unless we already have some outline of an article to discuss of, so I will just stop. Why don't you just write a stub piece about the academic attempts to establish commonalities between all hill peoples of the world and let it evolve from there? Usedtobecool (talk) 20:42, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I started an overhaul. I will just follow what the sources say, so have no idea how it will turn out. Probably "Mountain people" is a better title: I may move the article. I left the list of peoples for now. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 00:52, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck! Usedtobecool (talk) 03:23, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Changed from ~~Delete~~ above, as per discussion above, and owing to changes in the article as per the discussion. Usedtobecool (talk) 10:15, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:24, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hill people break[edit]

Comment. Personally, I think the changes to the page during the course of this AFD have butchered a perfectly good article. SpinningSpark 19:54, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The original article that was nominated here for deletion is at Hill people as of 27 May 2019. I started it years ago with the idea of a light survey of hill peoples around the world. I scrapped it in favour of the present dry article about the subject in general. Perhaps the earlier version should be restored with a different title, like maybe "List of Hill People", and immediately re-nominated for deletion. This is all very confusing. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:18, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you are creating articles under general terms, then articles about the subject in general is what has to result, I'm afraid. Yes, with the ongoing work on the article it is getting confusing. FWIW, in it's current form [3] I would no longer suggest deletion, but Keep and merely removing some of what I still consider extraneous exposition (most of "Extent" and "Environment"). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:55, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adding and removing content can be discussed on the article's talk page. The question here is whether "Hill people" (or "Mountain people") is a valid topic for Wikipedia. That is, whether the topic has received significant coverage from reliable independent sources. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:02, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:22, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:22, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mark as stub Hansen Sebastian's 2nd account (Leave me a message here) 16:27, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete/move? I like the current article better than the former version. Both contain a lot of synthesis though, trying to fit a lot of information about diverse groups under a single term that doesn't necessarily apply. To group anyone who lives in a mountainous region together (in the old version especially) is original research: I would not lump the people of Scotland with people of Colorado with people of Ethiopia. The current version uses some solid sources to discuss societal issues related to mountains around the world, but but I'm not sure they paint a unified picture, and certainly not under the name "Hill people". Reywas92^Talk 17:46, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Reywas92: The primary sources are:

Huddleston, Barbara; Ataman, Ergin; Fè d’Ostiani, Luca (2003), Towards a GIS-based analysis of mountain environments and populations (PDF), Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, retrieved 28 May 2019
Price, Martin F.; Byers, Alton C.; Friend, Donald A.; Kohler, Thomas; Price, Larry W. (24 August 2013), Mountain Geography: Physical and Human Dimensions, Univ of California Press, ISBN 978-0-520-95697-1, retrieved 28 May 2019

Both of them cover most of the aspects mentioned in the article. As discussed in the article, mountain people are culturally very diverse, even within small areas. However, at least in the developing world, they face common challenges and often respond in similar ways. Huddleston et al. uses the term "mountain people" 67 times. That would be a better title for the article, and surely indicates significant coverage. An area that the article does not touch upon, but perhaps should, is the international bureaucracy that attempts to support mountain people. Sources would include:

Sustainable mountain development: Report of the Secretary-General (PDF), United Nations, 23 August 2007
The Mountain Partnership: Activities and Achievements (PDF), Rome: FAO, April 2006, 'The Mountain Partnership ... is an evolving, multi-stakeholder, voluntary alliance dedicated to improving the well-being, livelihoods and opportunities of mountain people and the protection and stewardship of mountain environments around the world.

At risk of misrepresenting what others have said, I think it is possible to detect three broad schools of thought in the discussion above. I have placed myself in two of them:

School	Editors	Summary
Generalist	Austronesier, Usedtobecool, Elmidae, Aymatth2	People who live in the hills and mountains are culturally diverse but often react to their difficult environment in similar ways. An general article on these people is valid if it is based on reliable sources that take a broad view of the topic, and makes no original conclusions.
Specialist	Drmies, Otr500, Reywas92	There is nothing in common between a Colorado ski instructor and an Ethiopian subsistence farmer other than they both live in the mountains. Whatever the so-called sources have to say, any attempt to lump them together into one article is meaningless.
Collector	Eastmain, Spinningspark, Aymatth2	The people of the hills and mountains are diverse. A survey of the different groups from the main mountains ranges in all the continents, with links to detailed articles, will be of interest to readers and will encourage editors to fill in the gaps.

These viewpoints could apply to almost any broad subject, e.g. "Philosopher". Aymatth2 (talk) 12:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm yeah that does not represent my POV very well, esp. the first sentence. Plus, I could imagine a DAB page, which places me in the third category, to some extent. But I like what you did. Drmies (talk) 14:51, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is typical, yet well cooked, WP:SYNTH. "Hill people, also referred to as Mountain people, is a general term for people who live in hills and mountains." This is nothing more than a Lapalissade and we may want to have next lemmas on city people, port people, desert people, and so on down the line until enough editors realize the folly of the whole enterprise, perhaps after lonely people. This disseminates no encyclopaedic information whatsoever since all the info already exists in other articles. To repeat, WP:SYNTH. -The Gnome (talk) 13:08, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A vague claim that there is original research or synthesis in the article is not helpful - and not grounds for deletion.
- Are there any statements in the article that are not backed up by reliable independent sources?
- Do any statements combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources?
- Do any statements combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source?
If there are any such statements they should be identified so they can fixed.

Useful statistical information from the FAO survey of mountain people is found only in this article. That survey and other sources are dedicated to the subject of the article. It is a valid topic. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:23, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: A long complex debate! Clearly both sides are passionate about this article. However a vague claim that there is original research or synthesis is not grounds for deletion. The topic is notable and the arguments in support of this article are solid. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:23, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Repeat "vote" from before the relisting. So far as I can deduce, most non-keeps are now concerns about what can certainly be improved upon and do not require TNT. The only argument I find giving a reason for a solid delete is the one which argued a slippery slope ending in Lonely people. The line of reasoning I find valid, but the reasoning itself I disagree with. I will try to make my point with a contrast between City people and Mountain people. I looked up City, Hill and Mountain. Although City was almost entirely about humans (not surprising as it is an artificial entity), hill was almost entirely about terrain and mountain had this small section on people. Having checked the current status of this article, this discussion and that section from the Mountain page, since it is impractical to put all the available information here into there, I find it reasonable that this article becomes the main article referred to from that section. I am sure that as there is a page about city people, so too there is a page about lonely people in the psychosociology portal maybe, if there is such a thing and I don't see why there couldn't be one if there's enough research on lonely people about why they are lonely, how they are lonely, how they end up doing in life and so on; which I am convinced that the principal contributor to this article has adequately demonstrated that there indeed is in the case of mountain people. So, I am still on keep (mainly because the reason to have an article is sufficient coverage as a valid standalone concept, and the reason not to have an article is not because a slippery slope leads to absurdity). Usedtobecool ^TALK 14:06, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As currently structured, this is WP:SYNTH – aggregating references to create personal conclusions. SYTH was the only route for the article because the concept of global "hill people" does not exist in the way that this article describes them – E.g. unifying themes around the world. If this article was encyclopedic, it would be titled "Hill tribes around the world", describing each notable hill tribe individually (and linking to their main WP article, in the manner of a "Featured List" article) and ONLY developing common themes amongst them if there were quality RS on the subject of global hill tribes. But the article has no such references regarding common themes of global hill tribes (and thus the concept of a "hill people"). The article has references regarding sustainable development in mountains, but this does not constitute RS on "hill people". It would be great to have a central WP article (like an advanced FL article) on WP's hill tribes to help navigation but this is not it. 16:15, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
@Britishfinance: I don't know whether to laugh or cry. The original article that was nominated here for deletion is at Hill people as of 27 May 2019, which could well have been renamed "Hill people around the world". It was replaced by the current version in response to comments earlier in this discussion. Maybe it should be restored under the new name.

The present article is basically a summary of a few sources that each cover most of the aspects covered by the article. The primary sources are Huddleston, Barbara; Ataman, Ergin; Fè d’Ostiani, Luca (2003), Towards a GIS-based analysis of mountain environments and populations (PDF), Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and Price, Martin F.; Byers, Alton C.; Friend, Donald A.; Kohler, Thomas; Price, Larry W. (24 August 2013), Mountain Geography: Physical and Human Dimensions, Univ of California Press, ISBN 978-0-520-95697-1. You can read them for yourself. The TOC of the Huddleston (FAO) report includes:

2.1 What is a mountain? 2

3.1 Where do mountain people live? 4

3.2 Population density and urbanization in mountain areas 6

4.1 How do rural mountain people survive? 10

4.2 Use of mountain resource base for agriculture 10

5.1 What constraints do rural mountain people face? 17

5.1.2 Isolation and lack of access to infrastructure 20

5.1.3 Malnutrition and poor health 21

5.2 Preliminary estimates of the number of vulnerable mountain people

The article, in a different sequence, covers these aspects of this clearly notable topic. There is no synthesis at all, and no attempt to present any point of view. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:22, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP is about summarising reliable independent sources on notable subjects. If you had several major books on "Hill People around the world", AND you followed those books closely, you could have a WP article. Your sources would be confirming the notability of "Hill people" as a global subject. But this article doesn't have that. Your comment, this clearly notable topic, is the core of the issue. We don't have a single major reference whose title/focus is on "Hill people" as a notable global topic.

If you did a "Hill tribes around the world" article, and had SEPARATE (not integrated), sections summarizing notable tribes (and hopefully a WP link to a larger article on that Hill tribe), then we are heading for featured list territory, which WP really needs in this area. List-based articles of items which are themselves independently notable, are fully welcome in WP for example (this one is a "pure list"; no text) (List of ethnic groups of Africa), but when editors try to integrate into a unified topic without reliable sources to guide them, we get this mess: (Indigenous peoples of Africa).

If you have sources whose subject (as made clear in their title and focus) was on a common theme for all "Hill people", then you could add that, however, it would be a separate section for each group of sources. The problem you have, is that you have started with all the themes you feel are common, and backfilled in disparate sources to reference parts of them. This is SYNTH; a key element of academic research, but a no-no in an encyclopedia. It becomes YOUR opinion on "Hill people" as a global concept, not the opinion of reliable independent third party sources.

It is frustrating, and I have been there, but avoiding SYNTH is a key part of writing large complex articles in WP. Britishfinance (talk) 17:55, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article should be renamed Mountain people. The two primary sources are all about mountain people. Huddleston et al uses the term 67 times. The sequence here was that the list-type article drew criticism for assembling a collection of very different ethnic groups that had nothing in common other than living in the hills (or mountains). A check showed that there were various sources that discuss mountain people in general. I scrapped the list and spent a day or so replacing it with a summary of the sources. You can see the edit history. I had no idea what the result would look like until it was done. It just summarizes sources that give broad coverage of the topic. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:22, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the article as it was when nominated was essentially in the form of "hill tribes around the world" that Britishfinance would apparently support. The only problematic part of the page is the short four-sentence introductory paragraph with three citations needed. Two of those are faily inocuous, likely true statements. That just leaves the claim about musical instruments as a real problem. Totally rewriting an article because of one, easily deleted, dubious claim is an over-the-top knee-jerk reaction. It has completely derailed and confused this AFD. No one knows what it is that is being discussed any more and I pity the closer of this discussion who now has an impossible task to guage consensus. SpinningSpark 20:27, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The "Hill tribes around the world" article is still lurking in the history of this article. Assuming this debate is closed as "keep", someone (not me) could fish the list out with an attributed copy-paste to Hill people around the world, taking the summary of this article as the lead for the list. (I prefer "people" to "tribes" because some of our readers may not like being called the latter.) If the list were revived, it should be immediately nominated for deletion and editors involved in this discussion invited to contribute to in the new one. My vote would be to keep both of them. The more well-sourced articles on notable subjects the better. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:53, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's still in the history, that's both obvious and what I had already said. I linked to the damn thing so please don't be condescending and tell me it's still there. That wasn't my point. The issue is that there are now effectively two articles and two debates and it is next to impossible to extract which keeps/deletes should apply to which. "Fishing it out" without a clear consensus would be a controversial thing to do and likely result in another AFD going round the same circle unless the closer explicitly states that as the outcome. That's unlikely, more likely to say it is a matter for normal editorial discussion. SpinningSpark 00:20, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Spinningspark: I apologise if I seemed condescending. My instinct was to whip off a version of the article that made it clear the subject was notable, which would be easier without the complication of the list. When it is agreed that the root topic is notable it should be possible to support a list of examples. I started both versions of the article and still think both are valid. But first we need agreement that the topic "Mountain people" is valid because it is discussed in depth by several reliable independent sources. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:54, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, in Wikipedia jargon "synthesis" means putting together material from multiple sources, or from two places in one source, to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. There is none of that here, as far as I know. But if there were, it would be something to be corrected, not a cause for deletion. Lack of notability would be a cause, but there are clearly enough sources here to establish notability. As stated at WP:GNG: Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. In this case, it is the main topic of the two primary sources. There are many other sources that go into detail on aspects of the subject, and that could be added later.. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:03, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hill people General comments[edit]

I was pinged and and wish to report an error in the summary above. I do not think or wish to imply that "Whatever the so-called sources have to say, any attempt to lump them together into one article is meaningless.". From my part sources do not equate to WP:OR or WP:synthesis but the content they support may.

@ User:Aymatth2: I would first like to commend you on your perseverance. You have maintained what I consider a good attitude and have been continually making inquiries, that include the possible renaming, and have been able to have a continued dialog with editors. You likely deserve a barnstar at the very least.

What I see and any errors, corrections, or comments can be added:

I had issues with synthesis that are shared, by User:Austronesier listing as WP:OR (as did User:Usedtobecool that changed to "keep"), and User:Reywas92 also has concerns about these.

User:Spinningspark does not favor the current direction but it seems does not favor deletion.

User:Elmidae has issues with the "Extent" and "Environment" sections (but has swung towards "keep") In the "Extent" section I still have issues with "All land above 2,500 meters (8,200 ft) is classified as mountain". This may be a fact by the WCMC but as worded infers that anything less is not a mountain. That would mean that the Australian mainland (as far as I know) would have no "classified" mountains or the Ammergau Alps for that matter. I am sure the classification means that no matter the reference or naming all ranges above 8200 feet "are" considered mountains.

