Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 August 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 23 August 25 August >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:47, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kingory[edit]

Kingory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced article about an online game, tagged for notability since 2010. I can’t find any sources that would support notability. Mccapra (talk) 22:57, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:57, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:57, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • [1], [2], [3] each look likely to be reliable. The last one is more than just a review. There appear to be plenty of other RS reviews out there. So keep for now, but I'll be happy to defer to a video game expert who can explain why those don't count toward WP:N (I don't know much about that area). Hobit (talk) 01:05, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thanks Hobit. Like you I’m not sure what would generally be accepted as RS in this domain. My assumption was that more or less every game released would get an initial review on gaming sites, but in looking for something more solid perhaps I was setting the threshold too high. Mccapra (talk) 04:31, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The only one of those sources that's reliable for notability purposes is the Engadget review. Gameranks.com isn't mentioned at WP:VG/RS, and that page is hardly a review - it's more of a game guide, and those aren't really indicative of notability considering anyone can and will write one. Gamasutra is reliable, but that article is an interview; interviews don't contribute to notability because they aren't secondary sources. It's not enough to maintain an article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:32, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those three were literally the first 3 hits I got on Google that looked even vaguely useful. There are tons more. Did you WP:BEFORE here or just look at the three I, a random passerby, found in 20 seconds? In any case, a game guide certainly does help with WP:N. While we aren't a game guide, a detailed overview of a game, much like a detailed overview of anything else, certainly is helpful when writing an article. Hobit (talk) 13:36, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Hobit: As you say there are other links that come up in a google source. From memory they were mostly discussion forums and dumps of a user guide. However there was nothing that looked to me like sustained coverage in reliable independent sources. Thanks Mccapra (talk) 16:03, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (and possibly Draftify if anyone is willing to work on developing the page). In its current state the article is essentially 100% WP:OR. From what Hobit writes above I do think there is a decent chance that a more thorough search could uncover better references and that the subject could pass WP:GNG. But such references are not in evidence at the moment, and the current WP:OR version of the article looks unsalvageable to me. Nsk92 (talk) 20:53, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 00:13, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Hendershott[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Anne Hendershott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable academic. PepperBeast (talk) 22:48, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:56, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:56, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Multiple published book reviews (several already in the article at the time of nomination) give her a pass of WP:AUTHOR. The nomination statement is vacuous and provides no evidence that the nominator has attempted to check the notability of the subject. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:26, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability clearly demonstrated by a search on Google scholar. Mccapra (talk) 23:41, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. A GS h-index of 10 is very low for the highly cited field of pop-psychology. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:13, 25 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]
    • I'm not at all convinced that's relevant. She comes across to me as more notable as a right-wing religious polemicist than as a pop-psych scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:56, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • The reviews in the less politically-aligned publications would tend to support that conclusion [4][5]. XOR'easter (talk) 06:36, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 00:51, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: multiply-reviewed author. PamD 09:37, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as has reliable sources coverage already referenced in the article and worldcat shows 3200 library holdings which indicates there should be more coverage such as reviews offline if not online imv Atlantic306 (talk) 16:11, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 00:13, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lumina Media[edit]

AfDs for this article:


