Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 October 27

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 26 October	28 October >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Drmies (talk) 00:36, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Suangsuda Lawanprasert[edit]

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

Notable Evrdkmkm (talk) 23:31, 27 October 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 October 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:56, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:57, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:57, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:57, 27 October 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. Drmies (talk) 00:36, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Patlada Kulphakthanapat[edit]

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

Notable Evrdkmkm (talk) 23:30, 27 October 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 October 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:55, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:58, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:58, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:58, 27 October 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. Drmies (talk) 00:36, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Parapadsorn Vorrasirinda[edit]

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

Notable Evrdkmkm (talk) 23:41, 27 October 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 October 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:55, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:59, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:59, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:59, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:13, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Wright (American politician)[edit]

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

nothing here shows notability Dunwoody has a population of under 50,000, andi dod not think this implies notability DGG ( talk ) 23:50, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, was searching for him on WP the other day and he didn't have a page, so if he doesn't reach the notability threshold I guess delete. I figured because he was the founding mayor of the city it was more notable than if it was just the currently/any former mayor. Especially given his continued political involvement. Nackpack (talk) 17:10, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:02, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:02, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Strictly speaking, a population cutoff isn't the notability maker or breaker for a mayor in and of itself — mayors of places smaller than 50K can clear the notability bar sometimes, and mayors of places larger than 50K can fail it. Rather, the actual notability bar for mayors, regardless of the city's size, requires us to be able to write a reasonably substantive article about his mayoralty — specific things he did, specific projects he championed, and on and so forth — that's referenced to more than just a couple of pieces of routine campaign coverage in the community hyperlocals. And since people don't get articles just for being unsuccessful candidates in state legislature elections either, that doesn't help to boost his notability at all if it hasn't already been properly demonstrated at the mayoral level. Bearcat (talk) 13:26, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:55, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, WP:MILL, and WP:POLOUTCOMES - medium-sized city mayor.
Delete a non-notable politician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:14, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 07:50, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weluree Ditsayabut[edit]

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

Notable Evrdkmkm (talk) 23:29, 27 October 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 October 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:39, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:41, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:41, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:41, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close without prejudice. Another malformed AfD by User:Evrdkmkm. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:07, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, some WP:SIGCOV especially since she quit her title. Bearian (talk) 14:33, 30 October 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. Drmies (talk) 00:37, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Waratthaya Wongchayaporn[edit]

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

Notable Evrdkmkm (talk) 22:58, 27 October 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 October 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:23, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:30, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:30, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:30, 27 October 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. Drmies (talk) 00:37, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ummarapas Vathanakul[edit]

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

Notable Evrdkmkm (talk) 23:05, 27 October 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 October 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:23, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:31, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:31, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:31, 27 October 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. Drmies (talk) 00:37, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pimbongkod Chankaew[edit]

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

Noable Evrdkmkm (talk) 23:07, 27 October 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 October 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:22, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:35, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:35, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:35, 27 October 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. Drmies (talk) 00:37, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clara Sosa[edit]

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

Notable Evrdkmkm (talk) 22:59, 27 October 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 October 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:22, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:31, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:31, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paraguay-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:33, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 07:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Transformers Classics[edit]

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

Non-notable topic TTN (talk) 23:20, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 23:20, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry but this looks like a Speedy WP:G11. Govvy (talk) 23:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't agree that it's a G11 candidate but it's obviously just fancruft and little else and belongs in the Transformers Wikia. Delete as non-notable per nom._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:52, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:16, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Transformers: Rescue Bots (toyline)[edit]

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

Non-notable topic. TTN (talk) 23:19, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 23:19, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:55, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, just a checklist of toys, with no real prose content. JIP | Talk 11:12, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing significant in this article. Barca (talk) 00:45, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 07:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Koobox[edit]

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

Survived AfD in 2007, tagged for notability since 2010. Nothing to support notability found. Mccapra (talk) 23:07, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 23:07, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 23:07, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not enough here to warrant article unless something significant emerges about a say a role in history.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:44, 28 October 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. Drmies (talk) 00:37, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chalita Yaemwannang[edit]

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

Notable Evrdkmkm (talk) 22:52, 27 October 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 October 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:06, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:19, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:19, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:19, 27 October 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. Fenix down (talk) 23:14, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Sackey[edit]

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

Despite playing in a "professional league", there is a lack of resources for this player both in English and Russian to state that this player might pass WP:GNG. HawkAussie (talk) 22:57, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 22:57, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 22:57, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 22:57, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment he just re-signed for Great Olympics in Ghana, but their domestic league is in turmoil at the moment [1] (not WP:SIGCOV, but there are about 20 articles like this and some appear to go into more coverage.) Lean delete, but with an eyebrow raised. SportingFlyer T·C 23:38, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:08, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:09, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:55, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article about semi-professional footballer who may have played in a handful of matches in a fully-pro league, but the article comprehensively fails the GNG. I can only find transfer announcement (e.g., [2]) and database entries; nothing that approaches significant coverage. Jogurney (talk) 14:56, 30 October 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:19, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

William Adams (Dedham)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, beyond some trivial mentions in local histories, nothing much out there. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:50, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:03, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:03, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:03, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per WP:BEFORE. Subject easily passes WP:GNG. Without being able to see the sources, they look far from trivial, since Adams covers multiple pages in both works. More importantly, he was the subject of a biography by Frances Manwaring Caulkins.[3] St Anselm (talk) 01:48, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is nothing that says local histories don't satisfy GNG. This is a stub, but there is potential. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 13:52, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has his entry in a biographical dictionary (vol. 1, p. 20-21). NB. James Levernier makes him born at New London, Conn. Genium . 18:54, Oct 31, 2019 (UTC)
Keep I am leery of using well over 100 year old sources, but Genium presents a more recent source that clearly passes muster.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:52, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:33, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Jackson (Liberian footballer)[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:11, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:11, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:18, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:19, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:20, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Fails WP:NFOOTY as the player hasn't played in a professional league and also struggling to find references for this player with the only brief mention being this link. But it's only a passing mention. Didn't see this as it wasn't on the infobox which equated me to vote for delete. HawkAussie (talk) 23:01, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appeared internationally for Liberia this year [4] and the sourcing available in the article, while local to Liberia, passes WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 03:48, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. International player. No Great Shaker (talk) 09:57, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - international player, meets WP:NFOOTBALL; needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 11:54, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - international player, passes WP:NFOOTBALL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:44, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As nominator. @HawkAussie: You may want reconsider your vote. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:56, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 18:53, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Runamuck[edit]

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

Non-notable topic TTN (talk) 18:52, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:52, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:52, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:52, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non notable, and nothing really to merge._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:59, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone has a valid redirect target which I am open to. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:17, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough topic to support notability. Barca (talk) 01:12, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 18:20, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marvin Matyka[edit]

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

Rejected at AFC moved from draft to main space by creator, fails WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST Theroadislong (talk) 18:09, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't pass WP:NCREATIVE. Also, note that the creator blanked this page as well as the AfD notices. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:26, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, to the closing admin, should this article be deleted, the creator also copied this page over to the Simple English Wikipedia, which should probably be a candidate for deletion as well. However I am not familiar with Simple's policy, and am too new to use Twinkle on Simple to nominate it as such. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:30, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:43, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:43, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy delete G5~~ - Delete WP:DENY - no significant contributions from anybody except socks of The Walking Dead DE (SPI) Cabayi (talk) 20:12, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The article was created on July 1st. What block was being evaded at that time? ST47 (talk) 20:19, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - My bad. Bounced on to the AFD while clearing the socks' creations, I probably got the creation date from the redirect created by the sock moving it to mainspace. Missed how far back the article's history went. Thanks ST47 for catching. Cabayi (talk) 20:31, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources are inadequate for demonstrating notability. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:39, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 18:19, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Afro-Anglo Americans[edit]

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

This article has been around for a while but it's basically an intro sentence, and the only reference is a dead link (which was to a non-reliable source anyway). It contains no sourced facts or discussion of the topic. Possibly the title could be a redirect to African diaspora in the Americas. ... discospinster _talk 17:36, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:22, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This does not move beyond a dictionary definition, and does not move towards showing who this might apply to. Does it apply to Alex Boye, or is this as opposed to Afro-Hispanic Americans (those Americans who are Hispanic by ethnicity, but have African ancestry as well). Or is this a category for people with one English parent, and one African-American parent? In my experience these are rarer than those with one German parent and one African-American parent, in part because the US military presence in Britain was less.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:09, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 18:20, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

College of Information Technology[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Störm (talk) 16:23, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:31, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:31, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Could not find any sources. Considering how the article looks like it's made to advertise the offerings of the school, I say that it's also advertising. Will look into author's history. From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 18:21, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 18:40, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A WP:SPA article on a business offering mundane brief training courses. Although the website is no longer operating, it appears to have a Facebook page (as "citdera"). There is no claim to notability in the article text and I see nothing to indicate this is more than a run-of-the mill small business. Fails WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 19:48, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is not particularly well written. Barca (talk) 01:22, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that we should delete every article that's not well-written? We're arguing if the topic is notable, not if the content is suitable. Or else we might as well delete every page that has a problem, which would be every page. Deletion isn't cleanup. From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 01:27, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NSCHOOL. --SalmanZ (talk) 15:18, 3 November 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. My bad failed to spot the sources listed by Bri and a few others in the article. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 14:33, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

K-391[edit]

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

K-391 has created a few songs, 2 have articles and are notable (Different World (Alan Walker song) and Play (K-391, Alan Walker and Martin Tungevaag song) and 2 songs have charted on the Norway charts at #1 and #2 respectively)

Both article-songs appear to be notable however the musican himself doesn't, I'm only finding one-bit mentions or spammy non-sources[5], Fails MUSIC & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 15:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, do you think any of Dancing Astronaut, EDM.com, Your EDM, or EDM Sauce do contribute to notability? ☆ Bri (talk) 16:28, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Also just for transparency I was approached by an editor on my talkpage[6] due to another musician previously having the same problem) –Davey2010^Talk 15:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:34, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:34, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the Verdens Gang and Dancing Astronaut sources at least seem reliable, and having a #1 song in a major country is a pretty strong claim to notability. It's not like it barely scraped top 20 on a genre chart and has no sourcing to speak of. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:58, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the main problem with the article/K-391 is that he seems to be only notable because he has collaborated with Alan Walker, a very notable and prominent electronic music producer. The majority of the sources seem good, and he even had a couple songs chart in various places, which should show notability. Most of the sources included Alan Walker as he is the artist that news sources would need to include, with even a small throwaway mention being present at the least. If y'all think the article relies on Alan too much, that's understandable. For now, i'm going with keep for other reasons I've already mentioned. Micro (Talk) 23:13, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 18:20, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tie-up[edit]

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

As per wp is not WP:NOTDIC Wakowako (talk) 13:34, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article obviously should not exist in its current state, but looking at its history, it looks like it was initially created as a redirect to the article on Affiliation (family law), back when that article was listed as just Affiliation. When that article was moved to its current title, and a disambiguation page was created at its former name, this redirect was never updated. It stayed that way until this morning, when the Redirect was removed to create this definition. My question is, was there a logical reason for that redirect to exist in the first place? If so, reverting it back to a redirect to the correct article would be best. If not, than it can probably be safely deleted. I will note that the term "tie-up" does not appear to be used in either Affiliation (family law) or Affiliation. Rorshacma (talk) 14:49, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:51, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as WP:NOTDICTIONARY, should be on Wiktionary only. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:53, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I suppose an article could be created, but at its current or past position, it's just vandal-bait. Bearian (talk) 14:43, 30 October 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 consensus is not to delete, a merge is possible, but can be discussed outside AfD. Tone 18:21, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