The "Extent" section should be read as a whole. The WCMC says anything above 2,500 metres (8,200 ft) is a mountain region, no matter how flat it is; down to 300 metres (980 ft), it is a mountain region if it slopes enough or is rugged enough; below 300 metres (980 ft) it cannot count as a mountain region. The wording could be improved, but surely poor wording is not relevant to a deletion discussion. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:58, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At any rate the two sections swing more towards discussions of the physical mountains, mountain environments, or mountain economies (Mining subsection), than the hill or mountain people.

The "Extent" section is just one short paragraph that defines what is considered a mountain region. I do not see how it could be removed. The "Environment" section has five paragraphs, four of which touch on human impacts: erosion due to land clearing and overgrazing, terracing, contour ploughing, degradation of biodiversity, deforestation, reforestation and adaptation to ecosystem changes driven by climate change. This all seems relevant.

@Otr500: You have touched on an area of confusion that I do not know how to resolve. To me, "Hill people" or "Mountain people" are people who live in the hills or mountains. They could be farmers or philosophers, Swiss or Swazi, short or tall, Buddhists or atheists, whatever. Their common characteristic is that they have adjusted to life in high or rugged terrain. The article is absolutely not trying to make a case that this very diverse set of people are all the same, or somehow a different species from lowlanders. It just explores general characteristics of their past and present ways of life in the mountain environment. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:58, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, under this naming and content, it would not matter if the classification was changed to "list-class". Things are too broad and strays from what should be the intended subject as titled. This is just a stab but maybe something along the lines of "Mountain environments and populations"?

I strongly favour "Mountain people" as the title, which is much the most common term in the anthropology and economic aid communities. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:23, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Drmies (initially !voted delete) has given some solid advice on some of your comments and following some of them would likely swing opinions here.

What I don't see:

I don't see "STOP it is a lost cause" at this point. There are some issues. Yes, editing can solve many issues that would not be a concern of AFD ---BUT--- at present there is the issue of surviving this AFD. A closer can decide "No consensus" on arguments, or possibly because of sympathy with your efforts, and even a straight "keep" but this would require some ignoring of the above concerns with OR and synthesis (policy concerns) that could be a deciding factor for an ultimate decision. A "keep" from anything other than a clear consensus could set the stage for a future AFD. However, "IF" you gain a more clear consensus on those involved here I don't think you would have to worry about another possible AFD, or the article would likely easily survive should it happen.

My opinion is that there can be something here. The article Hillbilly is about a "specific" type of hill people. As advised it is hard to try to generalize something specific, in too general of terms, as it is equally hard to try to be too specific when the idea is far too general. User:Usedtobecool gave some opinions on that as did User:Elmidae.

Can your ideas be translated to an article that will read less like a broad scholarly essay that seems more about mountains or mountain life in general, while avoiding WP:OR, WP:synthesis, and WP:FRINGE? Is the subject supposed to be about mountains or hills or "mountain or hill people"? Currently, and after the lead, I have an issue making a connection as apparently do others. I have not had time to dig into this article but if you can work something out more solid I would not have a problem being on-board and I suspect others might agree. Otr500 (talk) 22:12, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I take it as a compliment that the article in its current form resembles a broad, scholarly essay, which is what the reviewers seemed to want. The broad, scholarly sources may have indulged in original research or synthesis, although they seem respectable. The article just summarizes what they say. Every statement has a citation. There is no attempt to string together information from different sources to reach a novel conclusion. The only points that seem remotely controversial are the extent of genetic adaptation in high-altitude populations and whether the comparative lack of roads is due to discrimination or simply to the difficulty of the terrain.

The real question here is whether the sources give significant coverage to the topic and are reliable and independent. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:58, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (re my STRONG KEEP !vote above): I see this article as having potential. However both sides have dug in and there is little chance of consensus. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:34, 7 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. Sandstein 18:14, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Registrar Corp USA[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORGCRIT standard of sustained and in-depth coverage for corporation. This text expresses the opinion of an earlier nominator for speedy deletion, which seems to still pertain: "None of this suggests an encyclopedia article, nothing but simply name-dropping, searches have found nothing better, still thin and questionable overall." ☆ Bri (talk) 15:13, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 17:22, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 17:22, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:44, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:24, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I didn't find anything with my own searches. When I went through the references in the article, almost all seemed to be PR-style, or articles that merely included a quote from someone from Registrar Corp USA but weren't about the company. Nothing to support notability. Schazjmd (talk) 00:53, 7 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. T. Canens (talk) 06:39, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Queer Glass[edit]

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

Original research article which tries to invent an art genre. This is referenced primarily to sources which verify the existence of glass artists who identify as LGBTQ, alongside a couple of sources that tangentially verify stray facts like the definition of "LGBTQ" and the broad overall history of LGBTQ art — but not a single source here actually discusses or contextualizes "queer glass" as a recognized or defined genre of art in its own right. As always, "people who happen to be both X and Y" do not automatically always constitute their own distinct genre: art critics would have to identify and analyze "queer glass" as a thing before a Wikipedia article about it became appropriate. Bearcat (talk) 14:29, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:29, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:29, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nom summarizes it just right; this is synthesis and an attempt to coin a "genre" where none has been popularly recognized yet. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:13, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Elmidae, this is pure WP:SYNTH, trying to make up a new genre in defiance of the sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:01, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not so sure that it's synthesis. The Corning Museum organized an survey exhibition called New Glass: A Worldwide Survey , that their curator says includes "queer glass". here So at least one expert in the field actually uses the term.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vexations (talk • contribs) 11:02, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for the reasons listed above. Vexations's link shows, at best, a mention of the term, not the type of reliable secondary source about the subject needed to establish notability and base an article around. Even in that article's context it's not at all clear that "queer" refers to the artist, and not to the odd properties of the glass itself that every other adjective in that sentence is describing. MarginalCost (talk) 14:54, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree that it is not a synthesis - in fact this article has "Queer Glass" in the headline in reference to a glass artist having a glass art show - it tells me that the term does exist as described in the article - so at least another expert in the field - a newspaper - uses the term. Also, not sure that I understand (with all due respect) MarginalCost's second point, as in the article itself it clearly defines it as glass artwork "produced by LGBTQ artists or about LGBTQ issues" - so it can be (a) about the artist being LGBTQ and working in fine art glass and/or (b) whose work addresses LGBTQ issues. Finally, this artist's BFA thesis (one of the artists mentioned in the article) is titled "Queer Glass" and it dates back to 2013, which tells me that the term has been in used/accepted by academia since at least six years ago... and by the International Guild of Glass Artists (IGGA).--Untipoflaco (talk) 23:50, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking about this article, linked to by Vexations as showing proof of use of the term. The sentence in question reads "The works on view range wildly in scale and content. Expect the unexpected. From a glowing, immersive installation by Rui Sasaki to circuit-bent neon, queer glass, and experiments in glass chemistry, there is something for everyone." This is the only time the word "queer" appears in the article. MarginalCost (talk) 16:16, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry MarginalCost - I misunderstood what you meant - clear now, but still of the opinion that it is another RS for keeping the article - Easily a Keep in my opinion!--Untipoflaco (talk) 22:34, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate bolding removed to avoid confusion, per WP:AFD. -The Gnome (talk) 11:40, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The notion of craft work that incorporates LGBTQ identity and symbolism has been around since the mid 2010's, with exhibits that focused on "queer narratives" - [4] Kelly Connole, Professor of ceramics at Carleton College in Minnesota and curator of Sexual Politics: Gender, Sexuality and Queerness that debuted at the Northern Clay Center in 2015, discussed craft work that incorporates LGBTQ identity and symbolism into their work and thus is part of nascent effort to create a queer vernacular within traditional craft practices. That interview is on the web on a site by John-Duane Kingsley about LGBTQ artist & makers who incorporate queer narratives and symbols into their works using traditional craft processes.[5] Artschooled (talk

Interviews are generally considered primary sources, and not the type of reliable secondary source with editorial reivew needed to demonstrate notability. In any case, I think there probably could be a notable article written on LGTBQ art/Queer arts or something like that, but I'm not seeing sufficient coverage for one queer glass particularly just yet. If those sources are written or found, then we can revisit the discussion. MarginalCost (talk) 16:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As several have noted above, the notion that the article "tries to invent an art genre", while understandable if one doesn't have a finger on the pulse of the art world - or in this case the art glass scene - is incorrect. While I am clearly not objective in this case (as the author of the article), the reason that I decided to spend hours and hours crafting it, was that I kept hearing the term mentioned in art panels, seminars, openings, etc. around the epi-centers of the fine art glass world (the Pacific Northwest, the Greater Washington, DC area, and Corning). It first came across my attention via its hashtag use in Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, where there are 100s of references to it - usually with examples images of the work. And thus - with the same due respect that Untipoflaco showed, I'd like to submit that this article does not "invent" anything that "new" in the fine art glass scene, but perhaps something important and "newish" flying somewhat under the radar of the general art establishment, dealing with a historically under-represented and marginalized universe of artists, and just getting noticed --- as evidenced by the two museum exhibitions noted, the BFA thesis show, etc. I'd would strongly hope that a decision is made to keep. Peace out... BoriquaZurdo (talk) 15:47, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Popularity is not notability, and notability is a higher standard than just verifiability. Even if the subject is being talked about, until it is significantly covered by multiple independent secondary sources any article on Wikipedia would require a level of interpretation or synthesis that is beyond our remit. MarginalCost (talk) 16:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, and so far in this discussion alone, there has been listed in one way or another: (1) A newspaper article with "Queer Glass" as a term in the headline, (b) A BFA thesis titled "Queer Glass", (c) a 2015 discussion by a college professor on the subject available on a, (d) craft website which "... incorporate queer narratives and symbols into their works...", (e) Not one, but two museum exhibitions (both listed in original article) using the term (debate aside on meaning/interpretation, and (f) perhaps less as a "valid" but nonetheless existing data point: hundreds of hashtag usage of the term with images. As such, it seems to me (and again - I am not subjective, since it is my article) that we are being told that none of these sources are "suitable" and "independent"? I believe that they/some of them are and thus why I say: Keep.BoriquaZurdo (talk) 18:46, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate bolding removed to avoid confusion, per WP:AFD. -The Gnome (talk) 11:40, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, on which one can add very little. The case made by nominator is succinct and correct, especially on a practice rightly cherished in Art but forbidden in Wikipedia: original work. Some arguments to Keep are based on variants of WP:ILIKEIT or WP:EFFORT. -The Gnome (talk) 11:46, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And yet, original work ---> "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to "refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist" and I must repeat myself as a biased opinion-giver: Sources do exist! So far in this discussion alone, there has been listed in one way or another: (1) A newspaper article with "Queer Glass" as a term in the headline, (b) A BFA thesis titled "Queer Glass", (c) a 2015 discussion by a college professor on the subject available on a, (d) craft website which "... incorporate queer narratives and symbols into their works...", (e) Not one, but two museum exhibitions (both listed in original article) using the term (debate aside on meaning/interpretation, and (f) perhaps less as a "valid" but nonetheless existing data point: hundreds of hashtag usage of the term with images. As such, it seems to me (and again - I am not subjective, since it is my article) that we are being told that none of these sources are "suitable" and "independent"? I believe that they/some of them are. The term is neither invented or created by this article, but gathered from the discussion in those sources. BoriquaZurdo (talk) 15:35, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, BoriquaZurdo. You argue that the term "Queer Glass" was "not invented by the article" but "gathered from the discussion in those sources." Yet, this is classic, typical synthesis: material gathered from reliable indeed sources that's put together to create something new, e.g. a term, an interpretation, an analysis, etc. Which is precisely what the nomination argues.

You claim that the term has already been out there, as a term, and you offer support for that by citing various sources. Well, none of those sources supports the claim that there already exists out there an art term such as "queer glass" with the meaning you, the article creator, give in the article. In the very lead section, you support your definition of the term by citing three sources: The first is a Washington Post article that is strictly about the term "LGBTQ" without any mention of "Queer Glass." The second is an exhibition listing where the words are included without any explanation as to their meaning or a hint that they are interpreted as you state in the article. (To quote: "The works on view range wildly in scale and content. Expect the unexpected. From a glowing, immersive installation by Rui Sasaki to circuit-bent neon, queer glass, and experiments in glass chemistry, there is something for everyone." "Bent neon" and "queer glass" do not necessarily have the meaning we want them to have.) And the third is another exhibition listing, this one from the website of the National Liberty Museum, which contains not one single mention of the words "Queer Glass." And these are the sources supposed to deliver the very meaning of the alleged term! Well, maybe some day, reliable sources will make a bona fide term out of these words. So far, they don't seem to have made one. (BTW, I think you meant "not objective.") Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 10:18, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings The Gnome - Thank you for the good feedback; I am taking straight direction from it (and the other great feedback here - both pro and con) and will re-write the meat of the article and re-focus the sources to those which specifically mention the term directly - of which there are several BTW. P.S. My "objective" vs "subjective" bit was my (obviously failed) attempt at Woody Allen humor from Love and Death.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:24, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom and others on WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS. With only vague mention of queer glass that without any context could mean odd, strange, or unusual, there is nothing here to even remotely suggest that there is a particular LGBT-focused form of fine art glass, technique, "genre", meaning, or movement that can be specifically identified as "queer glass". The group of individuals listed have in common that they identify with or they are associated with LGBT, GLBT, LGBTQ, LGBTQ+, LGBTQIA+, or maybe even LGBTQQIP2SAA and are glass artists. Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick reportedly wore "cool, queer white glasses". It could be surmised from one reference that this is a type of "queer glass" rather than strange eye glasses. It could be debated if the two words together, in the sense being used, would be a portmanteau, word blending, or neologism but is an attempt to create something new using different sources that is synthesis. There is not enough evidence that the wording is even an acceptable and definitive "slang word" within any particular community. Otr500 (talk) 12:37, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: When I first read the article, I was puzzled as to why it has been nominated for deletion. Then I came to this page and realized that the creator of the article has substantially changed the original article since its nomination for deletion. It is clear to me that BoriquaZurdo reviewed all the constructive criticism expressed on this page, as well as some of the recommendations and has delivered critical changes to the article. The art term/slang in question now has direct source to a glass school -- which according to its Wikipedia article is the "second largest" in the US. It also and more effectively uses and quotes the newspaper article noted in the comments above using the term "Queer Glass", and we can debate the Corning Museum's survey exhibition called "New Glass: A Worldwide Survey", that their curator clearly says includes "queer glass" as to the context of what the curator meant - although it is clear what she meant here, where the use of the descriptor "queer artist in glass past and present" indicates to me that the curator referred to "queer glass" in the exhibition not as odd or unusual glass, as some have tried to deduce in this discussion, but about the creators of the glass being LGBTQ and thus "queer glass." Based on the recent changes to the article, I vote to Keep.--Soydeaguadilla (talk) 20:07, 7 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. Sandstein 18:14, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