Lumina Media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was previously kept on the assertion that it is the largest publisher of pet magazines in the US. I can't verify that. I can't verify any of the content of this article from the company's own website. I can find a few press releases about individual magazines transferred from them to other companies, but actual WP:CORPDEPTH is eluding me thus far. The company now seems to focus on digital media, in as much as its minimal website content tells you anything. Guy (Help!) 22:15, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:21, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:21, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lumina Media names:
    1. Fancy Publications
    2. BowTie Inc.: "BowTie was founded in 1974 by Norman Ridker. Formerly called Fancy Publications, the company later changed the name to reflect the trademark neckwear favored by its owner." (source)
    3. I-5 Publishing: "BowTie Inc., the publisher of Dog Fancy, Cat Fancy and other specialty magazines and books, has sold all of its titles to a pair of investors who plan to expand the business and broaden its online offerings. BowTie, which has been struggling with broad declines in readership and advertising, agreed Friday to sell its assets to I-5 Publishing LLC, a new joint venture formed by David Fry and Mark Harris." (source)
    4. Lumnia Media: "I-5 Publishing Rebrands as Lumina Media". (source)
    Cunard (talk) 11:05, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cunard. Publisher of Cat Fancy and Dog Fancy among other publications. We have a duty to the Internets to make sure our information on publications and publishers is as up to date and high quality as possible since we get "Info" links directly to WP from articles posted to Facebook and other sources. Even if this did not meet GNG, which this company does, we should exercise an IAR Keep on that basis, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 16:23, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Checking one of the above sources, I learned that it is claimed that 15% of all internet traffic is cat-related. I'm tempted to make an off-color joke about the other 85%, but I'll let sleeping dogs lie... Carrite (talk) 16:26, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the excellent sources uncovered by Cunard and the AfD discussion about predecessor company Bow Tie. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:46, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Since Wikipedia RS policies keep editors searching for sources for citations, and the names of the various Lumina publications and their acquired companies keep coming back up, this article should be kept and upgraded. Books by BowTie Inc are mentioned in 25 Wikipedia articles, including animal magazines, motorcycle news, birds, reptiles, and agriculture. Cat Fancy magazine is mentioned in 109 Wikipedia articles. There's more, but I'll stop with just that. Normal Op (talk) 15:55, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update: I updated the article with (all but one of) Cunard's proferred citations and did a bunch of extra work, too. I explained what I did on the Talk page. Normal Op (talk) 08:19, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Cunard gave us an avalanche of reliable sources. It's literally an embarrassment of riches. There is no doubt whatsoever it meets GNG. Cunard went all out to give us reliable sources and we should reward and respect his efforts. Knox490 (talk) 02:48, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: A discussion about the publisher Kennel Club Books (a Lumina acquisition) just took place on the Reliable Source noticeboard. Current link: [6] Archived link (in case it has moved off the board): [7]. Pinging participants not already here: Atsme, Someguy1221. Normal Op (talk) 15:55, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - not sure this is the correct venue, but it appears Kennel Club Books will be merged into this article, and I ask that this suggestion be taken into consideration. Thank you. Atsme Talk 📧 17:59, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notice was made to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dogs Atsme Talk 📧 14:27, 27 August 2019 (UTC) [reply]
  • Keep. The nominator Guy was evidently conceding this was once the biggest pet mag publisher before going digital, so he should have conceded notability which is WP:NOTTEMPORARY. As to WP:CORPDEPTH lemme add:
  1. Riesman, Abraham (2015-02-19). "The Magazine Trying to Bring the Web's Cat Obsession Offline". Bloomberg Businessweek. Retrieved 2019-08-28.
: --Kiyoweap (talk) 12:27, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 01:40, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Winnipeg Table Hockey League[edit]

Winnipeg Table Hockey League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An article about a fairly ordinary local club (stated in one of the references to have 17 members) without any evidence of satisfying the notability guidelines. Most of the references are either pages on the club's own web site or else pages that don't even mention the club, and the rest don't give it substantial overage, or are very minor local coverage. The article is also distinctly promotional in parts, and would need significant pruning if it were kept. The article was tagged for notability and lack of sources a year ago, and it is no better now. (The article was given a deletion proposal (PROD) in August 2018, but that was contested by the article's creator.) JamesBWatson (talk) 20:25, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:25, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:45, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:45, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Organization fails WP:GNG due to lack of reliable independent coverage on the subject. Flibirigit (talk) 13:24, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just notified the creator of this discussion czar 21:22, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 21:53, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I would almost put it under WP:PROMOTION as almost all of the article is based off references for the same website. Other than that it probably fails WP:GNG. HawkAussie (talk) 23:04, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Winnipeg Table Hockey League page should not be deleted as it has been verified from many sources and citations from reliable sources including television, newspapers, radio and magazines as recently as 2019. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.171.206.250 (talk) 17:24, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:18, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Downtown Jeddah[edit]

Downtown Jeddah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There's not enough sources to have this published at the moment. It fails WP:GNG and WP:RS. With time it may warrant a page but not at the moment hence WP:TOOSOON.