War of the Lance[edit]

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

I'll be honest, I'm at a total loss here as to how this is encyclopaedic. The vast majority of this is an unreferenced plot summary. I've now done some research into Dragonlance, which is a quality article, and I think most of the top part can be merged there, but I don't think this is notable enough for a standalone article, especially since most of the sources don't seem as if they pass WP:GNG (not independent or secondary.) SportingFlyer T·C 13:10, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 13:10, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Dragonlance as suggested above. BOZ (talk) 13:33, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to either Dragonlance or Dragonlance Chronicles. As mentioned by the nominator, the article itself is mostly an excessively long plot summary, most of which is not sourced or sourced only to primary sources. Searches are also not coming up with anything but primary sources or brief plot summaries. Of the two redirect options, the one to Dragonlance Chronicles makes more sense to me, as this article is basically just a summary of the plot of that trilogy of books, but either target works. The small bits of actual real-world information on its publication history can be merged into either article, though it looks like most of that information is already present. Rorshacma (talk) 14:38, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Dragonlance. It is a searchable term and there are a few things here that I could see merged into Dragonlance so we can't lose the history. But a seperate, mostly plot page is not appropriate. --Masem (t) 15:37, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:01, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep as the AfD creator is suggesting a merge rather than a delete, which can be discussed and worked out on the article's talk page. On that note though, I do think this article at the very least needs a massive trimming. It's possible a small kernel of notability is buried at the heart of this, but I can't check for reliable sources on it right now. —Tourchiest ^talk_edits 17:19, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I do want this deleted. I'm just acknowledging some content may be able to be merged. SportingFlyer T·C 02:02, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article could use a rewrite, however WP:NOTCLEANUP. WP:PRESERVE. The nominator lacks conviction, and acknowledges that there is notability, by conceding that there could be a merge. WP:ATD. Lightburst (talk) 02:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 18:21, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hutijin[edit]

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

Non-notable D&D topic. TTN (talk) 12:52, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:52, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:52, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:01, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Minor fictional character with nothing but primary and fan sources discussing it. Searches result in no reliable, secondary sources that establish notability. Rorshacma (talk) 16:00, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 18:22, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zuggtmoy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article still fails to establish notability. The previous AfD was a joke where the provided sources literally were just the character's name once or twice with not even any further discussion or context. None were used in the article after due to the fact that they provided no relevant context. TTN (talk) 12:49, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:49, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:49, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. The sources in the last AfD were not about the character, but the game they appear in._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:01, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:01, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources provided in the previous AfD are not enough to establish the notability of the page's subject, as they are nothing but trivial mentions. Not a very active user (talk) 14:23, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Demon (Dungeons & Dragons), where it is mentioned in context. 1,320 pageviews in the past 30 days gives evidence that this is a plausible search term. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 01:02, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:46, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This one actually did bring about more results from secondary sources than most D&D related fictional characters when I was doing searches, but actually looking through them proved that none of them were substantial. They ranged from just listing her name as being a character/creature in an upcoming adventure book, to literally just have a picture of her with no context or discussion. So, like many of the myriad of other minor D&D characters, it lacks the reliable, secondary sources that discuss her in any way that would establish notability. Rorshacma (talk) 16:04, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Demon (Dungeons & Dragons). BOZ (talk) 18:56, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 18:22, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nabassu[edit]

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

Non-notable D&D topic TTN (talk) 12:44, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:44, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:44, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:01, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 00:03, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per usual, searching for sources only resulted in some primary and fan sources, and nothing substantial from any reliable, secondary sources. Thus, it utterly fails the WP:GNG. As there is no reliably sourced information here, there is really nothing worth preserving or merging. Rorshacma (talk) 16:07, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 12:28, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I Still Play[edit]

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

Not a notable piece. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:42, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:42, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:42, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What is the criteria for a notable piece? John Adams is arguably the most frequently performed of all living American classical composers, and his compositions for solo piano are rare occasions and paid attention to closely in the classical world. All other John Adams Piano compositions have their own wikipedia pages.--Vst631 (talk) 15:29, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NSONG or WP:GNG. I do not believe that Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music have their own notability criteria. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:52, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 10:39, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this article falls in a grey area, but some cursory Google searches have found enough references to it (the Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, The Mercury News, etc.) to justify its existence enough for me. The article needs severe cleaning, no doubt, which I am undertaking now. Jg2904 (talk) 13:32, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:04, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jg2904 and taking into account their cleanup. Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 06:03, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep i feel there is enough coverage about this piece in reliable sources to pass the WP:GNG. Thanks Jg2904 for your cleanup efforts. Zingarese talk · contribs 02:36, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Vst631's contention. GeneralPoxter (talk) 02:40, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jg2904 and Zingarese. Aoba47 (talk) 18:44, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 18:22, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sinemia[edit]

AfDs for this article:

{{Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/{{SUBST:Sinemia}}}}

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

Article does not have significant and reliable media coverage Sherriswag (talk) 10:55, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:04, 27 October 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 October 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:20, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:32, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:32, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Failure of WP:BEFORE; article clearly has many RS. I note the nom also removed two refs from Variety (magazine) before listing; something odd going on here. There have been issues with disruptive editing on this article in the past per Talk Page, which required Protection and blocking of an Editor. Britishfinance (talk) 11:57, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources in the article show that the subject does in fact have significant coverage, and references 2 and 3 (Forbes, Engadget) are reliable, independent sources in the reflist that prove this. The article should be kept from these two sources alone. Utopes (talk) 23:23, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 18:22, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Largest domestic 53 foot container companies (fleet size)[edit]

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

This is a list that seems to have been created by a user for the primary purpose of exhibiting his 3D drawings. A list of figures from one source does not amount to justifying a stand-alone article. There's no contents to this page beside a small list. Graywalls (talk) 10:26, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 10:26, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:34, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:01, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SALAT/too specific. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:40, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've also deleted the container pictures in List of largest container shipping companies. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:46, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The creator of this article/these images seems to have placed these drawings at various locations. I've removed the images from several articles, as I do not feel they add anything to those articles and are simply there to exhibit these drawings, similar to what is stated by the nominator here. (Of course, these images may also contravene WP:FAIRUSE, as they contain corporate logos in a non-de minimis sense, and may also violate Commons' policy on not hosting fair-use content. That's a separate discussion, though.) --Kinu ^t/_c 22:24, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

and it seems like diagram is being used as "visual" reference as a way to skirt our reliable sources requirements. Graywalls (talk) 22:00, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication that this list merits inclusion. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very much WP:LISTCRUFT. Ajf773 (talk) 09:39, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just seems to be a sample list using made up images (which is probably original research). MilborneOne (talk) 21:40, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you misunderstand what original research is. It is not original research, because someone has previously compiled the list. That said, the article is most definitely not worthy of keeping. Bookscale (talk) 11:49, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

comment I just wanted to comment on this so people don't get the wrong idea. I don't believe that simply using graphical representation of what you want to say gets around the no original research policy. So, a self created visual aid is just like a written contents you created from personal knowledge or anecdotes. Graywalls (talk) 23:04, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree that it fails WP:LIST although not necessarily WP:OR. An article could in theory be made about fleets of containers but not this page. Bearian (talk) 14:41, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree, fails WP:OR, no indications this is a real-world classification. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:38, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 07:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jentique Furniture Ltd[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 10:04, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 10:04, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:12, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Google Books shows a snippet from Investors Chronicle in 1982 which commented "Jentique furniture, has been in a sad state for years, due simply to poor demand". In itself that would be insufficient to demonstrate notability, though (and presents a contrast with the tone of the unsourced page content). AllyD (talk) 16:34, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The company's lifespan preceded digital media, but even allowing for that, something more is needed for WP:NCORP than occasional passing mentions. A merge with the Metamec article might be an option, as they appear to have been part of the same group, but that would again need some of the solid sourcing which is wanting. Add to that the catalogue-ish tone of much of the current article ("there exists a small but devoted band of Jentique ash furniture collectors", "an affordable collectors' item prized for being attractive, well-made pieces", etc.) and I am not seeing that this article can be sustained here. AllyD (talk) 21:42, 2 November 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.

Very poor, rushed deletion. Deleting the parent company for Metamec, then suggesting that the parent company might merit a comment on the subsidiary's page is a bit nonsensical. This should not have been a speedy delete candidate. Neith-Nabu (talk) 16:43, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. There appears to be some coverage, but commenters did not agree about whether it was sufficient for a standalone article or should be merged to the article about the manufacturer. RL0919 (talk) 18:45, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Xiaomi M365[edit]

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

Non-notable WP:PRODUCT. Fails WP:GNG. Lots of shallow newsblog posts that mostly tell us this product exists. There is significant interest in the broader topics of electric scooters and and scooter-sharing systems. But this particular model of product does not have significant coverage. Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:50, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:50, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:50, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A scooter, or an electric scooter? I'd tend to think this is the way to go. It's also a permastub. Of course, without prejudice to someone re-creating it, but at this point, it's just blatant SEO pumping. Doug Mehus (talk) 23:29, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:58, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Got coverage in WP:RS that has been added as a reference. It also had a security vulnerability, which is mentioned on various reliable sources and contributes to a more NPOV. Initramfs (talk) 13:14, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

— Duplicate vote: Initramfs (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above. Keep I think enough sources reliable sources with significant coverage have been added since the original post for AfD that the reason doesn't apply anymore. I already commented here, but since nobody else does, I think this discussion could be closed and the article be kept? Initramfs (talk) 06:25, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 23:03, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:27, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Xiaomi. There aren't enough products and company doesn't have enough contents to justify having own product page. Graywalls (talk) 10:40, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

— Duplicate vote: Initramfs (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above. Keep I oppose merging into Xiaomi, because there are a lot of Xiaomi products that have their own page. Initramfs (talk) 15:01, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Merge any relevant/appropriate content with Xiaomi. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:44, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 12:27, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The model that democratized the electric kick scooter, also the most popular in various countries. Also more popular that various car models. Should be kept and expanded. --Crou (talk) 13:35, 3 November 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:30, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Funland (album)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 09:21, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:31, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The album has references which include reviews that meet the first criteria of WP:NALBUM. Notfrompedro (talk) 13:22, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will give a breakdown of my views on the sources provided:

1. Discogs is not a WP:RS as it is user-generated

2. Although it has significant coverage, I struggle to see reliability in the source. I have never heard of silive.com and it appears to be more of a blog area, but that is simply my observation

3. Not a WP:RS as it reads very much like a blog post - first sentence is "Sorry, kids."

4. Doesn't mention the album (after a skim read and a search for the term "Funland" - if it is mentioned, please say)

5. Issues with reliability. See what the Spanish Wikipedia has to say:

Punknews.org is a website founded by Aubin Paul in 1999. The website publishes music news and album reviews relating to punk rock, hardcore punk, ska, alternative, indie rock, heavy metal and hip hop. It features user-submitted and editor-evaluated articles, through a publishing format much like popular technology-related news website Slashdot.