James McGirt Jr.[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBOX ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:29, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:29, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:29, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Toys515 (talk) 12:09, 24 May 2019 (UTC) Striking LTA. theinstantmatrix (talk) 12:42, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:23, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet WP:NBOX and does not meet WP:GNG. Hugsyrup (talk) 12:27, 7 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. Sandstein 18:14, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Romeet K Watt[edit]

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

The refs provided support the fact that the subject of this article is a political commentator. Whether they demonstrate solid notability or not I’m not sure. However this is a bio and I can’t find any sources to support anything in the content of the article. There may be sources in other languages. Mccapra (talk) 08:53, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:59, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:59, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Toys515 (talk) 12:10, 24 May 2019 (UTC) Striking LTA. theinstantmatrix (talk) 12:42, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:21, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Can't find any English-language sources to establish notability. One or two very brief mentions to support the bare facts, but no depth of coverage indicating he is a sufficiently significant figure. Hugsyrup (talk) 12:29, 7 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. Sandstein 19:17, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tristan Capital Partners[edit]

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

Woefully undersourced, mildly spammy, and a WP:BEFORE didn't reveal much more. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 18:44, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:08, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:08, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Almost any business can get some coverage, and that's certainly available here. However WP:GNG and WP:NCORP requires a depth and volume that just isn't here. Hugsyrup (talk) 12:31, 7 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. Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Mhhossein ^talk 13:39, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rodrigo Corral[edit]

Withdrawn by nominator per ThatMontrealIP's advice 9H48F (talk) 12:17, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not notable per WP:BIO 9H48F (talk) 18:33, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 9H48F (talk) 18:33, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. 9H48F (talk) 18:33, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:09, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:09, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep This is the second nomination today by this editor of a highly notable graphic designer (Aaron Draplin is the other). This should just be withdrawn. It is a waste of editor time since 9H48F has failed to do their WP:BEFORE. Please read that policy. I went to Google news and immediately found this Wall Street Journal profile, this New York Times profile, this American Association of Graphic Artists profile and this National Endowment for the Arts profile. Not enough? the article contains a New Yorker profile as a source. This is basically the definition of good coverage. Please search and do WP:BEFORE before nominating other articles on notable subjects.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:13, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep May not meet WP:BIO but have significant coverage and satisfy WP:GNG obviously. --94rain ^Talk 03:27, 1 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. Sandstein 19:17, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dilip Barot[edit]

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

Article is extremely puffy about both Barot and his companies, sources either don't meet WP:RS (such as being company sources or company-provided statements) or just mention the subject in passing. I only could find the two articles mentioned ("Imported Entrepreneurs" and "Keepers of the Dream") on the subject's website, and assuming they're accurate, they told his story but didn't establish notability beyond "successful businessperson." Article mentions a small business award, but I'm not sure that's sufficient for notability either. Overall, I don't think the article meets WP:NBIO, and is sufficiently promotional/puffy that even if the subject were notable it would probably need the WP:TNT treatment. creffett (talk) 18:26, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 18:26, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 18:26, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 18:26, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since subject fails WP:GNG. The sources invoked are: lists, which simply name drop the subject, such as this; irrelevant sources, not mentioning the subject at all, such as this New York Times piece; reports about someone else where the subject is name-dropped once, such as this CNN article; an advertorial (here); and dead links, e.g. here, here, etc. It's a well lighted yet empty lot. -The Gnome (talk) 13:19, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A bio article in which most biographical detail is unsourced. Mccapra (talk) 05:00, 7 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. Consensus is that this content should go. Editors can now decide whether to redirect this to any of the various proposed targets. Sandstein 18:50, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alien visitation[edit]

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

This article is an originally researched violation of WP:FRINGE. It is also a WP:POVFORK of Ancient astronauts and panspermia. jps (talk) 18:23, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In rather two minds, seems there is some sourcing, and it is a thing. But I also cannot help but think there must be a better article on wiki about this. If there is not there should be, so NO, not delete so much as re-work.Slatersteven (talk) 19:17, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Related articles are Contactee, Alien abduction and Ancient astronauts but they are subtopics. Peter James (talk) 20:58, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also Close encounter. jps (talk) 16:47, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article gives sources for a popular fringe topic. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:34, 31 May 2019 (UTC).[reply]

I'm sorry, do you think von Däniken in anyway serves as a reliable source for this topic? jps (talk) 16:36, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think he is at all reliable, but he is notable for that. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:27, 1 June 2019 (UTC).[reply]

You said the article gives sources. The article seems to rely mostly on von Däniken. Perhaps you'd like to clarify which sources you think the article is providing that are so useful we should keep the article? jps (talk) 23:27, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:STUBIFY to an index of other articles covering the subject. This is a WP:TNT case due to its POV, poor sourcing (von Däniken is a proven fraudster and heavily criticised for the factual errors in his books) and misuse of sources (Olien's book, for instance, does not support the Ancient Astronaut theory). SpinningSpark 16:52, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unambiguous WP:POVFORK of Ancient astronauts. -LuckyLouie (talk) 19:50, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Looks like it has some citations and it is slightly different form the Ancient astronauts page or panspermia. I am leaning to redirect to Contactee or Alien abduction since they seem to cover this. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 20:29, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ramos1990 and LuckyLouie: Arguably, all three articles you name come under this topic. That's why I said stubify to an index article. SpinningSpark 21:38, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect - There's not enough distinct material here for a separate article, although I'm unsure if it should point to contactee or to ancient astronaut if kept as a redirect. —Paleo Neonate – 07:56, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - 1. Because the talk page's top header template is indicating the article's intention to be in a science fiction context, yet the article itself is attempting to present it only as factual, real world. Possibly in that respect WP:DONTHOAX applies. I acknowledge that below the sci-fi header on the talk page is a paranormal one. 2. The term "alien visitation" is too general and the subject is already covered under Ancient astronauts, Close encounter, Alien abduction, and List of reported UFO sightings. 5Q5 (talk) 13:58, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Close encounter, which has a fuller explanation.--Auric talk 18:03, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I almost said that, but actually looking at Close encounter is seems to be an article about Hynek's scale of close encounters which defines the terminology, but not about alien encounters as a general topic. I'm a little surprised there isn't an article describing supposed alien encounters. I guess that just got divided up into individual theories and crazy claims (abduction, ancient astronauts, etc) without leaving any content for an umbrella article. ApLundell (talk) 23:27, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to know how such an "umbrella article" would be written. There are loads of legitimate discussions of what "alien" visitation might look like from perspectives as diverse as religions to science fiction to SETI to Stephen Hawking's famous concern that we were inviting our impending doom by revealing our presence to "them". This would be largely original research or, at best, a list of ideas relating to the subject because there isn't a serious study of alien visitation as a topic handled by any particular group. jps (talk) 14:22, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is untrue that there is no scholarly discussion of "alien visitation". For a start there is "Alien visitation, extra-terrestrial life, and paranormal beliefs" from Journal of Scientific Exploration. Numerous other papers in scientific journals define and use the term; Perceptual and Motor Skills, Psychological Inquiry, Cognitive Psychology, Acta Astronautica, Cognitive Neuropsychiatry, Journal of Social Psychology. SpinningSpark 16:20, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the term is one thing; in depth exploration is quite another. Anything published by the Journal of Scientific Exploration can be safely ignored. jps (talk) 21:48, 5 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 keep as the nominator has effectively withdrawn it.(non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 23:03, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Phantom Boy[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NFILM. Orville1974 (talk) 18:04, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Orville1974 (talk) 18:04, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Orville1974 (talk) 18:04, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: FWIW, the article was in a vandalized state when it was nominated for deletion. I have restored the article to the version before the damaging edits. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:28, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - I am the nominator. The restored article meets WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Orville1974 (talk) 02:43, 2 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. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:40, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Urso Chappell[edit]

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

Not able to find reliable sources other than passing mentions of his blog. Not notable per WP:BIO. 9H48F (talk) 16:15, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 9H48F (talk) 16:15, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:26, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep widely cited, if you do WP:BEFORE.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:51, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ he is cited, as topic experts are. But I'm only getting a couple of dozen hits on this name in a Proquest news archive search, mere mentions, brief topic-expert quotes. ~~Fails WP:SIGCOV.~~ E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:28, 4 June 2019 (UTC) Rethink.[reply]

To be clear, Chappell has a very cool blog, [expomuseum.com The World's fair museum since 1998], it covers World's fairs and it/he gets cited by major newspapers because he really knows stuff about World's fairs, but there is not enough in depth coverage of him or of the blog to keep a page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:58, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

EMG, As you say, he is cited. I was thinking of these articles that seem to be good coverage at least establish GNG: The Chicago tribune, this book, this citation in Time Magazine, being quoted in the New York Times, being quoted in the NY Times again, showing up here in hte Wall Street Journal, quoted in CNN here, and here in the National (Dubai). It's not perfect, but to me it's enough to parse the basics without much interpretation.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 12:48, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per first three sources listed by User:ThatMontrealIP, which are WP:SIGCOV. But also because I was being very 20th century, more or less expecting that if he was a notable expert there would be journal articles, a book or 2 he had written And book reviews. This is a new model, where the expert publishes on a blog, and is notable because people treat him as a notable expert. Keep per WP:AUTHOR:3.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:42, 7 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 Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:38, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Three lions promotions[edit]

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

WP:NBOX applies only to boxers - this is a promotion company, so WP:NCORP would seem to apply, and I think this fails that.

Sourcing in the article as it stands includes a news article (on a private healthcare company's site) that only gives a passing mention to the company in a description of a fight; the other sources are WP:UGC (BoxRec, a Wiki) and dependent (the company's own website). I've looked online, but all I can find are press releases, and passing mentions in articles that are actually about boxing matches - I can't find any in-depth coverage of the company itself which would pass WP:CORPDEPTH. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:10, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:10, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:10, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no independent reliable sources. I'm tempted to say that if this company is notable for organizing fights, several folks at AfD might be notable, but that's "other stuff". Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:36, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability isn't inherited and this company does not pass WP:NCORP with multiple reliable independent secondary sources providing significant coverage. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:01, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, since subject corp fails WP:NCORP. -The Gnome (talk) 13:26, 6 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. Pretty overwhelming keep consensus (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 04:42, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Talbot Hostel[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG/WP:CORPDEPTH. Kleuske (talk) 14:34, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:25, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:27, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination statement does not indicate that any search for sources was made, and it appears to be the case that this wasn't done. This is a very notable organisation, which over the years has enjoyed the patronage of governor generals and prime ministers. A Google News search [6] turns up lots of recent stories about or touching on this organisation. Nick-D (talk) 02:09, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it does seem to be a high profile organisation with significant coverage in reliable sources, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 19:14, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this hostel an integral part of the fabric of the area. Ozanam Learning Centre is a very valued asset and service, no reason to be deleting this type of useful information. Teraplane (talk) 23:27, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:47, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Have done some structural work in the article recently and fully agree with above. Definitely notable - and a good cause too ;)--Princheeseanastasia (talk) 08:16, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a Sydney institution in both senses. Have added a little more history. JennyOz (talk) 14:41, 4 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. Sandstein 18:12, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Strong[edit]

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

The article does not have a single notable reference to establish subject's notability as per WP:GNG. IMDb does not qualify as a notable reference. Brenthaven (talk) 13:35, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 15:36, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 15:36, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 15:36, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we have two sources, his qebsite, which is a clear fail for reliability and indepdence, and IMDb, which is meant to include absolutely everyone and so in no way actually shows notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:40, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there's nothing there that isn't also on IMDB. Wikipedia is not intended as a mirror site for IMDB. -- Nomopbs (talk) 04:48, 6 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) The Gnome (talk) 13:45, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