Note that i already moved this previously to draft but author recreated again in mainspace anyway. Lapablo (talk) 21:53, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Lapablo (talk) 21:53, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree, WP:TOOSOON Let the project get underway and then recreate the article.TH1980 (talk) 03:02, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete after looking up WP:GNG, and as the creator of this wikipedia topic, I think this article should be deleted and recreated when Downtown Jeddah project gets started as suggested.--Nerdysturdy (talk) 18:21, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Saudi Gazette acknowledges that this is a $5 bn project. [8] Other reliable sources exist that attest that this project occurring, including Arab News and Asharq Al-Awsat. [9] [10] desmay (talk) 20:24, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Definitely a case of WP:TOOSOON as construction doesn't even appear to have been started yet. Also the article claims that the project was announced in September 2019, a month that hasn't even arrived yet. Eliko007 (talk) 21:13, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Reliable sources attest that this massive project is going to go ahead and there are already worthwhile facts to write about. Deleting only to recreate when the first shovel goes into the ground is, candidly, bureaucratic and would deprive the reader of information meanwhile. 2A02:C7F:4481:8300:90DC:E235:5074:54B0 (talk) 18:20, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I also think that this case falls under WP:TOOSOON. Let's wait until the project actually gets started. Various kinds of announcements of big projects often fail to materialize, get postponed, etc. If someone wants to take the page and keep it as a draft in their userspace for the time being, that'd be fine too. Nsk92 (talk) 20:59, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 01:47, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In Dhaka[edit]

In Dhaka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A band existed in past doesn't mean it automatically notable for wikipedia. Fails all of criteria of WP:BAND. Article has one ref which is user-generated. I also tried to find something with Bengali name but found nothing. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 16:04, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.--Nahal(T)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 20:54, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:18, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Louisville Ladder[edit]

Louisville Ladder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced, potentially promotional. Fails WP:NCORP due to no claims being backed up by a reliable source. Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 19:54, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 19:54, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 19:54, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator comment - before you ask, yes, I initially forgot to do a WP:BEFORE check. I just did so, nothing of note came up. Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 19:57, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fails GNG. Nothing really comes up notable in searches.Knox490 (talk) 20:17, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I looked on google, news, newspapers, books. I found financial news, adverts, directory listings and a federal product recall. Szzuk (talk) 14:41, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as failing WP:ORG. This article was created back in 2007 and has been unsourced, since. There is some coverage (searching on 'Louisville Ladders inc' rather than just 'Louisville Ladders') eg here, here and here but it doesn't form the in-depth coverage need for notability. 2A02:C7F:4481:8300:90DC:E235:5074:54B0 (talk) 15:42, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:20, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Carteret County News-Times[edit]

Carteret County News-Times (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced, no proof of notability, thereby failing WP:GNG and WP:ORG. WP:BEFORE check failed to bring up anything of note. Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 19:49, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 19:49, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 19:49, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have an idea that we generally keep articles about well established local press rather than expecting multiple references. Discussions about specific newspapers would usually be about controversy, scandal or closure so coverage tends to be scant. However I can’t find this anywhere in policy so realise I may just be imagining it. Mccapra (talk) 21:36, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but that is not so. My local newspaper was founded in 1857 but I don't see any basis on which it meets our notability standards. The nearest we get to a specific notability standard is WP:NNEWSPAPER which is an essay. 2A02:C7F:4481:8300:90DC:E235:5074:54B0 (talk) 20:23, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as failing WP:GNG. The lack of content, despite the article being created in October 2008, testifies to its lack of notability since no-one has been able to add any reliably sourced content in nearly 11 years. 2A02:C7F:4481:8300:90DC:E235:5074:54B0 (talk) 20:23, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 3 non bot edits in 10+ years says it all. This conversation is bigger than the article. Szzuk (talk) 14:33, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 14:45, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jill Stanek[edit]