User-generated content is not a WP:RS. Thanks, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 17:46, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Number two is Staten Island Advance which is a reliable source. The author of that article is the news manager for SILive.com. [7] Number three is Fort Worth Weekly which is also reliable. Your personal view of the professionalism of the verbiage doesn't matter. It was authored by a member of the Fort Worth Music Hall of Fame [8] who has penned liner notes for numerous albums.[9] Punknews.org is considered reliable on this wikipedia according to Wikiproject Albums. Notfrompedro (talk) 18:02, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Your personal view of the professionalism of the verbiage doesn't matter". Would you like to explain why you think that my "personal views...[don't] matter"? Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 18:44, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because whether or not Willbb234 appreciates the writing style has nothing to do with whether or not something is a reliable source. Notfrompedro (talk) 18:59, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't to say that my view "doesn't matter". Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 19:06, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I specifically said your view of the writing didn't matter. I didn't devalue you as a person. Please don't pretend I made insults I never made. Notfrompedro (talk) 19:11, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you didn't devalue me as a person and I never said you did. You still devalued my view, however. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 19:29, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your view of the writing because it is irrelevant to the discussion. Notfrompedro (talk) 19:30, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so you did devalue my view OF THE WRITING. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 20:10, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think your personal view of the professionalism of the writing has anything to do with whether or not it is a WP:RS? It was that notion which I took issue with. Your personal view of the author's writing doesn't matter and isn't a criteria for claiming a reference isn't reliable. Notfrompedro (talk) 20:19, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So you think "Sorry, kids" is the first sentence of a reliable piece of writing? Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 20:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What I personally think of the style of writing has nothing to do with it meeting WP:RS. It doesn't matter what you think of the writing either. Hunter S. Thompson used earthy language but his journalism was still journalism. Notfrompedro (talk) 20:26, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews from Metro Times and Spectrum Culture have been added which cement the fact that this meets the first criteria of WP:NALBUM. Notfrompedro (talk) 19:05, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think edits like this reek of bad faith. WP:RS says nothing about alternative newspaper's not being reliable. Willbb234 is deliberately removing valid sources in an attempt to have the article deleted. Notfrompedro (talk) 19:23, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It does, however, state that tabloids are to be avoided, which the article alternative newspaper says that they are very similar to. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 19:26, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Overlooking that you are using your own views to radically reinterpret the guidelines at WP:RS, "similar to" does not equal "is the same as". Alternative newspapers are reliable sources no matter how badly you want this article deleted. Actually, I just looked over WP:RS and I can find no mention of "tabloids" either. Where is this guideline? Notfrompedro (talk) 19:29, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you are saying that I am "radically reinterpret[ing]" WP:RS, can you tell me where it says that alternative newspapers are reliable sources? Thanks, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 19:35, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NEWSORG. Unless it explicitly says alternative newspapers are not valid then there is no reason to suppose they are not valid. The guidelines say nothing about "tabloids" either which was the basis for you claiming alternative newspapers aren't valid. I have no idea why you have made it your personal mission to have this deleted but it appears that you have made this personal for some reason. Please just step back and stop making up guidelines and removing valid references. Notfrompedro (talk) 19:40, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you'll have to be more specific at WP:NEWSORG as I can't see the relevant information. Thanks, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 19:44, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll tell you what: show me specifically where WP:RS says anything at all about "tabloids" or "alternative newspapers" and I will. You don't get to make up guidelines and then dare me to disprove them. Here is a guideline WP:AFDLIST. You never notified me that this was even up for deletion I had to happen upon it. Notfrompedro (talk) 19:45, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 20:12, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*In general, tabloid newspapers, such as The Sun, Daily Mirror, the Daily Mail (see also the February 2017 RFC discussing its validity), equivalent television shows, should be used with caution, especially if they are making sensational claims. The Daily Express and Sunday Express should be treated with even greater caution.

At WP:PUS. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 19:56, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PUS is an essay not a guideline. It is also not WP:RS. Alternative newspapers are not the same thing as Daily Express. Quoting WP:PUS does not justify your removal of valid sources which you did by claiming a violation of WP:RS. Notfrompedro (talk) 20:02, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At WP:DEPSOURCES, there are multiple tabloids which are in the edit filter. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 19:58, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DEPSOURCES doesn't mention Metro Times which you claimed wasn't reliable. Notfrompedro (talk) 20:02, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You asked me about tabloids and not the Metro Times. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 20:21, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No you claimed that Metro Times was an alternative weekly which somehow made it basically a tabloid and that tabloids aren't WP:RS. Not a single part of that is true but that was your argument. Show me any discussion on Wikipedia that says Metro Times isn't reliable. Notfrompedro (talk) 20:25, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just waiting for Davo to finish up writing the guidelines. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 20:27, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence of Tabloid journalism states "Tabloid journalism is a style of journalism that emphasizes sensational crime stories, gossip columns about celebrities and sports stars, extreme political views and opinions from one perspective, junk food news, and sun sign astrology." This is an indication of unreliablitity - it aims to bring in an audience by shocking them instead of telling completely the true story. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 20:01, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Those quotes have nothing to to with Alternative newspapers in general or Metro Times specifically. You are creating new guidelines. Notfrompedro (talk) 20:02, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll just ask Davo if he can write a guideline on every news website in every country of the world. Davo is up for it! Lets go Davo. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 20:06, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and while Davo is doing that, would you mind telling me where it says that Detroit Metro Times is a WP:RS, seeing as I have given you my explanation. Thanks, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 20:08, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You desperately want this article deleted so you started removing valid references using made up criteria and when confronted you spent a half an hour scouring Wikipedia for something you might be able to use and all you could find was an essay but no guideline. You claimed Metro Times (which as the article notes is "the largest circulating weekly newspaper in the metro Detroit area") violated WP:RS which it doesn't. You claimed alternative newspapers are tabloids which violate WP:RS but WP:RS says nothing about tabloids or alternative newspapers being invalid. I don't have to disprove made up guidelines. You have to find real ones. Notfrompedro (talk) 20:16, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of people buy it? Wow, it must be reliable! Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 20:19, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks to me to meet WP:GNG. Bondegezou (talk) 12:07, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this has been reviewed by multiple sources reliable enough for popular music, as currently cited in the article. feminist (talk) 12:28, 3 November 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. czar 19:57, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Studio Bliink[edit]

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

non-notable , and I think promotional . The lis of awards is written to conceal the fact that the only ones they won are extremely minor. The refs are trivial. DGG ( talk ) 09:16, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Searches turned up very little other than mentions and PR. In the current article, the Konbini article is decent, but since that source relies on native advertising, I am unclear as to the value of that piece. This article appears to be little more than a promotional piece for this company.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:22, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:29, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:29, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:29, 27 October 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. There are some sources, but no consensus about whether they provide enough significant coverage to establish notability. RL0919 (talk) 18:48, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speed Demon (2003 film)[edit]

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

I found nothing that shows this film is notable. Fails WP:NF. SL93 (talk) 19:31, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 19:35, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete best I could find is a review by Something Awful. Alternatively redirect to the director's article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:53, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep along with the review above I found a French review in a publication called Panorama here which I haven't heard of but it is used as a critic's review at Rotten Tomatoes, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:39, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott Burley (talk) 20:36, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and alter the entry at Speed Demon to link to David DeCoteau, or redirect to David DeCoteau if you must. I don't see enough to justify an article here. --Michig (talk) 09:39, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. In addition to the online reviews, the film is reviewed in Mick Martin, Marsha Porter (2004). DVD and Video Guide 2005. Ballantine Books. p. 1041.. It also gets tangentially mentioned in several books on Queer Culture and Horror films. It's just enough to meet WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 12:28, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:00, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete i dont know if the film is notable enough for an article. KingofGangsters (talk) 09:01, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 07:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Technology Entrepreneur Center[edit]

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

promotional , and not independently notable DGG ( talk ) 08:30, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:00, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:00, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:00, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:01, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Fails GNG, and individual university departments only get articles under exceptional circumstances and this is not one. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:27, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus that a WP:HEY by RebeccaGreen has met notability for this subject. (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 19:36, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Birchard[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article subject does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Subject is a minor and entirely unknown actor. Subject has never had "significant coverage" in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

First link to the NYTimes.com is broken and goes nowhere. In the second source, his name is mentioned along with the rest of the play ensemble in a very short review from 2010. The third source is an obituary of an obscure lecturer. Finally, the fourth source is a link to a profile of his son. Taken together, there is nothing notable about this collection of citations.

A search of the subject's name on IMDB returns numerous Paul Birchards – one would be hard-pressed to know which of these corresponds to the Paul Birchard listed here.

A search of the article subject's name on Google primarily reveals URLs to the subject's personal homepage.

Article subject seems to have a well-known son by the name of Hudson Mohawke, but this does not entitle subject to having a Wikipedia page. I note that Mohawke's Wikipedia page has a line about Paul Birchard being his father and links to Birchard's Wikipedia page. This is circuitous.

Do we propose that the parents of all notable musicians should have their own Wikipedia pages?