6.3 Resistance movemnet[edit]

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

with spelling 6.3 Resistance movement (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Substandard sandbox article in main space, created by page move by original authour The Banner talk 13:21, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. The Banner talk 13:21, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:16, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:16, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is it non notable or failing some policy. scope_creep^Talk 14:35, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If the article is kept, it should be moved to 6.3 Resistance movement (the correct spelling of movement) Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:23, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No policy based rationale for deletion offered. The nominator states the article is "substandard" but fails to state what Wikipedia standard it falls below and why that amounts to a reason for deletion. SpinningSpark 15:23, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - Nom fails to advance a deletion argument for what appears to be a fairly clear notable topic. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:22, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I see little reference to "6.3 * movement" or "June 3 * movement" in English language sources, but the popular opposition to talks between Korea and Japan in 1964 is encyclopedic, and if it is called the 6.3 movement in Korea, that seems an appropriate name to use here. An article about the negotiations more broadly would be nice. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:01, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request speedy close as keep, as nominator. I give up. No one seems to be interested in quality. Sad. The Banner talk 17:58, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- When everyone disagrees with you, you might want to consider the possibility, however remote, that you might be wrong. SpinningSpark 21:43, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - As you can see above and below, there are more people concerned about the quality. The Banner talk 07:33, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - Nomination lacks clarity on rationale. Subject is notable Lubbad85 (☎) 21:58, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy to User:Chominkook/6.3 Resistance movement I'm sorry, but the nominator is correct. We have a process for preventing mainspace creations by non-confirmed editors for a reason, and the area of Japan-Korea relations is a sand-viper-pit filled with editors who create multiple accounts and make a dozen or so edits with each one before putting them to sleep. This article's creator doesn't appear to be one, but they definitely should have been forced to put the page up for review before it was mainspaced. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:34, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- If you think the article is not neutral, tag it as such, and explain any problems on the talk. Just saying 'it may not be neutral, so it should be reviewed first' is not a valid reason for deletion (or userfication). Draft and reviews are optional on English Wikipedia, and any editor who wants to has the right to publish things in the mainspace. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:35, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say anything about the article not being neutral. I said the article should have been curated before being put in the mainspace in such a clumsy fashion that its title was misspelled. I actually still think it needs to be moved, since I'm pretty sure the "6.13" style is a feature of CJK languages that is tolerated in English publications from the region, but is not actually common in English: the Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami is frequently referred to as "3.11" (pronounced san ten ichi-ichi) in Japan, as are the September 11 terrorist attacks called "9.11" (pronounced kyū ten ichi-ichi). We do have 9.11, but it was created by Jiang (talk · contribs), a China-focused editor, a good six months after 9/11. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:42, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Student project (no easy way to mark those now that the Educational Extension has been depreciated). Topic seems encyclopedic. The article may need a grammar copyedit, but the nom has failed to identify any serious problems. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:35, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - obviously. An event that led to 1,120 arrests of students, politicians and journalists who led the protests at the time. Lee Myung-bak, Lee Jae-oh, Sohn Hak-kyu and 348 people served six months in the Seodaemun Prison due to rebellion and sedition is notable. How can someone issue such a substandard AfD nomination? This is not a quality review about the present state of the article (indeed, quality could be improved). Pldx1 (talk) 15:23, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The argument was never that the topic was not notable, but that such a poorly written mess should not have been allowed in the mainspace, so actually it's the above !vote that is sub-standard. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:44, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It seems someone has fixed the spelling. @Hijiri 88, I think the average American is unable to evaluate the CONTENT of the article since we've never heard of this event. You may find the article sub-standard, in which case fix it. If it's really that badly done, then take the good parts of the content and make a second page, then re-nominate this page for deletion citing the reason that you've now created a new page (provide links) that corrects all or most of the basic errors. I'm assuming the article is so badly mangled that it can't be re-worked in place? But instead needs a fresh start? -- Nomopbs (talk) 05:04, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Topic appears to be notable and to pass GNG. The article has citations, and there is a corresponding article on Korean wiki. Softlavender (talk) 09:42, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is funny to see that a request for speedy close as keep by the nominator is plain ignored. The Banner talk 11:48, 6 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 Leo Burnett Worldwide. Overwhelming consensus to merge. (non-admin closure) AmericanAir88^(talk) 15:28, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Burnett Tailor Made[edit]

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

The content is fine here but it should all be merged to Leo Burnett Worldwide. Lots of companies have satellite offices in multiple countries. This organization is one satellite of the main company. Whatever this company does is under the global brand.

To compare, companies like Google, etc, have offices in every country but Wikipedia still has one article Google.

Thanks to Sdkb for setting this up. I advocate that all sources and content be kept, just put in the parent article which is short, gets more traffic, and can assimilate all of this. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:09, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:09, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Agree with what is written above. No need to have its own page. MaskedSinger (talk) 14:24, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as I already suggested on the talk page, is the best option. Theroadislong (talk) 15:39, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. To clarify, I created the page as a redirect; other editors deserve credit for the content since added to it. - Sdkb (talk) 16:18, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Leo Burnett Worldwide but merge selectively. We don't need overblown controversy we just read in today's news crammed verbatim into other articles per WP:RECENTISM & WP:NOTEVERYTHING. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:02, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So these articles should have all been merged and redirected to one article? Peter James (talk) 21:23, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Agree with the nomination. Spyder212 (talk) 14:50, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per nom, which is to say WP:CHAIN. -Lopifalko (talk) 10:45, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per nor. But please delete that photo of the guy with blue jacket. Chongkian (talk) 09:07, 3 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 "keep" opinions make no attempt to discuss the problems with the sourcing pointed out by the "delete" side. Sandstein 18:11, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fuad Alakbarov[edit]

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

An autobiography (1, 2) which does not pass any of the relevant notability criteria - WP:NCHESS, WP:NPOL, WP:NACADEMIC, WP:CREATIVE, WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. Cabayi (talk) 13:08, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 13:08, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 13:08, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 13:08, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 13:08, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Delete. Per all of the above. Autobiography that appears to have been created and solely edited by a sockpuppet after their initial article was also deleted. WP:BOMBARD: with three unrelated sources from the Guardian, openDemocracy, and politics.co.uk cited to demonstrate chess credentials despite no mention of chess in those sources. Nomination for the "Noon Award" in lede, although the award bears no notability and is not mentioned in linked article for Baron Noon. Trumped up claims of political activism re Europe Sees Syria, despite untrue figure of "two million gathered" not reflected in cited sources; worth nominating that article for deletion again also. Wrenhaven (talk) 13:40, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has been sourced well. Subject meets WP:GNG. Passes WP:NTEMP. Subject had media coverage prior to the event.

Furthermore, nominated user Wrenhaven, have a very odd track record. As you can see from here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Wrenhaven

The user never contributed a lot the Wikipedia (exactly from September 2016) but suddently, pops-up randomly in 28 May 2019 and —interested in subject and knows too much about this issue, raises questions he is a sockpuppet of the banned user.

--Azerifactory (talk) 20:34, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question : Azerifactory, he is a sockpuppet of the banned user - of which banned user? Provide evidence. "Serious accusations require serious evidence". Cabayi (talk) 12:50, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete mostly just a WP:REFBOMB of passing references, personal works, and non-reliable sources. The subject failed notability standards the first time this article was created and he doesn't pass them now. This may also be a possible WP:SALT situation as well. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:49, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--Babək Akifoğlu (talk) 21:29, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion.

Question Babək Akifoğlu Welcome back to enwiki after your 9 month gap? Were you asked to add to this discussion? I'd expect an admin to know that this is not a vote (WP:NOTVOTE) and to provide a policy based reason for keeping the article. Cabayi (talk) 12:40, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wild guess: Probably not. Babək Akifoğlu is a frequent contributor to az:WP, and while there would have been pinged automatically when their name was mentioned here. -- Hoary (talk) 14:00, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hoary, I see no mention of Babək Akifoğlu prior to their !vote. Cabayi (talk) 14:06, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Try looking here. But why does this matter? -- Hoary (talk) 14:19, 1 June 2019 (UTC) Previous comment written while far too sleepy. Now I see what you (Cabayi) mean. -- Hoary (talk) 23:23, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems Passes WP:NTEMP.--SalmanZ (talk) 22:21, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion.

SalmanZ, NTEMP applies after the threshold of WP:SIGCOV has been met. Where is the evidence that that threshold has been met? Cabayi (talk) 12:55, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cabayi: Hi, I participated in this RFC based on my initial review, nevertheless I am not persisting on my opinion. --SalmanZ (talk) 23:16, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Düşünürəm ki, səxsin ensiklopedik olmasını sübut edən yetərincə istinad var. Hörmətlə.--Nicat49 (talk) 02:39, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Google Translation : I think there is enough evidence to prove that the person is encyclopedic. Respectfully.

— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion.

Question Nicat49, Which of enwiki's notability criteria does he pass? It would help if you replied in English so that we might have some confidence that you understand the policies involved. Cabayi (talk) 12:32, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My english is bad, but I read this page in azviki (Fuad Ələkbərov) and I think the article is eating enough sources, maybe I'm wrong but this is my opinion. Regards.--Nicat49 (talk) 02:44, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nicat49, the discussion is about Fuad Alakbarov on this wiki, not about az:Fuad Ələkbərov on azwiki, and needs to be based on enwiki's policies, not WP:ILIKEIT. Cabayi (talk) 15:01, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Pertinent to point out that three of the four keeps above are from sysops of the Azerbaijani Wiki (Babək Akifoğlu, Nicat49, Azerifactory). One of those three, Azerifactory, is the subject of the article in question. Wrenhaven (talk) 03:35, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The biggest odd thing about this is Wrenhaven's obsession with this topic. Especially, this user not contributed anything major in last three years but appears to be very knowledgable, which raises huge question that how somebody so low contributing to Wiki, knows too much about banned user, without been here, which is classic case of WP:DUCK for me and I would suggest admins to do Checkuser on him.--Azerifactory (talk) 09:34, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The poor admins of en:WP just have a mop and a bucket. They don't have checkuser abilities. You'll have to ask a "checkuser". Please see Wikipedia:CheckUser. -- Hoary (talk) 11:18, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hoary, Azerifactory, A checkuser was conducted yesterday and Wrenhaven was cleared. Azerifactory was already aware as he is a named party in the SPI. Cabayi (talk) 12:23, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question. I read above that "The article has been sourced well." This claim (by Azerifactory) surprises me. The article says (after trivial reformatting) that "On 12 September 2015, along with few activists, he created Europe Sees Syria campaign, which gathered over two million people around cities like Glasgow, London, Berlin, Aberdeen, Athens and Barcelona to raise awareness about the European refugee crisis.^[1]^[2]" Now, I am getting very old and my eyesight may be failing, but I don't notice anything about two million people in either of those "references". Are my ageing eyes overlooking something, or is this poetic licence, or what? -- Hoary (talk) 11:18, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed this AfD because it popped up at WP:DSPHOTO. My main interest in the article is photography. A section within it is titled "Photojournalism". Having read Azerifactory's declaration above that "The article has been sourced well", I decided to take a closer look at this section.

The section on "Photojournalism" actually says nothing whatever about photojournalism, aside from the unsourced assertion that "He is a regular contributor to openDemocracy, The Jerusalem Post, Bella Caledonia, International Policy Digest and other online news outlets." Still, it does come with a source. The source is autobiographical, and is quoted directly well beyond the current quotation marks. This is how I would suggest rewording and reformatting what I see there now:

Alakbarov received his first camera from his father at the age of 13.^{[citation needed]} According to his website:

He is passionate about capturing life and how it interacts with, adapts to and alters the immediate natural environment. On an artistic level, [he] is drawn towards street photography, the urban landscape and conceptual photography. Through his work he seeks to preserve those often missed, and seemingly insignificant, fleeting moments that make life special and a joy to behold.^[3]

His photos were^[when?] exhibited at the Centre for Contemporary Arts in Glasgow.^{[citation needed]}

He is a regular contributor to openDemocracy, The Jerusalem Post, Bella Caledonia, International Policy Digest and other online news outlets.^{[citation needed]}

Or rather, this is how I'd suggest rewording and reformatting the section if I believed it was worth salvaging. I suspect that it should be dumped. Is some kind of article worthwhile? I'm yet to be persuaded of this, but I'm open-minded. If the biographee isn't notable for being a photojournalist, then just what is he notable for? -- Hoary (talk) 23:53, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Armour, Robert. "Thousands to attend mass day of action in support of refugees". Third Force News. Archived from the original on 8 May 2018. Retrieved 12 April 2018.
^ Naysmith, Stephen. "Grassroots campaigns add to pressure on Government over refugee crisis". The Herald. Archived from the original on 8 May 2018. Retrieved 12 April 2018.
^ "Fuad Alakbarov's bio". www.glasgowfuad.com. www.glasgowfuad.com. Archived from the original on 22 February 2019. Retrieved 22 February 2019.

Delete. Heavily refbombed wikipuffery, but none of the sources has more than a sentence about the subject, and most quote him or are by him rather than about him. No evidence for a pass of WP:GNG. And the analysis above suggests worse, that the references are not merely inadequate but falsified and plagiarized. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:25, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep not an autobiography, the author is UNRELATED to Alakbarov himself. See my comment in here. --► Sincerely: A¥×aᚢ Zaÿïþzaþ€ ⚔ (hail sithis!) 02:49, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Does it matter whether or not it's an autobiography? So far as it does matter, Azerifactory said that he was the subject of the article Fuad Viento. That article has since been deleted, but if you click on the redlink you'll see that before its deletion Azerifactory moved it to Fuad Alakbarov, with the explanation "Viento is just a nickname." (I did see your comment, Aykhan Zayedzadeh, but it's not convincing.) -- Hoary (talk) 04:37, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete inadequate sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:16, 2 June 2019 (UTC).[reply]
The article tells us that "Since 2017, he is a member of a cross party group on racial equality in the Scottish Parliament." This sounds impressive. No source is given, so I googled it. Yes, he is a member of the "Scottish Parliament Cross Party Group on Racial Equality in Scotland". It seems a most worthy organization. However, quite a lot of people are members; it has few meetings (and for that rather recent meeting he sent apologies for a non-appearance); and it's rather obscure. (As "Scottish Parliament Cross Party Group on Racial Equality in Scotland" is a bit of a mouthful, I googled plain "Cross Party Group on Racial Equality in Scotland". I didn't get many hits, and most were announcements, minutes, and the like.) ¶ The man's name pops up in various places, but I don't see notability. Delete. -- Hoary (talk) 00:22, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Refbombed article, of which the mentions of him are either primary, unreliable, or nonexistent. Easy WP:GNG fail. SportingFlyer T·C 01:11, 3 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 Igor Rivin. Sandstein 18:09, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CCI30[edit]