Jill Stanek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article was nominated for PROD by StarHOG, but was dePROD'd on the technicality of being dePROD'd before. I agree that the subject is not notable per WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. StarHOG's rationale: The subject's notability seems to be limited to statements made by the subject. A Google search returned twitter and facebook pages before any 3rd party sites. Additionally, many of the Google search 3rd party sites were to hire the subject as a paid speaker. Lastly, the article has a lack of independent, verifiable sourcing. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:30, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:30, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:30, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to guarantee her a Wikipedia article just because she exists, but the referencing (a mix of primary source government documents that aren't support for notability at all and purely local coverage in her hometown media market, with no evidence whatsoever of any broader nationalized coverage) is not good enough. There's no WP:LASTING significance being shown here that would pass the ten-year test. Bearcat (talk) 19:49, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The WP test of notability is not what a Google search returns, nor is it based on the sourcing currently in the article. I have just done a quick search of Newspapers.com, and find a profile of her in an Indianapolis newspaper in 2001, reprinted from The New York Times [11]; a report on two presentations she gave in Pennsylvania in 2004, in a Pennsylvania newspaper [12]; and an article about a forthcoming visit she was making to Michigan in 2006, which says that she had been featured in Newsweek, The Washington Times and The New York Times. I haven't yet searched for coverage in Newsweek or The Washington Times, but it does appear that there was significant, national, sustained coverage of her, and that she therefore does meet WP:GNG. I will try to find more sources and add them to the article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 20:11, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've done my own source search and apart from getting a spike of notability in 2001, I agree I don't think coverage of her is WP:LASTING. She received less than 6,000 votes in her run for office so there's potential WP:BLP1E concerns, and while I do see a lot which comes up in searching her in multiple sites, the coverage of her appears to be either primary or fringe. SportingFlyer T·C 20:06, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:58, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I think WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E are both factors. No indication of lasting notability. The Pennsylvania coverage of her talk is in the local section and is just news coverage. Right now I'm not seeing convincing proof that the GNG is met.Sandals1 (talk) 18:02, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This person is not a publishing academic (so citation counting might not be readily applicable), but it appears that her views (statements, Congressional testimony, her blog, etc) are nevertheless referenced in quite a number of books, e.g. here, here, and here. GoogleBooks shows quite a few more and book references tend to be pretty good indicators of LASTING. Agricola44 (talk) 22:46, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on addition of book sources that cite her statements/opinions. There are more, but seems like 4 should suffice. Agricola44 (talk) 04:26, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to Closing Admin. The book sources I added were summarily redacted by the original PRODer of this article, who requested more information. I have now added that information, as well as several additional sources to conclusively demonstrate the fact that the subject of this article is widely considered to be a topical expert. I'll presume that this legitimate content will not again be reverted. Parenthetically, I'll also note that these sources were easily and readily found, which raises BEFORE for both the PRODer and AfD nom. Agricola44 (talk) 15:44, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure any of those sources are actually helpful for WP:GNG, nor am I sure footnotes talking about blog comments demonstrate enough notability to get one past WP:GNG for a wikipedia article. SportingFlyer T·C 22:36, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really? Citations in books and journals are not helpful to demonstrate notability? I presume you're aware that this is one of the primary ways that notability is proven in AfD for bios. Might I ask why you feel these particular books/journals are an exception to standard WP protocol? Agricola44 (talk) 23:02, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No evidence of this individual meeting WP:GNG has been put forward. Individuals can, however, be notable if their views have been influential; this is a logical consequence of WP:PROF. However, this person is not an academic. The question is, then, whether they are being quoted because the quotes demonstrate their influence, or if they're being quoted in another context. Since the citations for these quotes were put forward late in this discussion, I am relisting this to allow those sources to be discussed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 18:55, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Actually, I did say above that I thought that she met the WP:GNG, and I included links to some sources. I have now included in the article several sources, including from Pennsylvania, Indiana (actually, that one was republished from the New York Times), Missouri and Washington DC, as well as Chicago (her home city), and from 2001, 2002, 2004 and 2017. I have tried to find the reported Newsweek coverage, but so far haven't managed to in the archived website. I have also edited the article a bit, adding more info from the sources on her career and personal life. RebeccaGreen (talk) 23:01, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:GNG Good job RebeccaGreen. Always a thorough investigator. Lightburst (talk) 01:15, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the article is loaded with authoritative citations, including articles in the The Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Sun-Times. Book citations, including those published in the Simon & Schuster, also exist about Jill Stanek. Eliko007 (talk) 21:20, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 14:44, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Felix Velarde[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Felix Velarde (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has gone through various stages of editing and there seem to have been several requests for deletion. You can find a list of sources on the talk pag, and whilst some seem to be reliable, I'm not sure about general notability. To deal with all the calls for deletion / modification in the past, I thought raising it here would be a viable next step. Hope my assessment is correct (doing some research I couldn't turn up any notable sources etc..). RuhriJörg 16:50, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:51, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Those churnalism references which at the time I thought were rank, on a time period they range from 1998 to 2015. A long time to be visible as a public actor. Notable as well. scope_creepTalk 18:41, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:32, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SIGCOV - he's done stuff, but there's no sources to confirm who he is. Bearian (talk) 18:49, 22 August 2019 (UTC) This is the closest we have. Bearian (talk) 18:52, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 18:06, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Moved to RFD - see Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_August_24 (non-admin closure) ~~ OxonAlex - talk 18:57, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dūda[edit]