Finally, I note that there are over 9 million actors and crew members listed on IMDB. I fail to see how appearing on this database meets Wikipedia's general notability guidelines.Nonmerci33 (talk) 10:35, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:02, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:03, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:03, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:35, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:35, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:36, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:37, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't see too much coverage and content is not well referenced, which means the creator may be associated to the person. Should someone improve the article, keep only the referenced content and find more coverage, perhaps it can be reconsidered. His 2019 Role as Ernest Hemingway, might get him some additional coverage in the future. Expertwikiguy (talk) 02:11, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The NY Times article does not mention Birchard, and a search of the NY Times archive does not retrieve anything. The other sources do not give very significant coverage of Birchard. It appears that his acting roles have been minor characters. The football song seems to be the only really interesting thing, and it was just one song that does not appear to have been a top Billboard 100 song. As noted above, it is not even clear if all this information applies to a single Paul Birchard, or perhaps more than one. It has not been demonstrated that this person is notable. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:28, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sourcing is not adequate enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:00, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is definitely more sourcing that can be added, from the British Newspaper Archive for example, and more productions which he has appeared in, in some of which he had lead roles. Many Wikipedia articles about actors seem to have been created based on what is in IMDB. That does not mean that IMDB is the only source - and it's clearly not a complete source, when it covers only screen appearances, not stage performances. It seems to have been a quick way to create articles (this one was created in 2006), and is not a reflection on the notability or otherwise of the subjects. I will try to find the time to add more sources and info to this article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 05:47, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:RebeccaGreen, you are such a good researcher. I wish you would use your skills to expand the articles of really notable stage actors instead of documenting the workaday careers of non-notable actors.You could start with people who have won Oliver awards in the West End and Tony Awards on Broadway. Just a suggestion. Happy editing! -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:19, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ssilvers, thank you for the compliment! However, I don't know that the actors I research are non-notable, until I research more. In the case of this person, I see TV, radio and cinema listings in newspapers from the 1990s and 2000s saying "Stars John Cusack and Paul Birchard" [10]; "Judi Dench, Susan Porrett, Susannah Morley, Paul Birchard, Sylvia Barter, Bill Nighy" [11]; "With Giles Havergal and Paul Birchard" [12]. Of course, not all of the actors appearing in productions with definitely notable actors like Judi Dench, Bill Nighy and John Cusack will be notable themselves - but perhaps they will meet WP:NACTOR, with significant roles in multiple notable productions, and therefore merit a Wikipedia article, allowing others who come across their names in listings like the above to find out who they are/were. RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:04, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added more sources and information, about him and about his career. I believe the evidence shows that he does meet WP:NACTOR. There are more digitised newspapers I can look through, so I may be able to find more reviews - and I have yet to look for sources for all the info that was already in the article (films, computer games, ~~football song~~, etc). I will keep adding more, but perhaps Expertwikiguy and Ssilvers would like to consider his career as shown now. No, he may not be a "really notable actor" who has won awards, but he has had significant roles in notable productions, and garnered good reviews. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:56, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:31, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep RebeccaGreen did work on the article and it is now a keep per WP:SNG. He meets WP:NACTOR has had significant roles in notable productions, and garnered reviews. Lightburst (talk) 17:48, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks like an example of WP:HEY. XOR'easter (talk) 19:50, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep is is a case of WP:HEY thanks to Rebecca. Wm335td (talk) 21:46, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I can see why deletion was proposed, but the recent improvements to the article indicate notability. Dunarc (talk) 23:39, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per recent improvements since nom. Passes WP:GNG per work and reliable sources.BabbaQ (talk) 01:22, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Lead section mentions the role of "Bud", which is not even mentioned in the plot summary of "Sweet Bird of Youth" -- a bit part. Ross is a supporting role in The Goat, or Who Is Sylvia?, which production was played at a regional theatre in Edinburgh. Chuck is from a non-notable play. I remain in the Delete column. Rebecca did a good job writing an article about a work-a-day actor. It is a pity that she does not focus her efforts upon important actor bios -- Here is a list of musical theatre stubs. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:47, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's your prerogative, Ssilvers. I do not read "significant roles" as "starring roles", as I think if it meant that, it would say so. Supporting roles can also be significant. The Wikipedia article about Sweet Bird of Youth only names three characters. Bud is one of the main male character's "old friends [who] call his bluff and see him for what he has become", and he helps with the (implied/actual) castration of Chance at the end. (By the way, I don't think the inhabitants of Edinburgh, the capital city of a country, would appreciate being called "regional".) RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:07, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edinbugh is not a major theatre market, except for the Edinburgh International Festival and the Edinburgh Fringe Festival. The only really major theatre markets are West End and Broadway (and long-running UK and US national tours). Everything else is regional, or local, if you prefer, or "off-something", including Paris, Berlin, Tokyo, Sydney, Toronto, Chicago, off-Broadway and all other theatre markets. I agree that a supporting role "can be" significant, but it is not necessarily significant. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:21, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 09:05, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alireza Sabouri[edit]

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

Looking through the references, I'm just getting routine coverage for this player which isn't enough for the player to past WP:GNG. HawkAussie (talk) 08:12, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 08:12, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 08:12, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 08:12, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment he technically passes WP:NFOOTY, and there's likely some sort of press notability from his top scoring mark in the second division in 2013. I can't search in Persian so not voting, sorry. SportingFlyer T·C 08:15, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:39, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - (broken record here...) This needs an in depth review, given the obvious language barrier - we simply cannot claim a GNG failure when the majority of us aren't experienced with Persian, Arabic et al. NFOOTY passed. The article's translation, which may or may not be correct, brings up [13], [14], [15] which is, of course, routine but suggests more may be out there, along with him potentially being top scorer as SportingFlyer has mentioned. 3,330,000 results plus someone with, seemingly, the same name makes it tricky. R96Skinner (talk) 19:44, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per R96Skinner. Giant Snowman 11:54, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 09:05, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Citébeur[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 10:21, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:10, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:10, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is a significant French pornographic company that was instrumental with launch of a number of major pornographic actors and types of gay pornography not open before. This is adequately covered in the article with references. Notable porn star François Sagat, an iconic name in gay porn, was recruited by Citébeur and made his debut with them. Citébeur won consecutive Best Ethnic Film Awards at the PinkX Gay Video Awards in 2013, 2015 and 2016. werldwayd (talk) 14:21, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, including the references in the article. Saying that it was "instrumental" in the "launch" of major porno actors is not a valid reason as notability is not inherited. If the company was significant in some other way, then there should be references that say that. Finally, the PinkX awards from Pink TV are not significant since they are only based on pornographic films included on the channel's programming. Topic fails GNG and NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:16, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 07:11, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:01, 31 October 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. RL0919 (talk) 07:24, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fileset[edit]

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

This article is a perfect example of how a technical dictionary entry must look like, but Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Like a perfect dictionary entry, it clarifies that "Fileset has several meanings and usages, depending on the context" (i.e. it is a homographs) and then proceeds to give meaning to three of them. In the end, it fails to help the reader understand more than what "file" and "set" alone say.

~~All sources are primary and the notability is non-existent, but that's how a dictionary entry is. flowing dreams (talk page) 11:42, 20 October 2019 (UTC)~~ [reply]

~~Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. flowing dreams (talk page) 11:42, 20 October 2019 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. flowing dreams (talk page) 11:42, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: At the time of this post I amusingly observe Wikt:Fileset does not exist ... there may well be a rush to do it now. It any detail was placed there I'd likely be kicked off to put it on English Wikipedia! There's more going on here than is suitable for Wikidictionary.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:21, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can see that you've actively attempted to change it into a prose form that would seem less and less suitable for a dictionary. However, still anyone who knows what's a file, has no need of reading this article. It is not article; it's just arbitrary prose. For the same reason, we have no dictionary entries for "tool set", "lego set", or "set of silver knives"; those who know what's a tool, a lego, or cutlery, have pretty good idea as to what the former terms mean. flowing dreams (talk page) 10:57, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The difference to arbitrary combinations of words such as "tool set" or "lego set" is that there are proper definitions for the term "fileset" (and "file set") in several contexts of computing. This is what makes this encyclopedically relevant. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 11:42, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 07:08, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While there was some dictionary-typish in the article at the time of nomination, fileset is a proper term used in some contexts of computing (although with somewhat varying definitions). The article has been considerably worked one since then, more references were added. A short Google search revealed that even more could be added to the article in the future, so this clearly has enough potential for an article on Wikipedia (rather than only at Wiktionary). --Matthiaspaul (talk) 10:55, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nominator was a sock, struck through their post. Doug Weller talk 10:49, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 09:06, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Kronemeyer[edit]

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

Highly promotional article, with most of the content unsourced, including unsourced claims for personal influence ofn more important people. Most of the refs are about his company, not himself; the ones that do are notices or PR. (as a striking example of self-indulgent promotional content, note the portrait legend) DGG ( talk ) 07:07, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:11, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:11, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:11, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:12, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:12, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:12, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:13, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

____________________

In response to the nomination for deletion, modified the article (deleted content with no references and used a neutral point of view in the writing). Article should be of good quality to stay in Wikipedia. (OmarMoncada (talk) 17:34, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing he has done as a real estate/toruism promoter rises to the level of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:20, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 07:52, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hatari (emulator)[edit]

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

Unnotable emulator. A WP:BEFORE brings up only a handful of sources that mention the project, but no significant coverage that satisfies WP:GNG. All references presently used link to the source code of the project. Lordtobi (✉) 15:53, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Lordtobi (✉) 15:53, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment: I found this:
Lendino, Jamie (2019). Faster Than Light: The Atari ST and the 16-Bit Revolution. Steel Gear Press. p. 250–253, 278. ISBN 9781732355217.
But other than this, every other source seems to be a copy of Wikipedia. flowing dreams (talk page) 06:01, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Flowing dreams: Would it be possible for you to provide scans of the pages or a smmary of the content in question? Otherwise, it is difficult to tell whether it works towards GNG. Lordtobi (✉) 07:23, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*::@Lordtobi: Ever since I've cited this source, I've seen its contents on Google Books once. I'm afraid I can't provide you with scans right now. If Google Books didn't give you what you want, you can try Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange. I seem to remember this source consisted four pages dedicated to Hatari. flowing dreams (talk page) 09:43, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Flowing dreams, indeed I see one page on Google books...and it looks like another how-to guide. Of course some features mentioned along the way (e.g. that it runs on Windows and Mac), but the coverage is nowhere near "in-depth". Lordtobi (✉) 10:27, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*::::I don't know how to interpret that. I don't go labeling things as "how-to" and "not how-to". (If, however, I wanted to write an in-depth coverage of a piece of software, I imagine it would consist of a lot of description of how things get accomplished.) I look for impact to determine whether an article should be kept. Here, I cannot make up my mind. But if it was ever kept, that book is a good historic record of how things were, in the case the app changed significantly. flowing dreams (talk page) 10:54, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sources I found so far: two short paragraphs in an article about Atari emulation on Linux in micromart magazine (issue 1365, 4 June 2015, p. 68); somewhat more on heise.de in an article about emulation on Mac (Mac & i magazine, news, 03/2019 [16]); similar article on macwelt.de [17]. Pavlor (talk) 09:33, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Pavlor: Would it be possible for you to provide scans of the pages or a smmary of the content in question from the MicroMart issue? Otherwise, it is difficult to tell whether it works towards GNG. The two online articles are just how-to guides and contain no information about the software, really. Lordtobi (✉) 07:23, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Two small paragraphs certainly is not broad enough coverage to satisfy GNG, you may find the magazine on archive.org. My search for some real reviews was unsuccessful do far. Too bad, it is really nice emulator (at least the Amiga version I´m using for years). Pavlor (talk) 11:00, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~: We seem to have found our WP:SIGCOV, can be really hard as offline and and subscription content can be a time consuming pain to dig out and somewhat easy to skip. From a practical point of view I might like to run a Atati emulator do its the sort of stuff I might try to ask wikipedia about to point me on some search options.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:28, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Djm-leighpark: I don't think that we should work on the assumption of availability of [offline] sources that satisfy GNG/SIGCOV. Those online listed above are just how-to guides and don't add to SIGCOV, and I currently haven't found a way to acces either offline source to check on their quality. Lordtobi (✉) 07:23, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 06:59, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: (No consensus void) The relist by Natg 19 was prior to letting the discussion run for 168 hours / 7 days and the nom. has now made comments above the Please add new comments below this line which I am not responding to.07:37, 27 October 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djm-leighpark (talk • contribs)
I didn't actually add a new comment, rather replied to yours. New comments/votes should be added below the relisting notice for proper chronological ordering, but everyone (including you) is free to discuss prior statements. For ease of discussion, of course, you can also reply to my above reply down here. Lordtobi (✉)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:04, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Faster Than Light: The Atari ST and the 16-Bit Revolution is available as an ebook so Lordtobi can have immediate access. The relevant pages are 250–253, 255 and 278. Thincat (talk) 11:40, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:19, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Flowing dreams was blocked as a sock, so I've struck through their edits. Doug Weller talk 10:48, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep TechRadar gives it ample coverage. [18] Found that one quite easily. I put the two magazines mentioned into Google translator and read that, and I believe that is significant coverage enough to meet the general notability guidelines. [19] I also notice that Raspberry Pi Projects For Dummies is one of the notable For Dummies series of books, and briefly mentions it and what it is. Don't talk any about it though. It is notable enough to be mentioned all over the place, so is well known. A lot of books seem to mention it but many don't have a preview working on Google books so no idea how much is listed for it. I believe the total coverage found so far proves it is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Dream Focus 15:02, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV per the sources provided by others here and in the article.4meter4 (talk) 18:48, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:SIGCOV per WP:RS Lightburst (talk) 19:55, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There are some RS, albeit not in the quality I would like. Notability may be borderline, but there is no harm in keeping this. Pavlor (talk) 06:49, 4 November 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. Withdrawn by nominator (WP:SKCRIT#1). (non-admin closure) — Newslinger talk 04:23, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Instabase[edit]