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

No indication of significance and little to no reliable, independent coverage, let along WP:SIGCOV. StudiesWorld (talk) 12:44, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. StudiesWorld (talk) 13:09, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. StudiesWorld (talk) 13:09, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ I considered nominating this myself - the article is entirely unsourced (just an EL to the subject's website), and I couldn't find any sources online that I thought would satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. I not too familiar with sources for cryptocurrency stuff though, so I just tagged it - agree that is should be deleted, unless someone cleverer than me can come up with some cast-iron sources. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:01, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, just - yeah, I'm as surprised I'm saying "keep" as you are. But, while having no mainstream coverage, it seems to have a bit of peer-reviewed academic coverage. I've added cites to the article for substantive papers about, dealing with or using the CCI30. There's also this [7] that I don't have access to, but is apparently a peer-reviewed conference proceeding - David Gerard (talk) 17:13, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David Gerard, I don't have access to those. Are they about the index or usage of the index or do they only use/mention the index? Does it meet WP:SIGCOV? StudiesWorld (talk) 17:15, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Try Sci-Hub. Blumpf (talk) 18:03, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Check your Wikipedia email :-) The papers are paywalled, but they're available if you look in some obvious places. They're not about CCI30 - they don't talk about it as an interesting object in itself - but they treat it as a useful index for their work. Not passing mentions, is what I mean. (I found multiple passing mentions, but didn't list those.) Only two papers so far, I'll look a bit further later. Borderline at present, let's say - David Gerard (talk) 18:58, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David Gerard - Thanks for finding those! I do think that they may show that they deserve some coverage. However, one of the papers also looks at some other indexes, so maybe the solution is to move it to Cryptocurrency index and expand with discussion of other indexes. How would that sound to you? StudiesWorld (talk) 21:13, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what others rate discussion ... the Coinbase one? That's covered all it needs in Coinbase - David Gerard (talk) 21:52, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I've struck my delete vote above, since it appears that someone cleverer than me has indeed come along :). The sourcing isn't exactly cast-iron CORPDEPTH stuff, but it does show that it has academic credibility and so is probably notable in an WP:IAR sort of way. The proposed alternative of creating a list of such indices, which would presumably have to include ones that are more dubious and poorly sourced than this one, just to house the information in this article seems like a lot of work, and I'm not clear on what the benefit would be - probably better just to keep a stub about this one, with the current sourcing plus anything further that David Gerard is able to dig up. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:08, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Igor Rivin, the co-creator. Blumpf (talk) 18:03, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- That's actually a highly plausible option - David Gerard (talk) 22:19, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Igor Rivin. Given the way crypto articles are used and abused and the lack of actual independent notability - despite being cited in the two mentioned papers - suggests it should not be an independent article. However, merge/redirect to Rivin as its creator seems like a reasonable WP:ATD. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:58, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Ivor Rivin works for me too, good call. GirthSummit_(blether) 17:25, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I also would support this merge. StudiesWorld (talk) 18:21, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge: There was very little in the CCI30 article, so I just went ahead and put the info into the Igor Rivin article where there was already a lead-in for it. Not everything needs its own article; Wikipedia has a bang-up search engine to find articles which mention things (like CCi30). No need to have the 'thing' in a title in order to find it. -- Nomopbs (talk) 05:22, 6 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 An Expressive Theory of Punishment. Weighing the policy based arguments I'm seeing more strength in the arguments for redirection to An Expressive Theory of Punishment rather than the delete comments. As such, I'm seeing a consensus for redirection rather than deletion. (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 04:45, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Wringe[edit]

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

This person fails WP:NACADEMIC and WP:GNG. StudiesWorld (talk) 12:42, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:06, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:06, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:06, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:32, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The references include two reviews of a book he wrote. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:39, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with above. Not notable enough at this stage. MaskedSinger (talk) 14:25, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to An Expressive Theory of Punishment. The book is more clearly wiki-notable than he is; without some indication that he has also been recognized for a second thing, we don't really have a case for an article about him. One multiply-reviewed book is a good start towards WP:PROF/WP:AUTHOR, but it's not enough by itself. XOR'easter (talk) 15:24, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. The book is borderline-notable but we don't have enough material for separate articles about both the book and its author, and the author is currently notable only for the book (WP:BIO1E). —David Eppstein (talk) 21:14, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per the two preceding comments. --Tataral (talk) 22:27, 1 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 blatant, spammy autobio — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:37, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

HassanAbdul[edit]

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

No credible evidence of notability. Citations are worthless - one is simply the home page of a website, another is an article he has written, others are just pages on which he is listed as a speaker. Hugsyrup (talk) 12:03, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hugsyrup (talk) 12:03, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:07, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this promotional autobiography is a case of WP:PROMO apart from the notability concerns Atlantic306 (talk) 14:57, 31 May 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. Sandstein 18:07, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Galagoda Aththe Gnanasara[edit]

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

This article is about an individual. While his name is very popular in the news, what takes the spotlight is in fact his actions done through the organisation he heads, the Bodu Bala Sena. I propose this article be redirected to the Bodu Bala Sena article. It could of course be expanded later, once there is better notability of his personal life or personal profile. P31?P40? (talk) 10:46, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. P31?P40? (talk) 10:46, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. P31?P40? (talk) 10:46, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. P31?P40? (talk) 10:46, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. P31?P40? (talk) 10:46, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:27, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The organization and its founder are each sufficiently notable to have separate articles. E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For the benefit of editors who do not follow Sri Lankan politics, New York Times: "All 9 of Sri Lanka's Muslim Ministers Resign, as Bombing Backlash Intensifies" All nine Muslim ministers in Sri Lanka’s government and two Muslim provincial governors resigned on Monday as the fragile, Buddhist-majority country grappled further with the communal backlash of the Easter Sunday bombings that killed as many as 250 people. The resignations were in response to a hunger strike by an influential Buddhist monk, Athuraliye Rathana, who said he would fast to death unless the country’s president removed three senior Muslim officials — the two provincial governors and one of the ministers — that he accuses of having ties to the suicide bombers who targeted churches and hotels.... At the bedside in support of the hunger-striker was Galagoda Aththe Gnanasara, another hard-line monk who has been accused of inciting violence against Muslims. On Sunday, Mr. Gnanasara, who leads the Buddhist Power Force movement and whose six-year sentence for contempt of court was recently annulled by a presidential pardon, gave an ultimatum. There would be “a circus” nationwide, he said, unless the three Muslim politicians were removed from office by noon Monday..... This man is a major power in Sri Lanka. The movement his heads Buddhist Power Force is a major power in Sri Lanka. E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:51, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the subject appears to be notable in their own right. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:17, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep considering the nominator didn't cite a reason for deletion and is instead proposing redirection AFD is not for cleanup. Further, the arguments provided by @E.M.Gregory: are quite compelling and show suitability for inclusion. Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 04:47, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is enough coverage on the subject himself to clearly meet WP:GNG. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 10:40, 7 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. The folks that set up camp on the redirect side hopped across the fence to the keep side - as such, there's a clear and strong consensus that this subject is notable. Props to those who jumped in and improved the article (h/t to Zanhe). (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 04:51, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Micree Zhan[edit]

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

Subject likely fails WP:GNG. Outside the Forbes article, all other mentions are from the very unreliable walled garden of cross-referencing bitcoin trade journals, which seemingly exist only to reinforce the view that this is a reliable 'industry' (but that's off-topic outside of the serious reliability issue with those sources). Anyway, those other sources are generally rewritten press-releases, so not reliable, and generally not in-depth either. The single Forbes source, outside of being, well, single (GNG requires multiple) is problematic too. The author is a journalism student, and not a proper journalist yet. And anyway, Forbes contributors are little better than blog: "At Forbes, contributors post directly to the live site. Yeah, no editing, no quality check–just click “post” and it goes live." So nope, it's not a quality in-depth coverage, it's effectively is an in-depth brand-name blog coverage. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:28, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:23, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:23, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Possibly a redirect to Bitmain.~~ Has some trivial mentions from Chinese sources (though reliable) and they are mostly related to the company Bitmain or the other co-founder. Lacks independent notability. --94rain ^Talk 03:46, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep and WP:TROUT for nominator for failing to perform WP:BEFORE. He's a multibillionaire (the 311th richest person in the world according to Bloomberg) and one of the most famous crypto entrepreneurs, with significant in-depth coverage from Forbes, Bloomberg, Yahoo, etc., and even more in Chinese media. (Ironically, the nominator tries to discredit Forbes as a "blog" using an actual personal blog). A Google News search of his Chinese name produces more than 1,000 news articles. -Zanhe (talk) 08:23, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- We literally can't keep an unreferenced WP:BLP. The only reference is to a Forbes contributor blog, i.e. a non-RS - David Gerard (talk) 08:44, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- If you consider that Forbes blog a 'reliable source', after the explanation I provided, it's clear we have a problem. Bloomberg Profile is a self-published source ([8]). And the Yahoo coverage fails in-depth, it is about Bitmain, and just mentions him as a founder a few times. It is a decent source for his company notability, but a poor one for him (since it is about the company, not him, doh). If anyone needs a trout, it's you for trying to use low quality sources to promote spammy bios. Such individuals can use Bloomberg for advertising, but not Wikipedia. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:01, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A big trout for confusing the highly respected Bloomberg Billionaires Index with the Bloomberg Executive Profile which looks like this. The latter may or may not be a paid listing (the Quora link you provided is an utterly unreliable source), but the former is a product researched and published by Bloomberg's journalists in competition with Forbes' billionaire list. And there's no way anyone can pay to get their name listed on either the Bloomberg or Forbes billionaire list. And what's up with your habit of using random internet blogs to attack two of the best known business publishers? It makes your arguments look totally ridiculous. -Zanhe (talk) 04:04, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bitmain. The only reference is to a Forbes contributor blog, i.e. a non-RS. We have literally no references as yet. The article can be recreated as a standalone when there are actual RSes to use. Until then, a redirect is appropriate - David Gerard (talk) 08:44, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@David Gerard: According to WP:BEFORE, AFD nominators are required to consider all sources available, not just sources currently included in the article. In any case, I've added additional sources and info from Bloomberg and Forbes to the article, which should settle the matter. It's getting late for me, I'll add more sources tomorrow if I have time. -Zanhe (talk) 09:30, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pumping up the sources a bit, though they're presently just two directory entries and one passing mention for a fact that's really about Bitmain. I do feel we need more than this - you can't just say "there are sources!", we actually need them at least checkably listed. I've removed the contributor blog - that's a completely unacceptable source for a BLP - David Gerard (talk) 10:17, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@David Gerard: The Bloomberg Billionaire Index is far more than a directory listing. If you scroll down the page, there's a detailed biography from his birthday to his dinner with Wu Jihan which led to Bitmain's founding. The Forbes page is also a stand-alone profile with fairly detailed personal information, standard for all Forbes billionaires. Dr.SuMK has added detailed Chinese sources, and I've expanded the article based on them and added more info from Hurun Report and other sources. -Zanhe (talk) 00:20, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one on sourcing! - David Gerard (talk) 00:31, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Micree Zhan is literally the richest cryptocurrrency billionaire in the world, see [9] [10]. If he is considered not notable, we might as well declare that no cryptocurrency people can be considered notable and delete the dozens of articles under Category:People associated with cryptocurrency. -Zanhe (talk) 00:29, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a matter of sourcing - this should be obvious - David Gerard (talk) 00:31, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AFD is based on notability judged by all available sources, not on quality of the article (and the Bloomberg and Forbes billionaire listings are easily found from a Google search). Otherwise we'd automatically delete the millions of substubs on Wikipedia. This should be obvious per WP:BEFORE. -Zanhe (talk) 00:45, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

His independent notability can still be challenged. Apart from the Bloomberg and Forbes profile pages, I cannot find any news articles that introduce him independently (They are either related to the company and the other co-founder or mentioned in a list of billionaires). This article which introduces him in detail seems to be published by a Citizen media. --94rain ^Talk 02:03, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If both Bloomberg and Forbes billionaire profile pages and Hurun Report ranking as world's #1 crypto billionaire are not sufficient for you, then you're not adhering to WP:BASIC guidelines and making up your own rules. The other sources are just icing on the cake, and a lot more in-depth Chinese sources are available including Fuzhou News (hosted on Sohu) and this article in an industrial journal. They're a bit hard to find because they're buried among literally thousands of articles about Bitmain that also mention Zhan. -Zanhe (talk) 04:56, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, IMHO those profile pages can be considered as reliable sources but not the sources that can provide objective evidence of notability. Bloomberg/Forbes makes a page for them just because they are the richest people (different from the media that generally report notable people or events). However billionaires are not automatically notable. Significant independent coverage from the media are required. It is not easy to find but there are some including the journal though I did not find before. Keep anyway. --94rain ^Talk 06:56, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have just added better RS about his success from Chinese major media, as it easily passes GNG. Dr.SuMK (talk) 04:19, 2 June 2019 (UTC) Striking vote by sockpuppet. -Zanhe (talk) 22:14, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the sources. Analysis (based on Google Translate): 1) [11] provides an overview of his biography in few paragraphs, the first half of the article. Passes in-depth, I guess. Reliable? Possible. Publisher: Sohu, so I guess it might be a seen as a news (re)published by a big(?) online portal. 2) [12] Just mentions him in one paragraph due to his wealth, seems more about the company then him. Fails in-depth 3) Fails in depth. He is mention in passing in a short paragraph together with others who made it into "Hurun Research Institute's 2018 Hurun Block Chain Rich List", a source used for other articles as well. 4) While it is about the company, it does mention the subject in almost every paragraph, so it passes in-depth, I think. But it fails reliability, due to "Huoxing24 is a financial information portal that provides global 24-hour coverage of blockchain news." So it's not a mainstream news, it is a niche trade journal/website, and there's a big problem with bitcoins in this - there's a bunch of self-referencing sites like this which serve to seemingly just promote the idea that this is a big and reliable industry, since news of it are covered on many "news sites". So, overall I see two weak and two bad sources here. Sorry, I am not going to withdraw my nom, I think the subject still fails at GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:17, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

your contradict is clearly base on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Dr.SuMK (talk) 04:07, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, so I provide a detailed analysis of the sources and your counter is a personal attack? Good way to impress others, I am sure. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:34, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the Huoxing Finance source as it's superfluous anyway, and added several others, including another Bloomberg article ranking him as the world's 9th richest self-made billionaire under 40. And I suggest that you stop wasting your time trying to dismiss each source as insubstantial. Per WP:BASIC, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability", and there are thousands of sources about him, including substantial ones such as the Bloomberg Billionaires Index profile. Altogether they provide a relatively complete picture of his life and achievements. -Zanhe (talk) 05:17, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Anupam (talk) 19:42, 02 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anupamofficial What is your Keep reason? you can explain it! Dr.SuMK (talk) 19:29, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not can, have to - if you want your vote to be counted. WP:NOTAVOTE, and votes without rationale are not relevant. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:17, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article clearly now meets WP:BASIC. Thanks to the efforts of Zanhe, the sourcing is solid. Experienced editors are usually understandably dubious about any block chain/crypto article, but the subject runs a company making computer chips for cryptocurrency mining and has amassed a net worth of $5.4 billion - a tangible real world achievement. Edwardx (talk) 10:17, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Now Keep. Nice one Zanhe! - David Gerard (talk) 14:59, 3 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 keep. LTA account that was globally locked and a pretty clear consensus to keep. (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 04:53, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Lanka Army Women's Corps[edit]