Dūda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a misleading redirect, because dūda is a string instrument, whereas dūdas is a wind instrument. The thesaurus does say dūdas can also be plural for the name of the string instrument, but not that dūda can be the singular for the name of the wind instrument, because the name of the wind instrument is a plurale tantum. See also a a Latvian-English dictionary. Turaids (talk) 16:05, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:21, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lannie Battistini[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Lannie Battistini (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This musician continues to be non-notable for all the reasons supplied during the previous deletion discussion, which ended in the article's deletion. There are no further indications of notability since the previous discussion. Google returns 53 hits for "Lannie Battistini", all of them affiliated, social media, music download, ticket sales and/or database-driven websites, or routine, local current events listings. The few sources supplied with the article don't come close to establishing notability. The Olga Tañón credit, for which I find no independent coverage, adds no more to notability than it did the last time we talked about it. I recommend deletion and salting. Largoplazo (talk) 16:00, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:03, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:03, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:03, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Not quite sure why this article was submitted as an AfD. The subject has received multiple American and Latin Grammy awards and nominations. A quick Google search turned up wide third-party coverage. Passes WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 03:08, 26 August 2019 (UTC) Neutral and on the fence. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 23:43, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Not sure why" is an odd thing to write directly underneath the reasons that I provided! They, in turn, reference reasons given in the previous deletion discussion. Also, as he is not Olga Tañón, he has not "received" a Grammy. I see no evidence that any Grammy has been awarded bearing his name or the name of a band he belonged to at the time. I've removed the misleading "Grammy-winning" from the article, as anyone reading that would infer, mistakenly, that the award host stood on stage and called out his name, or the name of a band in which he was a member, and that he had gone up to accept it. Largoplazo (talk) 11:26, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • My statement, "Not sure why," is not "odd," as you put it. It is based on an assessment after looking online and finding multiple reliable sources that show notability. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 22:45, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • That exact Primera Hora article was already cited by you in the last deletion discussion. You might reasonably expect that if you're looking for a Keep outcome this time, it will take more than a repetition of the arguments that failed to avoid a Delete outcome last time. Largoplazo (talk) 20:50, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is very little coverage and seems to have very few fans on Youtube, and few plays on Spotify. In fact I can barely find anything on him, which would an assert on WP:SIGCOV. scope_creepTalk
Delete I wasn't going to mention Soundcloud, but I see there is a reference to it. An examination finds 17 followers on 40 tracks. Not enough for article. scope_creepTalk 13:58, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No notability. Mercy11 (talk) 20:18, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, sadly. This is a worthy, well-rounded person who had a significant job in industry as well being an accomplished musician. However, try as I might, I can't convince myself (let alone anyone else!) that he meets WP:BIO; the substantial coverage simply is not there. 2A02:C7F:4481:8300:90DC:E235:5074:54B0 (talk) 22:53, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 16:03, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bjorg Hakeen[edit]