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

Cannot see how this can pass WP:NCORP. Any citations in RSs are routine announcements (fails WP:CORPDEPTH). Lack of WP:SIGCOV. Edwardx (talk) 19:05, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator By a strange coincidence, significant coverage in reliable sources was published the very day after my nomination! Edwardx (talk) 11:09, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:10, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:10, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Meets WP:NCORP. Seems like it's one of the unicorn companies with high profile media coverage. The company does have independent in-depth coverage (please see below). WP:ASSERTN

Helloanant007 (talk) 18:49, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 06:58, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:05, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The references are just about sufficient for notability, and I am rather skeptical about that for company article these days. DGG ( talk ) 10:28, 29 October 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 Instabase. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:36, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anant Bhardwaj[edit]

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

Have already nominated Instabase (the company he founded) for deletion. Struggling to find independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources. References provided are either mentions-in-passing or rely almost exclusively on company produced material and/or quotations (fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND). Lack of WP:SIGCOV. Article was created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 19:07, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The Instabase article was nominated for deletion on 20 October 2019. It was later withdrawn by the nominator. The result of the discussion was Speedy keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:400:9250:B55C:704E:F367:12C2 (talk) 22:03, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:22, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:22, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just trivial mentions are not symptom of notability. All of the references are giving trivial mentions. For Wikipedia, we need in-depth research and mention in multiple independent source which lacks here. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 16:49, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:SIGCOV. He is the CEO of Instabase which is one of the unicorn companies with high profile media coverage. The company and he both do have independent in-depth coverage -- he has been interviewed on TV (Bloomberg TV, Cheddar Business), and many prominent news articles (Bloomberg, The Economic Times, The Wall Street Journal, CNBC, Cheddar, etc.) cover the company and him (please see below) WP:ASSERTN
- Bloomberg TV: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2019-10-21/the-business-model-behind-silicon-valley-s-newest-unicorn-video
- Bloomberg News: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-10-21/instabase-achieves-unicorn-status-and-finally-explains-what-it-does
- Cheddar TV: https://cheddar.com/media/instabase-hits-unicorn-status-on-million-raise/player
- San Francisco Business Times: https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/news/2019/10/21/s-f-startup-snags-105m-and-unicorn-status-on.html
- Economic Times: https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/small-biz/startups/newsbuzz/with-instabase-anant-bhardwaj-gives-us-a-brand-new-unicorn/articleshow/71698424.cms
- Wall Street Journal: https://www.wsj.com/articles/DJFVW00120150831eb8vati2m
- CNBC: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/14/andreessen-horowitz-leads-23-million-round-in-instabase.html

Helloanant007 (talk) 07:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 06:57, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Instabase. Notability is not inherited. No coverage from reliable sources independent of Instabase. — Newslinger talk 22:24, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Instabase, since most of the article is about the company . DGG ( talk ) 10:26, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage independent of Instabase. I think this article is about User:Helloanant007; their userpage's 2011 revision matches the education details in Anant Bhardwaj. Interesting how Instabase received significant coverage in the days following that article's deletion nomination. VoiceX is another article where this user seems to have a conflict of interest. Dee 03 19:47, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dee03. There isn't any significant coverage outside Instabase and there is most likely a COI issue as well. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:47, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Redirect to Instabase. Notability being inherited is not by itself grounds for deletion. It does not apply to situations where the fact of having a relationship to an entity inherently defines a public position that is notable in its own right, such as CEO of a company. Mungano (talk) 13:39, 30 October 2019 (UTC)— Mungano (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Our notability guideline for people does not carve out special exceptions for company executives. — Newslinger talk 20:58, 30 October 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 . Michig (talk) 08:52, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Hatt[edit]

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

This BLP is a stub that makes no claims to the subject's notability through prose or sourcing. It simply states where the subject received his education, that he works as a professor, and that he has published non-notable academic works. The article contains only two references, both of which are WP:PRIMARY sources. After carrying out searches on both Google and Google Scholar, I found zero WP:SECONDARY coverage that even mentions this subject; all hits are things like his own faculty pages and his own published works. Basically, fails WP:GNG. Armadillopteryx^talk 21:30, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:43, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:43, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Six new sources have now been added to the article. Of those, one does not mention the subject, and the other five [20][21][22][23][24] are all links to works authored or edited by the subject, despite the way some are attributed in the ref section. Those five sources would be fine to list in the Selected works section, but they cannot be used to establish notability because they are WP:PRIMARY. In order for the subject to pass WP:GNG/WP:NPROF, secondary sourcing is needed. I have done some more Googling but still cannot find any. Armadillopteryx^talk 06:50, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would be inclined to keep, based on the combination of WP:PROF & WP:AUTHOR. The books are published by university presses and reasonable widely held. I don't think that the encyclopedia would be improved by removing this article. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:40, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found one review of his co-authored art history text, and the article already had three reviews of an edited volume by him and two other editors. I could find no reviews of his Yale Collection book. I think for WP:AUTHOR we need multiple authored (not edited) books with multiple reviews each, so this is not enough. And his art history book is well cited, but that's also not enough by itself to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:41, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 06:50, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has been expanded since nomination and now includes many reviews of his work so that he easily meets the GNG guideline. In particular, the curated sculpture exhibition seems significant and was widely reviewed. Regarding reviews of the 2019 book, I think it is a little early as it was only recently published. They will surely appear soon. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:48, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looking at at the article's history, much has been expanded and referenced since nominated for deletion. Agree with remarks by User:K.e.coffman and User:Philafrenzy. Whispyhistory (talk) 05:31, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep (changed from above) since I didn't take into account the exhibit reviews. I agree that the 2019 book is too soon to expect reviews, so the lack of reviews yet is not a problem. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:21, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 09:06, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Bittner[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 07:00, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:05, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:06, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:06, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Has not yet played in the NHL nor has he played over 200 AHL games so therefore fails WP:NHOCKEY. Once he achieves either of these the article can be re-created. Tay87 (talk) 14:18, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If/When he gains notability it can be re-created. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:11, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I was expecting to !vote delete since he does not meet NHOCKEY and does not seem to be a particularly impressive prospect, but I found enough coverage to make me believe he passes GNG. He was profiled by both The Hockey News and nhl.com, and has other articles specifically about him, for example here and here. And while this from the Courier Post and other papers is certainly not significant coverage on its own, it does lend credence to the notion that he was a projected 1st round pick and thus there is likely other coverage from his junior years commensurate with a projected first rounder. Rlendog (talk) 16:26, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "thus there is likely" = WP:SOURCESMUSTEXIST. Go find and add them, then. Narky Blert (talk) 01:17, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My original statement already included links to multiple sources. Rlendog (talk) 15:14, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 06:48, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think that Rlendog demonstrated enough of GNG case to merit a keep.18abruce (talk) 01:19, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, per Rlendog's sources. Ejgreen77 (talk) 06:36, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 07:52, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Martha Asahi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails to show notability with reliable sources. Refer to the previous deletion discussion. Not much at all has changed since then. Please also salt if this goes through. Opencooper (talk) 06:43, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:09, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:09, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:09, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:10, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Support WP:SALT.4meter4 (talk) 18:46, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 09:05, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Malati Shendge[edit]

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

Not seeing a passage of WP:NACADEMIC. ∯WBG^converse 06:12, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 06:12, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 06:12, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:54, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:54, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- An output of 9 books over an academic career is probably enough to merit this. I suspect that citation indices will rate her only lowly, but that would be a result of the defects in the indices methodology and data collection. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:47, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wot? ∯WBG^converse 10:54, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This book review by Florian Coulmas significantly analyses her work. Her views are significantly analysed in this book which is by a noted author and from a noted publisher. Then there's this too. Also, per Peterkingiron, the issue of systemic bias against oriental scholars should be considered. SD0001 (talk) 22:19, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You have not read the third book; I have, FWIW.

Coulmas' review is quite poor:- ....It is perhaps the greatest defect of her book that she has little regard for earlier attempts at deciphering the Indus script....there is a body of knowledge about this writing system which deserves to be noted. That Shendge ignores Parpola’s book is a serious flaw.....Shendge’s (logographic) view is not new. Some other propositions of hers are, but they are rather implausible at that..... A particularly weak point of Shendge’s discussion is her inconsistent account of how the Indus script relates to the language of its designers and users.....I do not believe she has made her case, because what she is talking about is not decipherment. The trouble is that there is no proof.....In the end, we must ask whether Shendge carries our knowledge about this enigmatic script beyond what Parpola accomplished. The answer is that, while she brings to the field an admirable array of possible derivations of the Harappa seal signs, her claim that ‘the Indus script is decoded’ (p. 307) is not compelling.

What's your knowledge-set about the domain of Indology? Bias against oriental scholars, seriously?! ∯WBG^converse 11:06, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It does not matter whether the review is favourable or unfavourable. What matters is that the review is significant and detailed. Our guidelines require significant coverage, not necessarily significant positive coverage. SD0001 (talk) 13:43, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Which part of WP:NACADEMIC (which overrides GNG, explictly) does say that one/two review of one's work notability make? Also, reviews of a book in a journal are near-always detailed. ∯WBG^converse 05:06, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Since when does NACADEMIC override GNG? It clearly states Academics meeting none of these conditions may still be notable if they meet the conditions of WP:BIO or other notability criteria. The 3 sources mentioned above, plus this one cited in the article is enough put it par the GNG threshold.

Also, reviews of a book in a journal are near-always detailed. So we should stop using them for assessing notability? I don't think so. SD0001 (talk) 05:37, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
NACADEMIC was set up, so that every bits-and-pieces scholar, who made it to a couple of news-pieces were not in a contest of being standalone notable (see arguments by Tony et al).

The two reviews are significant coverage of her works, not her. My point was that reviews in journals are almost always detailed and almost-always ~half-a-page long, at least. Someone speaking of detailed reviews, for what is a fairly standard review, seem to be someone not much acquainted with them. ∯WBG^converse 06:16, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That discussion only shows consensus that subjects meeting NACADEMIC but not GNG should be kept. It does not show consensus that subjects meeting GNG but not NACADEMIC should be deleted.