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

Given references are not strong enough about the topic, also there should be a logo of the regiment, it has been mentioned that the regiment was created by the help of British Army's Women's Royal Army Corps but no citation has been given for this speech. Tushar Bishal Femin 93 talk to me, see my contributions 07:24, 31 May 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 May 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:37, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:49, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:49, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:49, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The topic is obviously notable and firmly established by the sources. It may be improved, but it is out of place at AfD. 188.218.87.34 (talk) 08:12, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable topic per WP:MILUNIT and common sense. Lack of referencing does not equal lack of notability. AfD is not cleanup. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:05, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: lack of a logo is not a ground for deletion. Clearly notable army unit. PamD 12:56, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And it's now got a logo, or insignia - @Raja Kaiya Vacha: beat me to it while I was uploading the file! PamD 13:03, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a large national military formation this is inherently notable. Polyamorph (talk) 19:09, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes MILUNIT. Searching I do see quite a few sources referring to the Women's Corps. Icewhiz (talk) 12:14, 4 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 keep. T. Canens (talk) 04:39, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pak Sar Jamin Sad Bad[edit]

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

The book is not so notable in Bangladesh, the book was published in 2003, since then the book is being neglected by a large portion of Bangladeshi educated men and women. In this Wiki page the given references are very weak about the book, enough information has not been given. TBF 93 (talk) (contributions) 07:09, 31 May 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 May 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:21, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:50, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:50, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. The nominator's account was globally locked for long-term abuse shortly after this nomination. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:49, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. This is a bad faith nomination.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 21:27, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. the nominator's account is locked. Dead.rabbit (talk) 18:52, 5 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 Georgia House Bill 481. Content can be merged from history, but appears redundant. Sandstein 18:07, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia heartbeat bill[edit]

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

Redundant with the article "Georgia House Bill 481". The former should be redirected into the latter. Gabbe (talk) 07:14, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:50, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:51, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Georgia House Bill 481; no reason at all to keep this article. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 17:22, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- this name seems better than the obscure name with the number 481. Shouldn't this be filed as a merge proposal WP:MERGEPROP rather than an WP:AfD delete? I would support withdrawal of this AfD and refiling as a merge, please, so people who get to this article know to go to the other article. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:14, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per David. AmericanAir88^(talk) 15:26, 7 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. Sandstein 18:06, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Esser (musician)[edit]

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

May not meet WP:NSINGER Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:02, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:02, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:02, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:02, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:02, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:02, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as has coverage in multiple reliable sources such as The Guardian piece in the article and he also has a bio on AllMusic here. Will look for more coverage tomorrow but he does seem notable, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 22:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Atlantic306, he doesn't seem to have much coverage beyond the 3 articles on the page. And one of the articles is an interview. WP:NSINGER says " multiple, non-trivial, published works" and so far there's only 1 reliable article from The Guardian. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 02:01, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- AllMusic is a reliable source as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources so thats two, will look for more later Atlantic306 (talk) 12:40, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: this is a tough one as there are certainly a couple of reliable sources in the article, and in addition I should be standing up for someone from my home county. There was certainly a bit of a buzz around this guy when the SPA who created this article wrote it ten years ago, as evidence by the sources. And he was signed to a notable independent label, who have Pulled Apart by Horses, Young Knives and most notably Foals on their books. But Esser's album tanked, and since then he has only released two further singles, with the last one a low-key MP3 release from five years ago, and there's no sign he's been active since then – even his Soundcloud account has had nothing new posted to it since the 2012 single. It may still be WP:TOOSOON, but equally it might be that his time has been and gone, and apart from the AllMusic biography and a couple of now-outdated "next big thing" articles there will never be any more sources. Richard3120 (talk) 14:16, 17 May 2019 (UTC) Keep: striking previous vote based on coverage found below by Atlantic306. Richard3120 (talk) 21:59, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Once notable always notable, if his career nosedived that does not take away from the earlier coverage he received. For example his album Braveface received at least eight critics reviews listed at Metacritic here including reliable sources such as Mojo, Pop Matters, QMagazine, New Musical Express, and Pitchfork so he does have significant coverage Atlantic306 (talk) 21:47, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd agree, I just hadn't found coverage of things he'd actually done, rather than coverage of things he was supposedly going to do as the next big thing. But that coverage of his album has made me change my mind, so thank you. Richard3120 (talk) 21:59, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:20, 24 May 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) 06:31, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Seems like just enough references to establish GNG Lubbad85 (☎) 22:22, 4 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 Old Town Road § Cupcakke remix. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:10, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Old Town Hoe[edit]

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

Remix is not notable, with all sources linked just proving the remix simply exists. Song never charted and at most, should be referencing at Old Town Road is at all (the only remixes listed on the article are official ones). Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 06:04, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is not notable for music. The Zeus is Ha-Zeus (talk) 07:13, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:15, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Old Town Road per WP:NSONG; though it is not directly a cover of Old Town Road; the linked policy states that songs that do not rise to notability for an independent article should redirect to another relevant article... PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 17:05, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge into Old Town Road § Other remixes.~~ Prominent remixes are usually covered in the article of the original song. This remix has been widely covered by reliable sources, and should be mentioned in the Old Town Road article. — Newslinger talk 21:09, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Old Town Road § Cupcakke remix, as Nice4What has now merged in the content. — Newslinger talk 18:37, 2 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. T. Canens (talk) 04:39, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

QBit Semiconductor[edit]

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

Small company not meeting WP:ORGCRIT requirements for depth of coverage (i.e. non notable). ☆ Bri (talk) 04:20, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:54, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:54, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:15, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing the article. I would like to request Wikipedia keep the article at this time and allow for more content to be added. Currently there are three sources/articles written about the company and hopefully more will come in the near future. I appreciate those reviewing the article consider keeping it for now to allow more time for additional content to be added. Thank you Klizb67 (talk) 20:04, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 05:47, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:CORPSPAM. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:30, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a fairly clear WP:NCORP failure; per the sources cited in the artilce, the company had <50 employees worldwide in 2017; when added to the fact that the company has yet to accrue significant coverage in WP:RS, it is hard to make the case the topic is notable.--SamHolt6 (talk) 15:08, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - To date there are three articles written about the company and all are reputable sources. Klizb67 (talk) 18:07, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Even reliable sources must be judged on their depth; for example, NCORP (the criteria for judging a company on its notability) is clear that press releases, standard business announcements, and list articles do not work to establish a topic's notability. Every source cited by the article in question runs afoul of NCORP in one way or another, and a check for more online does not assuage these doubts.--SamHolt6 (talk) 21:34, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NCORP states the press/coverage needs to be significant, independent, reliable and secondary. The three press articles cited meet all of the criteria. All three are Secondary, Independent, Reliable sources and the coverage is significant. The MFP article is over 2000 words, The Business Next article is over 1000 words. Apple Daily is the shortest coverage with approximately 450 words.Klizb67 (talk) 19:09, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:53, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "I have created an article for QBit Semiconductor. The company is a small start-up and currently does not have a lot of written coverage.". MER-C 11:52, 6 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. T. Canens (talk) 08:15, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandre Michaud[edit]

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

Film director I'm trying to find notability for. I can't seem to find any of his films on Wikipedia, it seems all of his films are so unknown that they don't even have pages! Wgolf (talk) 05:37, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:15, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:16, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:16, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:16, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete every article sourced only to IMDb should be deleted from Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:32, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Film directors are not always automatically notable just because their films exist — to clear the bar, a film director needs to be able to show reliably sourced evidence that his films are considered significant, such as notable film awards and/or critical analysis of his work. Even on IMDb, however, five of his six films are stated as having gone direct to video, and I'm not finding any credible sources to get him over WP:GNG either. Bearcat (talk) 13:00, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable person. Geoffroi (talk) 20:05, 4 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:21, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Akashaganga 2[edit]

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

Per WP:NFILM. Film has not been released yet. Insignificant coverage in reliable third party sources Comatmebro (talk) 05:20, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:18, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:18, 31 May 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) 05:20, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Roop Chand Joshi[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG as well as WP:ANYBIO. ∯WBG^converse 04:42, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 04:42, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:19, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of sources to support notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:07, 4 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) 05:20, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shashikant Oak[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG as well as WP:ANYBIO. ∯WBG^converse 04:37, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 04:37, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:20, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:20, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't source him in English. And no editor has supplied a translation of sources on page as per WP:NONENG, nor has anyone improved sourcing despite WP:V tag in place since 2014. E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:13, 4 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) 05:19, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Swargajyoti Barooah[edit]

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

Actress with questionable notability. She was in only 1 film it seems like. Either a delete or a redirect to Joymoti (1935 film) (the film she was in) Wgolf (talk) 04:29, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:20, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:20, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:21, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:21, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 1 film is a clear fail of actress notability, and it is less than clear her role in that one film was significant. Beyond this we are way past the time when all articles sourced only to IMDb should be scrubbed off Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:12, 5 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. T. Canens (talk) 04:38, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Prott[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL Joeykai (talk) 04:24, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:21, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:22, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:22, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:22, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:22, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 07:47, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – no evidence of notability. None of the sources in the article count as WP:SIGCOV. When I search, I see a bunch of sources from the same outlet, Sarpsborg Arbeiderblad, such as [13] and [14], but it's behind a paywall, so I can't tell if it's SIGCOV or not. Barring any evidence of SIGCOV to establish GNG, delete. – Levivich 03:51, 5 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:09, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Haugen[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and probably WP:NMUSIC (at least to a point that a layman like me can tell, since it's not like most non-experts can tell what's a major label and what's not - but nothing in the article strikes me as obviously meeting NM). WP:BEFORE does not reveal any in-depth, major coverage. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:21, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:24, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:25, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:25, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:25, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:25, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:25, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:26, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ – I can find no significant coverage to meet WP:BASIC/WP:GNG and no other evidence of notability. – Levivich 05:56, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing my !vote to keep based on the English and foreign-language sources found by RebeccaGreen (well done!). While paragraph-length mentions don't impress me for WP:SIGCOV purposes, there appear to be at least WP:THREE examples of significant coverage published by independent reliable sources: (1) a chapter in Lucifer Rising, published 2015 by Plexus Publishing; (2) multiple pages and footnotes in Camion Noir: Looking for Europe published 2009 by fr:Camion Blanc (and also some coverage in Camion Blanc: Anthologie de L'Ambient); and, (3) multiple pages in Schillerndes Dunkel published 2010 by de:Plöttner Verlag. (I'm not familiar with these publishers but presume they are legit based on their Wikipedia articles, websites, and their being cited as sources in other Wikipedia articles.) I think these three sources demonstrate that the article subject meets WP:GNG. – Levivich 16:43, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do find significant coverage, enough to meet WP:GNG: a solid paragraph (and possibly more - the page before is blanked in Google Books) about her work around 1995 in CAMION BLANC: ANTHOLOGIE DE L'AMBIENT D'Éric Satie à Moby : nappes, aéroports et paysages sonores [15]; 6 and a bit pages covering her work from 1994-2004 in CAMION NOIR: LOOKING FOR EUROPE Tome 2 [16]; 1 para about her book The Ancients Fire of Midgard in Imagining the Supernatural North [17] and another in Skinheads - Gothics - Rockabillies: Gewalt, Tod & Rock'n'Roll [18]; 2 paras about her and her involvements ca 1993 and later (before an interview with her), in Lucifer Rising: Sin, Devil Worship & Rock'n'Roll [19]; also a para in 'CHAPTER 9 Germanic Neopaganism – A Nordic Art-Religion?' of Norse Revival: Transformations of Germanic Neopaganism [20]; and there appears to be a lot in Schillerndes Dunkel: Geschichte, Entwicklung und Themen der Gothic Szene (her name appears on 8 pages, of which only snippets of 3 are visible on Google Books) [21]. There may be more - I have not searched on all the names of her albums, nor thoroughly on all the names she has used (Andrea Nebel, Andrea Meyer, Andrea Haugen, Andrea M. Haugen, Nebelhexë). The previous AfD discussion suggests that she would also meet WP:MUSIC#C5, with albums on more than one of the more important indie labels. If kept, the article would need significant editing for tone, tense, etc. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:10, 6 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 Withdrawn. I agree the article should be moved. (non-admin closure) – Levivich 06:13, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lyndon Burgess[edit]

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

Article subject does not meet ~~WP:NFOOTY or~~ WP:GNG. – Levivich 03:38, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Levivich 03:38, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. – Levivich 03:38, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. – Levivich 03:38, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Levivich 03:39, 31 May 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 May 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:01, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Move to Lyndon Nigel Burgess. Fails WP:GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:15, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL with six appearances for Bermuda national team, as confirmed by this. Needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 07:47, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Six international appearances means he meets WP:NFOOTY. Number 5 7 10:00, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – GiantSnowman, Number 57, National-Football-Teams.com is (1) a self-published source that cannot be used to cite facts about a BLP per WP:BLPSPS, and (2) does not say "Lyndon Burgess" has 6 appearances for the Bermuda national team, it lists "Nigel Burgess." How do we know Lyndon Burgess and Nigel Burgess are the same person? Are there any reliable sources that say Lyndon Burgess appeared in a game for the Bermuda national team? I can't find any. (Soccerway doesn't have it, nor Soccerstats.us, nor Worldfootball.net.) I note there's also a Tyrell Burgess on the team. – Levivich 17:36, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- His full name is Lyndon Nigel Burgess (he is also listed as such at Hamilton Parish F.C., his most recent club), and it seems sources largely use his middle name – so it should be moved to Nigel Burgess (footballer). This RS confirms his international caps. Number 57 18:20, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Interestingly he's also played for the Bermuda national rugby union team. See this interview. This confirms his full name as Lyndon Nigel Burgess). I wonder whether we should instead move the article to Nigel Burgess (sportsman) instead. Number 5 7 18:25, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Number 57, I'm not totally convinced that "a former Bermuda goalkeeper" = NFOOTY notability, but you've convinced me he is NSPORTS notable for having played on the national rugby union team. Good research, and I agree about moving the article to Nigel Burgess (athlete) or (sportsman). Piotrus, does this information change your opinion? – Levivich 21:20, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    There are several other sources that make it clear that we have a WP:NFOOTY pass here. He doesn't pass the rugby criteria though. (sportsman) is preferable to (athlete) as the latter is generally used to refer to people involved in athletics, at least in British English. Number 5 7 21:29, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. – Levivich 21:31, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Sorry, we need a better ref for him appearing on Bermuda. Aren't there any official, reliable sources? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:13, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Piotrus: This from the Bermuda Sun in 2006 showed he has four caps at the time. Island Stats (which seems to be one of the main online sports news portal for Bermuda) also had him at four caps in the same year. Number 57 15:15, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Number 57: Thank you. I've changed my vote to 'Move to Lyndon Nigel Burgess' as it seems to be his fuller name and knowing it beforehand would prevent some confusion here, I think. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:04, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, NFT is widely used and considered reliable by WP:FOOTBALL. SPS doesn't really apply here. GiantSnowman 07:11, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- BLP policy doesn't apply to WP:FOOTBALL? – Levivich 00:11, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - should be a speedy too. This nomination is completely unnecessary and a waste of everyone's time. Multiple international starts, that can be easily verified if the nominator had applied WP:BEFORE. User:Levivich needs to start fixing articles that they don't feel are up to snuff, rather than proposing deletion without applying WP:BEFORE. As this has been pointed out to them before, at what point do we consider an AFD topic ban? Nfitz (talk) 20:24, 1 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. Sandstein 18:04, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Goran Dime[edit]

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

This BLP has been around since 2012 and still has zero sources independent of the subject. A reasonable search finds nothing. It's clear the subject exists and there are several YouTube videos depicting his work, but I see nothing substantial in online sources. Looking at the Serbian page on the subject, I see nothing but concert notices and interviews. Perhaps someone better familiar with the music culture can tease out RS. BusterD (talk) 15:52, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. BusterD (talk) 15:52, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Undecided. Three mid-length interviews in Serbian press (I do consider interviews in mainstream press to confer notability):

one in Serbian-Canadian newspaper:

https://www.novine.ca/ms/www.novine.ca/intervju/intervju-1067-dime.html

...but not much else. By the subject's own account, he has never sung in operas "due to specifics of his voice" so he only performs concerts of "classic pop". Judging on his homepage, those were relatively few (3-4 per year at most), but on considerably notable halls, so it's not all puff. No such user (talk) 11:38, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:49, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - GNG: The articles states he's been active from 2012 to present, but there are only two sources present. One is his website and the other is an interview with him from years ago. I can't find anything else on him at all.Orville1974 (talk) 20:18, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 03:59, 31 May 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 only "keep" opinion is somewhere on the spectrum between nonsensical and disruptive. Sandstein 18:04, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Balak Ambedkar[edit]

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

Not fulfilling WP:GNG and far away from WP:NFO. has references to gossip/unreliable/self-published sites. QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 06:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 06:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 06:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Too old a film to have coverage over online sources. Can the article-creator provide reference to offline reviews? ∯WBG^converse 11:57, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep this file is about Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Life and article is also important. more source, references should add and keep this article.प्रसाद साळवे (talk)

प्रसाद साळवे, Any valid sources? And remember nothing is inherently notable, please have a look at WP:NRV thanks QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 15:46, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - QueerEcofeminist user is a casteist Person, he just targeting Dr. Babasheb Ambedkar Related Articals like Bole India Jai Bhim, Yugpurush Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Balak Ambedkar. just look his history of editing he never help to article. like references or growing. but just ignore and keep article. QueerEcofeminist is also targeting specific user also. प्रसाद साळवे (talk) 17:06, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete after a thorough search on this article, and two others, I couldnt find anything regarding this film. This film is about childhood of a notable person. But the film itself is not notable. I tried to find reviews for the film, but I couldnt find it; nor the coverage. Year 1991 is not that old. Also, it is to be noted that notability is not temporary. If the subject is notable, it should receive sustained coverage. In this case, the film has not received any coverage in any type of media, or at least I couldnt find any. The film fails generalised notability guidelines for films, as well as there are no other evidences of notability. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:12, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs a bit more input
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:29, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - * Neither article creator or users who wants to keep this article were able to provide any reliable+valid sources to their claims. This lack of any signs of notability was already expressed by the nominator and other editors. I guess we can close this as delete. thanks QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 04:54, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 03:58, 31 May 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) 04:04, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hendrik von Kuenheim[edit]

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

Reads like a CV. No indication of notability beyond working for bmw Gbawden (talk) 11:16, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:32, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:32, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:32, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. I'm in the process of editing an article. I'd still like to leave her here. This is a unique person. It is thanks to him that BMW has combined a number of regions into one new sales region and he is the first in the history of its head.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Moreagency (talk • contribs) 21:23, May 23, 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 03:57, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG, just some mid+ level business executive. WP:NOT Who's Who in middle+ management. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:23, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Senior Vice Presidents of Sales Regions aren't regarded notable outside their company, WP:GNG. Also meets WP:YOURSELF, paid article (for a birthday gift, tsss...). Ben Ben ^(talk) 13:11, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No offense is intended to the individual, but the entry has no substantial external notability; the citations are mostly from his employer's site. I could easily do the same from my employer's website. The article text itself lacks objectivity and feels like a resume or advertisement. User Keneckert — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.104.228.185 (talk) 06:09, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks notability which is unsurprising given his position. The allegations of paid editing are troubling if true - which I found some evidence of when I briefly looked - and would add another reason to delete. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:37, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable and reads more like a resume than an article. Primary sourcing to inflate a mid-level manager Lubbad85 (☎) 19:17, 5 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 if expired prod, see WP:DRV if needed. ST47 (talk) 04:03, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ryo Nagamatsu[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG; no independent coverage in sources and thus no independent notability. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 03:47, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:27, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:27, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:27, 31 May 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 if expired prod, see WP:DRV if needed. ST47 (talk) 04:03, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Naoto Kubo[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Naoto Kubo

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

Fails WP:GNG; no independent coverage in sources and thus no independent notability. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 03:49, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:28, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:28, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:28, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:28, 31 May 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 if expired prod, see WP:DRV if needed. ST47 (talk) 04:02, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shiho Fujii[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG; no independent coverage in sources and thus no independent notability. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 03:51, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:29, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:29, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:29, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:29, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:29, 31 May 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) 04:02, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amrita Jash[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not appear to be a stronger claim of notability that at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amrita Jash 16 months ago. DMacks (talk) 03:34, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:30, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:30, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:30, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as before. Citations on GS not remotely enough to pass WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:43, 31 May 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Delete fails WP:PROF, cannot find that her scholarship has had impact.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:37, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It passes WP:PROF. The Pavate Fellow status is highly selective honor. Khasanjim (talk) 01:04, 1 Jun 2019 (UTC)

Not a highly selective honor. Just a fellowship. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:31, 1 June 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Delete Dismal citation record. A 4-month fellowship does not contribute to notability either. Fails PROF and GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 10:35, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of passing PROF or GNG. --Tataral (talk) 22:24, 1 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) 03:59, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

HeartSpeak[edit]

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

Overtly promotional article. The substance of which is a recreation of content which has been deleted several times previously. The recreated material is as problematic now as when it was at the time of those previous deletions. Namely that it still falls short of WP:PROMO, WP:GNG and related guidelines. The apparent multiaccount abuse, and WP:PAID overtones here are also more than a little disquieting.

By way of elaboration on my concerns on GNG/RS, I would note that, of the three "references" offered to support the promotional text in the opening, the:

first "ref" is an obvious advert for the subject and doesn't meet WP:RS by a country mile
second is Urban Dictionary for goodness sake. A WP:UGC website. And, if that weren't disqualifying enough, the 'definition' offered by Urban Dictionary has nothing to do with the subject in question here
third ref is a journal publication from ~100 years ago. Which doesn't include the term 'HeartSpeak' anywhere in its pages. Not to mind supporting the other claims made in this overtly promotional opening sentence. And, how could it, given that the advert which is offered as the first ref, states that 'HeartSpeak' was developed some time in the last ~25 years. (Unless the author of this 1920s journal article, JR Kantor was professor of timetravel (as well as psychology), this just doesn't stand up.)

I officially declare shenanigans. Guliolopez (talk) 02:20, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 02:23, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 02:23, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Its previous deletions don't really matter in so much as they just show someone is determined to have this topic be included which is why this article is in an area under DS but doesn't actually address its notability or lack there of. However in this case, it should be deleted. This alternative medicine topic lacks any SNG or GNG criteria by which it is notable. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:05, 31 May 2019 (UTC) Am I allowed to do this after shenanigans have been officially declared? I've called shenanigans quite a few times myself but I am on untrod ground when it comes to them having been officially declared[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) 03:58, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Green Psychotherapy, PC[edit]

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

This does not meet WP:GNG, due to WP:SIGCOV. It only seems to have received a few passing mentions. StudiesWorld (talk) 01:58, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete for G11. Also not notable. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:44, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:33, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:33, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:34, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 09:25, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Director and CEO Douglas Vakoch appears notable, but the company itself isn't inherently notable. 9H48F (talk) 10:34, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Company is not notable, also "author" seems to refuse any queries on their Talk page. David J Johnson (talk) 12:51, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and above comments. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 17:13, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NORG. Jmertel23 (talk) 22:51, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A listing article about a recent new company, supported by references which are either routine or concern the founder rather than the firm. Fails WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 17:09, 2 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) 03:58, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PK4 Media[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NCORP or provide any assertion of notability, sources are primarily press release type material, I did not find any significant news coverage or claims to notability from my own search. creffett (talk) 01:43, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 01:43, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 01:43, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 01:43, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article about a media company, created on the 11th edit by a briefly-active account, subsequently edited by WP:SPAs (some positively, others negatively). Notability is not inherited from doing work for some large firms, nor is the company's appearance in a 2015 list of "America's Most Promising Companies" inherently notable. Verifiably a firm going about its business, with routine coverage of business announcements, but I am not seeing evidence that it meets WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 06:37, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:20, 31 May 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) 03:58, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clearview Horizon[edit]

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

Subject only mentioned in passing in local coverage. Meatsgains^(talk) 01:23, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:23, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:34, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:35, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:35, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:37, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. SpinningSpark 16:23, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Spinningspark said it all. John from Idegon (talk) 05:25, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Spinningspark said most of it - the rest of it being that the UPE also augers for deletion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:49, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- O cannot believe that a special school for the 7-12 age group with a mere 45 pupils is notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:25, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails even the exceptions we make for schools (secondary/high schools). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:28, 7 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) 03:57, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Future Men[edit]

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

Non-notable boarding school lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains^(talk) 01:22, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the article citing sources. Funny526 (talk) 03:21, 31 May 2019 (UTC) This user is currently blocked.[reply]
None of those sources are reliable independent secondary sources. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:26, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:35, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:35, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:36, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:36, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:36, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's a couple more sources of the same stripe as already referenced (basically extended press releases - e.g. [22]) but no substantial independent coverage. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:15, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to pass wp:gng. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:02, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Meatsgains:Hi there! I've added a few more sources. Does that solve the issue? Thanks! Davidbolthouse (talk) 20:30, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That would be those extended press releases I mentioned... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:29, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note Davidbolthouse has been blocked indefinitely as an undisclosed paid editor. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:22, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the subject lacks sufficient independent sources to establish notability. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:45, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks the kind of coverage that would grant notability. Elements of paid editing also auger for deletion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:48, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- O cannot believe that a school with just 15 pupils, though of High School age is notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterkingiron (talk • contribs) 14:26, 6 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 if expired prod, see WP:DRV if needed. ST47 (talk) 03:57, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NWA UK Hammerlock[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP. No significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Only trivial mentions usually related to alumni, but notability is not WP:INHERITED. Nikki♥311 01:06, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 01:06, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 01:06, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 01:06, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 01:06, 31 May 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) 03:56, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marty Baumann[edit]

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

Not a notable creative (a production designer!), fails WP:CREATIVE 9H48F (talk) 00:40, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:37, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:37, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:37, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:38, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see any SNG that he meets and an interview in a local paper is insufficient to meet WP:GNG. My own search found nothing to support a claim of notability. Papaursa (talk) 02:17, 5 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 Infinity Ring. ST47 (talk) 03:56, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cave of Wonders[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NBOOK, a popular book, (WorldCat shows it is held in around 1000 libraries) in a popular series but where are the reviews? ISFDB lists it with various covers only, AudioFile's review concentrates on the narration in its review (ie. "Dion Graham offers an exciting narration of this installment", "and Dion Graham provides an excellent pace. His contemplative tone adds to the thoughtful moments...", and ".. his tense delivery keeps listeners on the edge of their seats. In addition, Graham seamlessly delivers the characters' accents."), there is a tiny snip from Horn book - (under Trade Reviews "Although fans of this brisk-paced adventure series will enjoy both books, neither clearly separates fact and fiction. (Review covers these Infinity Ring titles: Cave of Wonders and Behind Enemy Lines.)", have been unable to find anything else (for the record, i would love it if editors can find more reviews to save this article of what is part of an exciting book series:)). Also, i would be happy with this being turned into a redirect to the book series. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:40, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:39, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:39, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:39, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Infinity Ring. As the nom points out this lacks any kind of coverage which would suggest notability per NBOOK or GNG however the book is covered as part of the series article and so that is a natural WP:ATD. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:05, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Infinity Ring. The series may be notable, but there are no sources to indicate that this entry in it has any independent notability. The only thing in this article is a plot summary, which is already included in the main Infinity Ring article, so a simple redirect is sufficient. Rorshacma (talk) 15:42, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Infinity Ring. Rogermx (talk) 20:27, 5 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. ST47 (talk) 03:56, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Union (political party)[edit]

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

Effectively a local grouping of councillors. Its only coverage is trivial, primary, or from a local newspaper. Details can be merged into their (former) leader's article or Hartlepool Borough Council. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 00:38, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 00:38, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: IU is a registered political party, not simply a grouping. The very same logic could be applied for most articles in Category:United Kingdom political party stubs as the majority have worse referencing (if any) and the parties largely lack any representation, and if they do it is far less than eight councillors. The content on John Tennant I added before he was elected and was added after I created the page. I added most of this to Tennnant's page so a merge is not really possible as the info about him is already there. A section about a political party on a politicians page is going to cause someone else (not me) to eventually make a page for the party, especially when they represent a majority at a unitary council, which makes deletion pointless in the long run. Also I can find no evidence to suggest he has stepped down, which means he's likely still the leader. UaMaol (talk) 01:33, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:40, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is a registered party, I only said it is effectively a grouping on the council. As per the only source directly about them: it was created "to help them stand out at the polls" and "Only independents within a group can hope to achieve significant influence". I agree that there are others of similar lack of notability/coverage in that category, but we're looking at this one right now. They don't have a majority on Hartlepool Council, they have 8 of 33 seats. If we apply WP:POLITICIAN, only "international, national, or sub-national (e.g., province- or state-wide)" are presumed to be notable, a unitary authority doesn't qualify. Details of the party's creation can be moved to Hartlepool Borough Council#History. As for Tennnant, given that he is representing a different party as an MEP, its almost certain that he has left.