I take your point the review may not be detailed in the context of a typical journal review, though FWIW it is 3 pages long, not half a page. Regardless, it is detailed as far as meeting the WP requirement for significant coverage is concerned. SD0001 (talk) 07:58, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For what it is worth, in the source above, Coulmas calls her a "renowned Indologist".--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 23:30, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Keep The lack of biographical sources per WP:BLP is a bigger issue to me than notability. It's easy to verify that she has substantial publications in the area of the Harappan/Indus Valley civ as well as critical editions and other publications, but the one source in the article that appears biographical (rather than about her work) is unavailable to me- the indiaclub.com link is broken, and that seems to be a booksellers site rather than a reliable source. --Spasemunki (talk) 23:59, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This YouTube video contains an introduction to a talk by Prof. Shendge from All India Radio- that speaks to the notability issue, but beyond confirming her status as a scholar of ancient Indian history and language doesn't address the other BLP issues. --Spasemunki (talk) 00:02, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For academics, the primary thing we write about in articles is about their work, not about their personal life. So "biographical sources" aren't really required. SD0001 (talk) 00:24, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I found an additional source that speaks to the WP:BLP issue and tagged the remaining statements appropriately. I've changed my !vote to keep. I think the sources that we have establish 1) basic verifiability, and 2) her notability as an Indologist. To Winged Blades of Godric's point, Coulmas disagreeing with her conclusions doesn't invalidate the fact that someone whose ideas she cited responded in depth to her conclusions in a notable journal/publication and called her contribution to Harrapan/Indus studies significant. There's also this review of one of her earlier works which calls it significant in several places. --Spasemunki (talk) 07:10, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

She used to work in BORI; sort of scratching each other's back .... ∯WBG^converse 07:25, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But to my other point, if her work was not notable, there would be no need for Coulmas to respond to it at all, and while he contests her conclusions he also asserts her contribution to the field- which was the original question regarding her notability. There are also two reviews in German on JSTOR I can't read- one by Wilhelm Rau and another by a Friedrich Wilhelm. Neither are lengthy, but do speak to her tenure in the field (first one is from 1969, second from 1979). I do think the relative publishing and marketing reach of Indian universities in the pre-Internet days is relevant to the systemic bias issue that others have noted in this discussion. --Spasemunki (talk) 08:05, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. We now have four reviews for three of her books listed in the article, near the minimum threshold for passing WP:AUTHOR for me but on the keep side of that threshold. It becomes clear from reading the reviews that she was a fringe theorist, and since she's used as a source in at least one other article (Harappan language) I think it's important to maintain this article and the identification of her as a fringe theorist so that when she is used as a source readers and editors can understand the nature of the source. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:37, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's quite agreeable. ∯WBG^converse 08:20, 30 October 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 Invalid Afd at this time.. I created this page in error. The nominated article has been tagged for speedy delete. I will await the outcome for that before proceeding to AfD. I hope this is an acceptable "Custom result" (non-admin closure) Steve Quinn (talk) 05:37, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mickey Robinson[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No indication of notability. Subject not covered in-depth in reliable sources. Sources seem to consist only of video testimony, discussion boards, and non-independent coverage. Fails ANYBIO, GNG, and BASIC. Previously AfD deleted for similar reasons. No real improvement in the sourcing. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:25, 27 October 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. Withdrawn by proposer. (non-admin closure) MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 15:48, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mulatto[edit]

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

WP:TNT. This is a mess. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 05:22, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:39, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:39, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:39, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:39, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Yes, it is a mess, but WP:DINC. This is a topic that merits an article, so fix it, don't delete it entirely. Agricolae (talk) 06:30, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agricolae, Am aware. Honestly somewhat hoping that the AfD would drum up some interest in repairing it. I personally do not have the knowledge to approach the subject. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 06:32, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's an important term that needs full coverage here. This article is indeed messy. Rjensen (talk) 07:56, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep obviously notable topic, and not so bad that it warrants WP:TNT. A lot of the confusing and overly detailed information in the lead was added in a single edit a few days ago. Just needs some cleanup. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 08:28, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is not worse than the majority of Wikipedia articles out there, not even close. So an user has been adding gigantic amounts of information to the lead recently, making it confusing to read. This has been dealt with by SpicyMilkBoy in a single edit; there was no need whatsoever for the tag-bombing or the deletion nomination on a ethnic group of millions. WP:SOFIXIT. RetiredDuke (talk) 12:40, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this is obviously a very important concept in the history of miscegenation in the New World and is adequately covered in reliable sources that are present in the article. AfD is not clean up. RetiredDuke (talk) 12:49, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 07:53, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Marie Byrnes[edit]

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

Ambassadors are not automatically notable - fails WP:NPOL, WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 02:50, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I beg to differ; I'm not sure how our criterion (WP:NPOL) regarding "[p]oliticians [...] who have held international, national, or sub-national [...] office" excludes ambassadors, who, by definition, hold positions of international regard. I can tell you that Who's Who, for instance, most certainly cares about civil servants, which include members of the diplomatic service. If I may, I would have also preferred a more personalized message informing me of this AfD. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 03:02, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated this for deletion through an automated process, so that message was automatically generated, apologies. In any case, how does she pass WP:GNG? At best, I see routine coverage. SportingFlyer T·C 08:58, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, the communication of the message was minor, at best; but thank you all the same. As for the substantive question, I seem to recall that WP:N allows for an inclusive either/or proposition vis-à-vis notability for the purposes of inclusion — either WP:GNG, or WP:NPOL, or both. (If this has changed, and memory is rather fallible: again, please let me know.) I gladly concede, of course, that information about Ambassador Byrnes is rather sparse, and that, yes, the article, as written, does need more and better sourcing; I don't think, though, that those flaws merit deletion. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 11:46, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I came across this at NPP, and while you are correct you need to satisfy either WP:GNG or WP:NPOL, I don't think either are satisfied in this case based on my own WP:BEFORE search, but I'm happy to see what consensus decides. SportingFlyer T·C 12:01, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair assessment, even if it's one with which I disagree. I await the consensus of the community as well. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 12:05, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:09, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:09, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:09, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:19, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as is customary for verifiable ambassadors. PamD 08:28, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NPOL is not relevant as she is not an elected politician, she is an ambassador (a position for a public servant). Wikipedia:Notability (people)/WP:GNG applies, informed by WP:DIPLOMAT (which is only an essay). The article does not demonstrate any particular notability for this individual. --Scott Davis ^Talk 11:32, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United States Ambassador to North Macedonia. Simply being an ambassador doesn't give one an automatic pass. There are AMBASSADORS and ambassadors. The ambassador to North Macedonia is one of the latter. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:34, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I beg to differ as well. Ambassadors are notable. Whether they are ambassadors to big or small countries is not relevant.--Darwinek (talk) 01:33, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How are they notable? We grant notability to things or people which will almost always have coverage - the coverage of this particular individual is rather sparse, and we've never granted ambassadors automatic notability before. SportingFlyer T·C 01:36, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While it is possible that an ambassador can pass WP:GNG, they are not inherently notable under WP:NPOL (also see WP:POLOUTCOMES). In this case, the current coverage of the subject includes a quick blurb in the Hill and a one line mention in Politico. The Kyiv Post article is more interesting, but that does not make this subject more notable than most ambassadors. --Enos733 (talk) 04:38, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have reviewed the claim of WP:HEY and still find myself in recommending delete. The Economist profile is not an independent source that we normally count for notability. Nor do I think the additional formatting and sourcing improve the notability claim. In general, our community has generally seen passing WP:GNG as requiring substantive, independent sourcing of the subject, not a tally of number of references. --Enos733 (talk) 05:00, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do better. It is actually not "customary" for us to keep inadequately sourced articles about ambassadors just because their existence is technically verifiable — there are certainly ambassadors in the world who have enough reliable source coverage to clear WP:GNG and/or held NPOL-passing political roles at other times in their careers, and we certainly do keep those, but we do not deem ambassadorship to be an "inherently" notable role that always guarantees every ambassador an article without regard to their sourceability: for ambassadors, it's always GNG or bust. But the sources here aren't getting her over GNG: there's a primary source that isn't support for notability at all, two very short blurbs about her that aren't substantive enough to count as notability clinchers if they're the best you can do, and one glancing namecheck of her existence in an article whose core subject is Mike Pompeo. That's not good enough. Bearcat (talk) 13:39, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - being the first ambassador from a world power to a new nation might be sufficient. I think past outcomes might not be helpful. Bearian (talk) 14:47, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian: It's not a new nation though, it split off from Yugoslavia in 1991. It was just recently renamed. And that doesn't change the lack of sourcing. SportingFlyer T·C 03:45, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ambassadors in the states aren't like Ambassadors in e.g. France or the UK or Germany they are trained professionals. In the states, they are choosen by the president when he is elected and is perhaps or maybe clueless, but they ambassadors and are treated as such abroad with all of pomp and circumstance of a ambassador. There are senior government officials and on top of that, I don't believe having two standards is the best approach, particularly when the majority of countries ambassadors are professional trained folk from the very best schools, who tend to make a mark. scope_creep^Talk 21:45, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I must point out 1) this is a global encyclopedia and any inherent notability assigned to a particular position would also apply to all individuals holding that position and 2) not all US ambassadors are political picks. Many US ambassadors are career diplomats, and in most presidencies the ratio was 70% career and 30% political appointees (See this article in Foreign Policy). --Enos733 (talk) 06:20, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note 1. Well that is debatable. It is my experience there is some situations were individuals or groups of individuals are supposed to be general equally notable across the board, but close examination finds they are not. In some situations an individual or groups of individuals may work or exist in environment that being a member makes then so strange and bizarre and sometimes ultra specialised that it automatically makes then notable, even if perhaps they exist in some kind of industry that is common across the world. And it reflects on the notability for particular types. The notability criteria are written in the general case and fairly basic and that they can do. If they tried to make it reflect the true reality of the world, there would be 10's of thousands of pages on notability criteria, hence the reason they are only guidelines. That doesn't apply to this Afd. Note 2: I know that. I was thinking about another article when I wrote it, but as a career diplomat, she is notable. scope_creep^Talk 10:29, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is a question of whether the person has media coverage about her or not, not a question of whether she is or isn't a professional diplomat. The US isn't even particularly unique in this regard; lots of countries, my own included, also tend to choose powerful political figures for the most critically important and sensitive diplomatic roles, while leaving the less essential ones to the conventional diplomats. In fact, the article plainly says that Byrnes was and is a career foreign service officer, and does not imply that she has a political background or that she was picked for more political reasons than usual — and even if somebody was picked for political reasons rather than as a career diplomat, they still have to show media coverage about them to get over WP:GNG before they're accepted as notable. Bearcat (talk) 13:55, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep being an ambassador is not an automatic pass of WP:NPOL however the subject passes WP:SIGCOV so it is a keep Lightburst (talk) 20:20, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you could please explain why you think she passes WP:SIGCOV, that would be very helpful. SportingFlyer T·C 01:47, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Where is there any WP:SIGCOV of her at all? Could you kindly identify and show us the three best and most substantive sources about her for the purposes of establishing that she would pass GNG? Bearcat (talk) 16:51, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:SIGCOV is not always in the article, however a nominator does a WP:BEFORE to see if the subject is notable. In this case the subject is notable. WP:NEXIST. WP:N asks for WP:RS which can be one or more than one. The N section mentions (multiple) which is more than one. Not three. Note: People who favor deletion call for three sources when only two are needed and in some cases one. Read the requirements of WP:N There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected Merriam Webster defines Multiple as more than one. consisting of, including, or involving more than one In any event there are multiple sources, with biographies and interviews and international coverage of the subject. Some is trivial and some is in depth, but all go toward establishing notability. The subject is a career diplomat and as such her former post was Deputy chief of mission of the US Embassy in Athens. Sources exist for that post as well.

The National Herald
Ekathimerini
Oculus News mini-Bio
Testimony to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations
The Economist has a long BIO
Hazlis Economist Bio
mia.mk Morte bio
Министерство За Надворешни Работи
Gazetaexpress
UA Wire
Tirana Post
Washington Examiner
Quoted in Newsweek Lightburst (talk) 17:43, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(1) National Herald: Q&A interview in which she's the speaker, about something other than herself, thus not a source about her for the purposes of establishing her notability.

(2) Ekathimerini: Short blurb, not substantive for the purposes of establishing her notability.

(3) Oculus News: WordPress blog, not a reliable source for the purposes of establishing her notability.

(4) Testimony to the Senate Committee: this is a transcript of a speech by her, not a piece of media coverage about her, and thus is not relevant to establishing her notability.

(5) and (6) The Economist: People are not notable just because they have biographical "speakers bureau" profiles on the self-published websites of conferences they've attended; that makes the reference a directly affiliated primary source, not a notability-supporting independent source.

(7) MIA: not a source about her, just a video clip of her speaking about something other than herself.

(8) MFA: Government press release, not a reliable or independent source.

(9) Gazeta Express: Very short blurb about her initial arrival at a new diplomatic posting, not substantive enough to be a magic GNG pass all by itself if it's the best you can do.

(10) UA Wire: WordPress blog, not a reliable source.

(11) Tirana Post: Very short blurb about her initial arrival at a new diplomatic posting, not substantive enough to be a magic GNG pass all by itself if it's the best you can do.

(12) Washington Examiner: Unreliable source, glancingly mentioning her existence as a giver of soundbite in an article whose core subject is something other than her.

(13) Newsweek: Just like #12, "quoted in news story about somebody else" is not a notability-maker. She has to be the subject of a source, not just a giver of soundbite in an article about a different subject, before it counts toward demonstrating her notability.

In other words, you've provided 11 sources that are doing absolutely nothing at all in terms of notability, and two that are a start down the right path but aren't substantive enough to get her to the finish line all by themselves if they're the best of the bunch. That's not what we're looking for. Bearcat (talk) 22:17, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that detailed review of sources - of course I disagree with your dismissals. We can also apply WP:ANYBIO to this person per the awards denoted in the Economist source:

Superior Honor Award
Two Meritorious Honor Awards
Expeditionary Service Award from the U.S. Department of State
Meritorious Civilian Service Awards from the U.S. Department of the Army.

If I feel ambitious I will update the article. Looks like an easy keep. Lightburst (talk) 22:38, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Bearcat there - I don't see any sources that grant notability, and WP:ANYBIO doesn't matter if WP:GNG isn't met. SportingFlyer T·C 00:44, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As the nominator of the article, your position does not have to be reiterated. So far the majority of the editors who assessed the article disagree with your opinion. And that was before I fixed up the article a bit. I will also add more to the article when I motivate myself. It is work. You misunderstand the WP:N requirements. It is either subject specific, or GNG or ANYBIO. Your belief that WP:ANYBIO doesn't matter if WP:GNG isn't met is incorrect as well (please read WP:ANYBIO). It is getting WP:BLUDGEONy in here so I will leave the AfD and just focus on the article Lightburst (talk) 01:05, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ANYBIO is not automatically applied to just any award that exists, either. It applies to awards that generate media coverage, such as an Oscar or a Pulitzer or a Giller, and not to awards that do not. ANYBIO still requires GNG-worthy news stories about the presentation of the award. If all a person had to do to get a Wikipedia article was say they had won an award, and they didn't have to show a news story about it, then we would automatically have to keep an article about everybody who ever won a high school poetry contest or employee of the month at Arby's — so it's the existence or non-existence of news stories about the presentation of the award that tells us whether the award is a notability-making one or not. And it doesn't matter whether you agree with my assessment of your sources or not, because my assessment of the sources was completely correct. Bearcat (talk) 01:39, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the subject passes WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Article, sources, citations have been significantly improved. Per WP:HEY, this is not the article it was when nominated for deletion. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:57, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets the criteria at WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 18:45, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I will base my Keep position primarily on WP:GNG. Even if there aren't a lot of sources that cover her in great detail, the large number of sources that deal partially with her do add up. For a prominent ambassador like this, I would assume general notability unless there really were a dearth of any coverage in reliable sources, which isn't the case here.Naomi.piquette (talk) 23:03, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ambassadors are not automatically notable but this one has received significant coverage in Ukranian sources and passes WP:NPOL. Devopam (talk) 16:26, 4 November 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. RL0919 (talk) 06:12, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Saint John's Johnnies football team[edit]

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

Came across this at NPP and am not sure it's significant enough for a standalone article per WP:NSEASONS, so decided to bring it to AfD (to be clear, my current position is delete.) It's a - I think it's a fourth tier amateur university season, and everything I can find in a WP:BEFORE search is local. SportingFlyer T·C 02:48, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 02:48, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 02:48, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Saint John's is a small college (total undergraduate enrollment of 1,782 students) that competes at the fourth or fifth tier of college football: Power Five conferences > the rest of Div I FBS > Div I FCS > Div II > Div III. I support the notability of season articles for Division I (FBS and FCS) programs, but have reservations about the notability of season articles for very small programs like this, except in rare cases like a Division III championship team. For this reason, I lean to "delete". That said, I am open to being persuaded and therefore posted a note about this AfD at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 Saint John's Johnnies football team. Cbl62 (talk) 04:03, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:28, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Saint John's Johnnies football. Not notable as others have said but WP:NSEASONS suggests a redirect is appropriate. Smartyllama (talk) 17:09, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: According to our article, the team has won two Division III championships (although not in 2018), and its long-time coach John Gagliardi (now deceased) has an article. Whether season articles should stand alone (cf. 2007 Mount Union Purple Raiders football team) or be part of a larger article seems to be an open question. I don't know if a general article on the a lends itself to a season-by-season tabulation of game data (of if the data are easily accessed elsewhere), but in any event this article does no harm. Kablammo (talk) 00:03, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Mount Union Purple Raiders football team won the Division III national championship. A Division III national championship team would likely merit a stand-alone article. Likewise, the two seasons (1976 and 2003) you reference in which Saint John's won national championships. 2018 was not a national championship season for Saint John's. Cbl62 (talk) 00:43, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I said that St. John's did not win in 2018. As for the 2007 champion, please reread the Mount Union article, and look at 2007 NCAA Division III football season. Kablammo (talk) 02:20, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. 2007 Mount Union lost in the championship game. 2018 Saint John's, on the other hand, didn't even make it to the championship game. In any event, the larger point is that we need to decide whether the 450 Division III programs, many smaller than the typical urban high school, should have stand-alone articles for each of 100+ individual seasons -- opening the floodgates to perhaps 45,000 articles (450 schools x 100 seasons = 45,000 season articles). My inclination remains "no", that Division III programs only warrant an article in extraordinary cases like a national championship. Cbl62 (talk) 03:00, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete or merge~~ I like the enthusiasm of the creator. Typically articles like these for Div III programs are merged to a season article for the conference with that season or cut completely. It just makes a little more sense based on the coverage that tends to occur at that level. We do have a few season and even game articles for some play at DivIII and similar, and perhaps this team could be an exception. Would listen to more and would like to see more coverage if possible.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:56, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to Keep new sourcing makes it stub-worthy, I have no problem.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:57, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Cbl62: how does the notability of this 2018 Saint John's team compare to that of say, 1941 Detroit Tech Dynamics football team? Jweiss11 (talk) 04:00, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jweiss11: I'm not sure the point you are trying to make, and I remain open to reconsidering if more coverage is presented, but to answer your question, here are some distinctions: (i) the 1941 Detroit Tech was not a fourth-tier program (there were no division at that time); (ii) the 1941 Detroit Tech team played games against opponents (e.g., Dayton and Toledo) that now complete in Division I as well as an elite Canadian program (Western Ontario) -- in contrast Saint John's only played other Div III opponents; (iii) the Detroit Tech team received significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources (many cited in the article) such that its passage of WP:GNG is clear -- in contrast, the coverage cited in the Saint John's article is quite thin even though the season was played in the internet era; and (iv) the 1941 Detroit Tech team was coached by Julius Goldman, an important figure in the history of college athletics (and a bio article that warrants significant expansion). Do you really think we should have season articles on non-championship Div III teams? When we have not yet even come close to completing season articles for Division I programs? Cbl62 (talk) 11:45, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Saint John's football program appears to get regular coverage in the Star Tribune and coverage in other reliable sources. Sourcing for this article could easily be made as solid the 1941 Detroit Tech article. How about 1992 Carleton Knights football team, another article you created? Achievements for the 1992 Carleton team are on par with 2018 Saint John's. What makes 1992 Carleton more worthy of an article than the 2018 Saint John's? You also created 1941 DePauw Tigers football team. Do the DePauw Tigers seasons stop being worthy of stand-alone articles once college football gets split into tiers, in 1956 or furthermore in 1973? My point here is to move us toward some consistent general standards. Jweiss11 (talk) 15:47, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I support a move toward more consistent general standards for which CFB seasons warrant stand-alone articles and believe that a higher standard should be applied to Division III season articles (including 1992 Carleton). What do you suggest? For example, do you support season articles for Division III non-championship seasons? What about NAIA? Cbl62 (talk) 17:02, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, other recent Division III season article AfDs: 2017 Wisconsin-Whitewater (closed as merge); 2008 Buffalo (closed as delete); 2008 St. Norbert (closed as delete); 2012 Chicago (closed as delete). Cbl62 (talk) 00:26, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The major issue for season articles in their entirety, and regardless of sport - many of them just regurgitate statistical information from one or two sources. Many season articles are exceptionally low quality. This article includes three sources, including two game recaps and a primary source. I'd propose that we use an WP:AUD argument and require national coverage of any DIII season in order to show notability - this likely would reduce it to championship-winning seasons and seasons that are otherwise notable for some extraordinary reason, and would probably have to be considered at a policy page, but that's my thoughts at the moment. SportingFlyer T·C 01:47, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cbl62, yes, can we have discussion about those consistent general standards at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football? In the meantime, can we stop cherry-picking the AfDs? Because a bunch of one-off AFDs is a surefire way to get inconsistent results. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:00, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I encourage the discussion. Would help if you gave some idea of what you propose for Division II, III and NAIA seasons. As for the two add'l AfDs (Olivet and UChicago), I'm not sure what you mean by "cherry picking" -- these are appear to be clear deletes, and opening the AfDs helps bring focus to the discussion. Cbl62 (talk) 02:27, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Before making any more AfDs of this sort, it you would help if you could propose some sort of systemic criteria for sub-DI team seasons, including how we deal them we pass the NCAA tiering in 1956 and 1973. None of the articles you have proposed for deletion strike me as any more of a "clear delete" than 1941 DePauw Tigers football team, an article you created several weeks ago. 2018 Saint John's Johnnies football team, a conference champ that went to the D3 playoffs, seems more notable than 1941 DePauw, a 6–2 team with no titles that played Butler and Louisville, DI teams now, but not exactly top flight programs at the time. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:46, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've given my view - D3 seasons limited to championships or something extraordinary. (1941 had no D3.) What is your view? You keep avoiding the question which I've posed to you several times. Cbl62 (talk) 03:13, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the Depauw article, while a bit light on prose for my taste, is properly cited throughout with a number of different newspapers featuring. SportingFlyer T·C 03:25, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cbl62, I honestly don't know for sure. I'd default to including it all by default, as that's what is suggested by the sub-DI navbox development at Category:American college football team navigational boxes. But am open to endorsing some coherent and consistent limitation, which I have not yet heard. So every DePauw season from 1884 to 1972 is notable, and then in 1973 DePauw season becomes non-notable, because now they are Division 3? Jweiss11 (talk) 04:45, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand my position which can be summed up in four parts: 1) Season articles for the era before divisions were formed should remain governed by WP:GNG. I have never said that all such seasons are notable: some seasons will pass, others will not. 2) But the development of multiple divisions provides a clear framework for assessing notability from that point forward, and when you get to the third and fourth tiers, there is an established framework that we can and should work with. 3) There are 450 D3 schools, 251 NAIA schools, and 314 D2 schools, opening the door to articles on all such seasons (roughly 50,000) would be a gi-normous mistake, and 4) there is a good reason to limit the third and fourth tiers to exceptional cases (I suggested national championship seasons, but others might advocate for dropping the bar a bit to include teams making the playoffs or teams winning a conference championship). Cbl62 (talk) 05:23, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SportingFlyer, lack of sourcing in an article is not on its face a reason to delete. It's a reason to attempt to find sourcing. I just easily found three sources from three different newspapers in three different states about the 2018 Saint John's Johnnies football team and added them to the article. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:05, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A quick search turned up a number of sources in a number of different notable, reliable newspapers in different states. Those have been added to the article. Subject is as easily as notable as similar subjects of articles created by Cbl62 such as 1992 Carleton Knights football team, 1941 DePauw Tigers football team, 1941 Rose Poly Engineers football team, and 1941 Detroit Tech Dynamics football team. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:10, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Since Jweiss11 has put in the time and effort to find proper sources and add them to the article, it can now be shown to meet WP:GNG. I agree that mass creating season articles at this low a level without taking the time to properly source the articles beforehand is not ideal. Ejgreen77 (talk) 21:00, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a case of WP:NEXIST and Jweiss11 has found WP:RS. passes GNG Lightburst (talk) 20:17, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 07:53, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kellen Gordon[edit]