Keep For reasons given above. Coverage may not be widespread, but it is not trivial. Emeraude (talk) 09:58, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is a single article that concerns this party, and it is from a local newspaper. All other coverage is either primary (the council's website) or very briefly mentions the party in relation to people being elected (either as council leader or elected to the party). There is not significant coverage from multiple, reliable sources. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 10:38, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the leader of the party would be misleading when it is another of their councillors who is leader of the council. The "European election" section should be removed as it isn't about the council. Articles such as this are usually kept; it could be merged to 2019 Hartlepool Borough Council election when that is created. WP:POLITICIAN applies to politicians, not to parties, but unitary authorities are equivalent to counties and are the highest tier below UK government in their areas. Peter James (talk) 21:52, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that WP:POLITICIAN is specifically about people rather than parties, I referred to it because it maps across. I would argue that there is a level of government missing in England: Unitary authorities and County councils (etc) are not "sub-national (e.g., province- or state-wide)", but the devolved administrations (Scottish Parliament, Welsh, NI and London Assemblies) are. This is a party that operates entirely within a single unit of local government that is sub-"sub-national".

I agree with you that this shouldn't be redirected to Tennnant's article. Would a redirect to Hartlepool Borough Council (and associated merging of details) not also be appropriate given that the 2019 election is a red link? Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 21:11, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure you understand what a unitary authority (such as Hartlepool) is. In England, it is the highest level of government after national, so not sub-sub-national at all. Emeraude (talk) 06:47, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Emeraude: as per WP:POLITICIAN, sub-national is defined as "e.g., province- or state-wide". There is no possible stretch of the imagination that can equate Hartlepool Borough Council with a provincial (eg Legislative Assembly of Ontario) or state-wide (eg Texas Legislature) body. As stated above, there are sub-national bodies in the UK, but they are lacking in England outside of London.

If you really are arguing that the 216 County Councils and unitary authorities [23] should be counted as sub-national bodies, then according to WP:POLITICIAN every member of those councils is automatically considered to to be notable ("The following are presumed to be notable: Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or sub-national (e.g., province- or state-wide) office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels." If we look at WP:POLOUTCOMES for further examples, "Elected and appointed political figures at [...] major sub-national level (US state, Canadian province, Japanese prefecture, etc.)." usually survive AfD. Hartlepool Borough has a population of c. 93,000, not the millions that make up the example sub-national bodies. Outside of London, there is a missing level of legislature which means governance jumps straight from national to local level. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 14:30, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Articles about councillors elected at this level are usually deleted, but articles about their parties usually survive. I'm only unsure whether this should be kept because they are only notable for one election (although with more than one candidate elected) so far. Peter James (talk) 18:26, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: as per above; this is a registered political party that is involved in a governing coalition in a local authority. --RaviC (talk) 00:26, 5 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. postdlf (talk) 21:53, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of celebrities who own wineries and vineyards[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This has been nominated for deletion before and was kept before we really took things seriously, it seems. First of all, the very term "celebrity" in the title is iffy, as is evidenced by the fact that there's redlinked names in here, with space in the table to argue why someone is a "celebrity". In addition, having a vineyard or a winery is hardly a defining characteristic, and I'm a bit saddened that we create article space for rich persons' hobbies. BTW, that these entries are or can be verified is entirely to be expected since we're talking about rich, famous people here. Verified is not the same as noteworthy. Drmies (talk) 04:07, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:55, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:55, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nothing's changed since the last AfD 6 months ago. $ɱ$ (talk) 09:33, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Actually fairly interesting read, and decently sourced, etc. Also, I'm a bit saddened that we create article space for rich persons' hobbies and other similar remarks are not valid reasons to delete. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:18, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this ridiculous LISTCRUFT. Trillfendi (talk) 20:38, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:33, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:33, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:34, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:35, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This list is not notable. The Zeus is Ha-Zeus (talk) 07:13, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Celebrity involvement in wine production is a very relevant phenomenon, both in commercial and wine culture terms (see [24], [25] e.g., as well as hundreds more in specialized sites [26]). Whether that qualifies as WP:Notable I don't know. 188.218.87.34 (talk) 07:23, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Notifying all past deletion discussion contributors. $ɱ$ (talk) 16:51, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is not about whether we think the topic is important, but about whether reliable sources cover the topic. It looks like they do. I'd use the presence of a Wikipedia article to determine celebrity status and cull redlink entries. Jts1882 | talk 17:05, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I created the article almost 10 years ago and while I won't deny that some cruft has been added (and would support culling the red links), I'm pleased that a lot of the original text about the historical interest in "celebrity wine" and explaining the different types of involvement is still mostly intact. Those items (and the many reliable sources used just for those two sections) is what makes this a useful article on Wikipedia. People have been interested in "celebrity wines" since the Greeks and Romans and they will be interested in them long after we're all gone. This article helps provide context to the "why" of that phenomenon in an encyclopedic manner. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 17:29, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Agne and the ip above, and others. Gets over 200 views daily. Johnbod (talk) 17:30, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Two redlinked names aren't a crisis, and if it's a problem, that can easily be fixed in the editing process. The title can be moved to something else if there's a consensus that words like "celebrities" or "list" are not encyclopedic. However, rather than vineyards being "hobbies"-- I doubt that any of these people actually stomp on grapes-- they're businesses, and there's a continuing trend for people to make that type of investment. I detect from the tone of the delete comments that this is more of a case of dislike of the subject, rather than a challenge to its notability. Mandsford 17:47, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my comments in the last nomination. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:07, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Johnbod Agne27. Lubbad85 (☎) 01:36, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For the same reasons I pointed out in the last AfD, I still feel this passes WP:GNG and WP:LISTN. Govvy (talk) 11:20, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - WP:SNOW in all 3 afds Lubbad85 (☎) 18:32, 1 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) 03:55, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dawn Baillie[edit]

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

Not a notable graphic designer, fails WP:Creative 9H48F (talk) 00:32, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:41, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:41, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:41, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:41, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:42, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there are a few good sources for the Bass Award, but they are not particularly in-depth. Other than that she is an accomplished designer, but the coverage is not wide enough to establish GNG. There may be more coverage out there, but I cannot find it. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:10, 31 May 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) 03:55, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Grandayy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG, passing mentions only. Kleuske (talk) 08:04, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I love the YouTuber, and watch his videos regularly, however, look for more sources. I'm not giving a delete, mainly because it has more than enough info, it just needs to be backed up with verified sources. Cheesy McGee (talk) 08:35, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The situation has not changed since the last AFD in January and I therefore vote keep for the same reasons. FOARP (talk) 08:37, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 10:44, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 10:44, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malta-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 10:44, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —Lafayette Baguette ^talk 13:20, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Only one thing has changed since the last discussion: a sockpuppet who voted "keep" has been found and blocked. My argument stays the same: there is no significant coverage about Grandayy that is not written by him. wumbolo ^^^ 22:44, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources such as The Times of Malta and the Independent as identified in the last AFD and therefore passes WP:GNG and also has a major claim of significance of being Malta's most popular youtuber, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 16:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Seems like the question here might be if there is "significant coverage in multiple reliable sources".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:45, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:30, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass our guidelines for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:14, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To state the bleeding obvious: this is not an article about a musician. FOARP (talk) 14:54, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: coverage is minimal. If one publication is enough, we will run out of server space. No, not notable. BTW the article is seriously problematic, and "music producer" is unproven. Drmies (talk) 22:52, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 01:05, 7 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) 03:54, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agaïssa[edit]

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

Another short film with questionable notability (note that the IMDB has this as 2001, yet for some reason Wikipedia has this as 2004) Anyway I can't find any reliable refs. Either delete or a redirect to the director Moustapha Alassane be the best.

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warda (film) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J'ai bu du café dans un café for other similar cased ones. Wgolf (talk) 00:29, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:42, 31 May 2019 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:42, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there is a lack of coverage in reliable sources such as no external reviews listed at IMDb and no entry at Rotten Tomatoes, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 22:58, 2 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) 03:53, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Student Ghetto (comic strip)[edit]

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

A seemingly non-notable comic strip from a student newspaper. I have been unable to find any substantial sources on either the comic, its creator, or the compilation book. The only reason I brought this to discussion, rather than simply WP:PRODing it, is because it makes a claim to notability in the awards that it won. Though, I have been unable to find anything corroborating that information. Rorshacma (talk) 18:04, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:31, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Michigan State University Archives and Historical Collections says that a spinoff of the cartoons, Batchelor Party, was syndicated for a while. This is confirmed by entries in Editor & Publisher and The Comics Journal. That's still not much, but shows it goes beyond a local student newspaper. SpinningSpark 10:18, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I actually did see the bit about Bachelor Party, however, my thoughts on that were: 1. That strip, though syndicated, does not seem particularly notable itself. It only ran for a year, and the sources on it pretty much confirm it existed, but don't do much on establishing that it was notable. 2. Even if that strip was determined to be notable, that would only apply to Bachelor Party itself, and that notability would not necessarily extend backwards to the college strip it spun out from. Essentially, notability for Bachelor Party would only justify a potential article on Bachelor Party, but not on Student Ghetto. Rorshacma (talk) 15:42, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:28, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes, this appears to have been the student newspaper forerunner of a later strip that was syndicated (also here), but that doesn't cut the mustard re notability. As noted above, an article about Bachelor Party might conceivably be doable, in which case this might be mentioned there; but it's not standalone material. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:11, 4 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. ST47 (talk) 03:52, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dorchester Area Schools Partnership[edit]

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

I have added two references to this article on an association of schools, but despite that and the striking comments in one of the links (Dorset Life), my feeling is that the coverage is WP:ROUTINE and the organisation is not notable. (Redirect to Thomas Hardye School might be a possibility.) Tacyarg (talk) 20:00, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 20:00, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 20:00, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 20:00, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - these partnerships are equivalent to US school districts that are invariably considered notable. There seems plenty of press coverage from which the article can be developed to meet WP:ORG. In addition to their significance, just as with school districts, they provide a convenient repository for information on their component schools that don't justify their own pages. Just Chilling (talk) 19:37, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:27, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Just Chilling's accurate explanation. US school districts are always kept (unless there is something else seriously wrong with the article). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:18, 7 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. ST47 (talk) 03:49, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vārkava Manor[edit]

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

Cites only one source and does not fufill the Wikipedia Notability guidelines and community consensus. (See: WP:N, WP:CITE) WikiAviator (talk) 01:56, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 07:06, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This source suggests historical relevance. 188.218.87.34 (talk) 07:59, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:11, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The nom shouldn't just look at an article and think "I only see one source, therefore it must not be notable." WP:N has the section WP:ARTN that stipulates notability is not based on article condition. WP:AFD and specifically WP:BEFORE states the nom should determine no other sources exist before nominating an article for deletion. In addition to the source already cited by the nom, in only a few seconds I found the Vārkava government published an extensive report on this historic place [27] and more in-depth coverage exists.[28].Oakshade (talk) 00:30, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly an architecturally and historically notable building. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:26, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Please do mind what Oakshade explains. --Doncram (talk) 21:22, 4 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. ST47 (talk) 03:48, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Sayed Kasim[edit]

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

Cites only one source and does not follow the notability guidelines. (See: WP:N)) WikiAviator (talk) 02:05, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 07:04, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 07:04, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 07:04, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Competed at the Olympics, per WP:NOLY, and had a top-ten finish too. I also see that the nominator has listed a couple of other articles at AfD (one, two) using similar rationales of them only having one source or being "too short". Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:26, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW KEEP - Clearly meets ,WP:NOLY. Competed in Olympics games. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:21, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:NOLY - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 13:04, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above comments. StaticVapor message me! 21:19, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep meets WP:OLY. Let's just close this and stop wasting everybody's time. Smartyllama (talk) 15:55, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above keep votes. Geoffroi (talk) 20:03, 4 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) 03:47, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Igor Boțan[edit]

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

It does not cite any sources, poorly written and is too short. WikiAviator (talk) 02:17, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 07:03, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 07:03, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:44, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:44, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable for the purposes of guaranteeing him a Wikipedia article, so to earn one he would have to be shown as the subject of enough reliable source coverage to clear WP:GNG — but the references are primary sources, not reliable or independent ones. Bearcat (talk) 12:05, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this 9-year-old WP:UNSOURCED page on a political operative, political commentator. The claim to notability was that he was president of the Association for Participative Democracy, a deleted page. E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:22, 4 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] Armour, Robert. "Thousands to attend mass day of action in support of refugees". Third Force News. Archived from the original on 8 May 2018. Retrieved 12 April 2018.

[2] Naysmith, Stephen. "Grassroots campaigns add to pressure on Government over refugee crisis". The Herald. Archived from the original on 8 May 2018. Retrieved 12 April 2018.

[3] "Fuad Alakbarov's bio". www.glasgowfuad.com. www.glasgowfuad.com. Archived from the original on 22 February 2019. Retrieved 22 February 2019.

[1]

[2]

[3]