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

Clearly fails WP:NRU, WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 00:46, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 00:46, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 00:46, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:14, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Kellen Gordon has played 26 games for a professional team in a high performance professional league, including playing in the championship match of both the inaugural and second seasons. As per Wikipedia’s standards for rugby union players this qualifies him as notable.

Therefore there is no justification for deleting the page on those grounds as the statement that the article “clearly fails” those standards is quite clearly incorrect. In terms of primary sources there are several references on the page. Multiple others can be found by even a cursory internet search of ‘kellen gordon rugby’.

Major League Rugby is in its infancy but is already in the top 7 professional rugby union leagues in terms of attendance and is garnering increasing media attention as more high profile players from established rugby nationals have signed to join the league for its 3rd season. Players in this league whilst far from household names are therefore notable in the same way players from the first few seasons of Major League Soccer are, likely more so as Rugby Union’s professional game is that much smaller so MLR players make up a larger proportion of the professional rugby player pool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rpsmith1988 (talk • contribs)

Keep - WP:NRU seems to be satisfied by his play for the Seattle Seawolves, who compete in Major League Rugby, which is on the list of approved fully professional teams over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby union/Notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:34, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Onel5969: I don't know if that league was properly vetted in the same way the list of fully professional leagues are over at the football project - it looks like it was just added one day in 2018, and searching the WikiProject for "Major League Rugby" brings up no hits. Those notability guidelines assume that any player playing in a professional league will receive press coverage, but there's barely any press coverage of this league - a WP:GNG search for Kellen Gordon brought up no significant coverage from any reliable publications, and the Seawolves as a whole have only received a smattering of coverage from papers such as the Seattle Times, so I don't think players in this league are automatically notable. SportingFlyer T·C 11:57, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concerns SportingFlyer. Regarding the dearth of coverage, it's a rugby league in the U.S., frankly I'm surprised there's any coverage. And I noticed that it was a change by a single user, with apparently zero conversation on the project's talk page (I checked back in the archives for the time period the change was made). In addition, that particular essay doesn't have a lot of page watchers, so the fact that it has gone unchallenged for over a year isn't something that would set it in stone for me either. Having said, every team in the league as a local TV deal, and the league itself apparently inked a deal with CBS for national coverage. So I understand your nom, but am being a bit of an inclusionist here. Think I'll post a notice on the talk page to see if we can't get some response from folks with a deeper knowledge of RU than I.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:12, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if as a result of this AfD the league is not deemed to satisfy RU SNG, then I think this player should be redirected to the team, rather than a straight delete. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:26, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the decision is made to redirect or delete, I would look at other articles created by the original editor as they are creating many new articles about players and the style is exactly the same. However, each player should be judged individually based on their career. MensanDeltiologist (talk) 19:36, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of independent substantive sources about this person. Even IF a league paying its players means its employees have a presumption of being public-facing, actual coverage is still required. Reywas92^Talk 20:23, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "little coverage" ≠ "no coverage". There are some reliable sources mentioning him; some in the article, and others elsewhere. ElAhrairah ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 18:17, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The sources in the article are all primary or self-published or from a marketing campaign, the two provided there one is promotional from the alumni page of his college and the other is the league website, unfortunately none of those sources appear to pass WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 22:19, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NEXIST. We have enough coverage of the subject to satisfy GNG. Lightburst (talk) 20:08, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the person meets the requirements for WP:NRU. played 26 games for a professional team seems a WP:BEFORE should have found this information. Wm335td (talk) 20:07, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wm335td: I did an extensive WP:BEFORE. Meeting a sports SNG does not guarantee notability if WP:GNG isn't met, he fails by a mile and a kilometer, and in any case, see my response to Onel5969 about how that league was added to the WP:NRU list anyways without being vetted. SportingFlyer T·C 00:29, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:NRU.4meter4 (talk) 18:44, 3 November 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. Most of the arguments here are pretty undetailed in terms of explaining whether WP:PRODUCT is met. On the few detailed arguments about the sourcing, it seems like there is reasoned disagreement about whether it satisfies WP:SIGCOV standards. Overall, this is perhaps closer to a delete but not really close enough to say anything beyond "no consensus" Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:28, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BaoFeng UV-5R[edit]

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

Fails WP:PRODUCT. non-notable generic radio transceiver. scope_creep^Talk 19:46, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. scope_creep^Talk 19:46, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ḱeep as it does not fail WP:Product per "Note that a specific product or service may be notable on its own, without the company providing it being notable in its own right.". It is a notable transceiver radio that is sold widely and is mentioned in multiple articles of community projects on for example Hackaday. This particular model has thousands of reviews just on Amazon for a single listing, it has been sold through different channels (especially Chinese web shops). This model is also the base of a lot of other transceivers under different brands. Also, it is notable on the Slovak WP where it has been published for few years. I have added more links to the article since it has been nominated, so please review it again. Initramfs (talk) 15:56, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see how this article fails WP:PRODUCT. - ZLEA _T\^C 20:13, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this is a notable product due to the widespread attention and FCC controversy that it has attracted. I announced this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Amateur radio --mikeu ^talk 20:23, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the evidence. Just saying it is notable doesn't cut it. scope_creep^Talk 20:33, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone can find some WP:RS that provide some WP:SIGCOV, many links are from youtube, reddit and blogs, not really independent reliable sources. The other seems to be WP:PRIMARY that gives this WP:PRODUCT as an example only, in passing. - ChrisWar666 (talk) 19:54, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The ARRL, FCC and Hackaday sources are independent RS and there seems enough depth for WP:GNG and a modest article. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 21:34, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Mark viking:, I'm sort of new here, but the FCC (Primary) only mention the company (nothing about UV-5R), the hackaday is a blog. I can understand the ARRL, but the rest? (feel free to reply to my talk page if you prefer, I appreciate any help/explanation) - ChrisWar666 (talk) 23:46, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. The FCC is primary, but authoritative for their own sanction, and the sanction is about selling the UV-5R. I consider Hackaday a reliable source for maker/hacking topics--there is some editorial oversight, and their content is usually solid. Cheap and controversial, the UV-5R has had more impact than most transceivers. Reasonable people can disagree, but given my knowledge of the amateur radio field, this is my recommendation --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 00:44, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Are we really heading towards keeping a product because of a couple short "hacks" blog posts and primary sources like the FCC (not even secondary coverage of an action the FCC took, but an announcement that it's doing something)? No, these sources do not satisfy WP:PRODUCT. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:49, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 00:17, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Sources fail WP:GNG guidelines. Let's take a look.

#1 is first-party. FAIL.
#2, #4, #5, #7, and #11 are blogs. FAIL.
#3 is significant, reliable, and independent. PASS.
#6 I'm unsure of its reliability. PENDING PASS (until someone gets me more info on it).
#8 It appears that the FCC is not entirely related, for which I will give it independent status. PASS.
#9 and #10 are a wiki. FAIL.

We got two passes and one pending pass, so I'll leave my vote as !keep. From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 02:49, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Poorly sourced information on a product that isn't notable. EvilxFish (talk) 16:31, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Just barely passes WP:GNG per analysis by AnUnnamedUser.4meter4 (talk) 18:43, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ḱeep passes WP:Product a specific product or service may be notable on its own, without the company providing it being notable in its own right Lightburst (talk) 19:58, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Just to reiterate, this isn't even a close call for WP:PRODUCT -- it seems the answer to my question above is yes, we are going to keep an article about a product based solely on "hacks" blog posts, a local news blip, and primary sources like the FCC... yikes. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:03, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete #3 is not significant, and the FCC is not "coverage". It may have been recommended for an emergency but the content and sources here do not establish notability. Reywas92^Talk 21:11, 3 November 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) 02:10, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Chubb[edit]

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

Was deleted as the result of a prod back in 2018. Nothing but routine sports coverage. Fails WP:GRIDIRON. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:13, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Despite no longer being on an active roster, this individual is notable due to his relation to several other NFL starting players (brother of Bradley Chubb and cousin of Nick Chubb). He also was a member of a roster as of less than three months ago and was a notable player in college. 01:44, 27 October 2019 (UTC)camlovesnfl

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 01:17, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I might give a pass from having his own stat page on already mentioned sites like CBS Sports and ESPN. Delete: fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:ROUTINE. From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 02:54, 27 October 2019 (UTC) Edit: From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 22:48, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:11, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:11, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All of the sources look like routine wire coverage except for this which fails WP:NOTINHERITED (as does one of the comments above.) He fails WP:NGRIDIRON and as it stands will be forgotten in 10 years - not encyclopaedic. SportingFlyer T·C 04:55, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Every undrafted free agent gets a stat page on sites like ESPN and NFL.com immediately after signing and notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Maybe merge what is relevant to his brother's article? Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:40, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete transactional actions and basic statistics are normally not considered enough for an article and there is only one source in the article that isn't either basic transactions, stat listings, or team pages that are not useful for establishing notability. Based on the article as it stands, I don't see a pass of WP:GNG. A quick news search shows a USA Today article about him taking a helicopter to see his brother, but that reads more like an "and finally..." type article that typically is not used for establishing notability. That's where my thinking takes me.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:40, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator and Paulmcdonald. Non-notable football player with only transactional coverage. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:05, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete bouncing between practice teams does not make one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:41, 2 November 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.