Bjorg Hakeen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, no coverage in reliable sources. StaticVapor message me! 15:36, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. StaticVapor message me! 15:36, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:47, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BEFORE search brought up nothing. Not notable. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:08, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, May be later but he is not notable now . Alex-h (talk) 09:09, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The title seems to be a misspelling of Bjorg Haaken which yields a lot more hits, including on him teaming up with Tom La Ruffa. Otherwise no comment, I don't understand much about sports notability. Haukur (talk) 15:03, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 16:02, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Barnea & Co.[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Barnea & Co. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It is somewhat surprising that consensus was to keep two years ago. None of the sources are strong support for WP:ORGCRIT. They are a melange of mere listings (they exist...) or they are mentions in passing where it is confirmed that they may have worked on cases (which is what a law firm does). Working for potentially notable clients or on potentially notable cases does not make a company associated with it notable (WP:INHERITORG). They may be a large(?), international law firm, but that by itself does also not establish notability (WP:ORGSIG. An internet search has not resulted in what can be considered significant independent editorial coverage about the firm. This article is essentially yet another outlet for a company profile. This is not what an encyclopedia is for. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 14:26, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 14:26, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 14:26, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 14:26, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:INHERITORG. This kind of situation comes up with some regularity. Just because a lawyer or law firm has worked for notable clients does not, in itself, make that lawyer or law firm notable. Cosmic Sans (talk) 21:42, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. (seems I !voted keep two years ago - however I've been lured to the deletionist dark side over the years, though I'm still fighting back and am at present at a 56% delete !vote rate[14], I will also note WP:NORG got an overhaul in the interim) This is a large law firm with not insignificant media coverage - it is plausibly notable. However, the current article is promotional, and sources in it don't establish notability. Finding in-depth sources is not easy (as there are lots of mentions in cases or passing mentions you need to filter). It is possibly someone will WP:HEY and save this - but maybe not. I will note that on the Hebrew Wikipedia this has been deleted for a few years - Hebrew wiki talk page. Icewhiz (talk) 15:11, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep, just like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ditch, (magazine) as bad-faith nomination with no non-sockpuppet delete opinions. DMacks (talk) 17:20, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


GrOnk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject of the article fails WP:ORG. I can't find any evidence of notability. Riazul Islam BD (talk) 14:22, 24 August 2019 (UTC) Riazul Islam BD (talk) 14:22, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 14:43, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 14:44, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this was a well-known literary magazine of its time, and the links in the article include several literary archives which demonstrate this. I've just added one more, the MacOdrum Library at Carleton University, which maintains an archive on the magazine. Given the time that has passed and the fact that grOnk was pre-Web, this sort of Web coverage is good and the most that could be expected. The archive is introduced by a substantial essay on grOnk and its sister publication Ganglia, and it is cited to further sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:29, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
— Note to closing admin: Epinoia (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.
  • Keep Sources here and already in the article establish notability. XOR'easter (talk) 21:04, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep, likely bad-faith nomination (for more detail, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ailsa Land) with no non-sockpuppet delete opinions. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:39, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ditch, (magazine)[edit]

Ditch, (magazine) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:NORG. 4 sources not reliable, 1st and 2nd collected from blog, other two references does not meet criteria. Riazul Islam BD (talk) 14:18, 24 August 2019 (UTC)— Riazul Islam BD (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 14:45, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 14:45, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - easily passes WP:GNG - of the sources, Open Book Toronto is a solid Canadian literary site; Sensitive Skin was a leading magazine of transgressive literature (until the death of editor Mark McCawley). There are two blogs given as sources: WP:BLOGS allows that "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." Ron Silliman is a well-recognized and widely published poet, critic and teacher (San Francisco State University, University of California at San Diego, etc.); Michael Alexander Chaney is a professor at Dartmouth College and the author of numerous essays (Los Angeles Review, The Minnesota Review, etc.) and several academic books (Oxford University Press, Indiana Univ. Press, Univ. Press of Mississippi, etc.); so both blogs can be considered reliable sources. Additionally, Wikipedia:Notability (media) allows that magazines are notable if they are "are significant publications in...non-trivial niche markets" - the world of experimental poetry is a notable niche market - the magazine published Asemic writing, Concrete poetry, Flarf poetry, L=A=N=G=U=A=G=E poetry, Postmodernist poetry, Transgressive poetry and other notable sub-genres by poets from Canada, USA, Europe, Bangladesh, Iceland and other places. It is a significant experimental poetry magazine. (note: I am the article creator) - Epinoia (talk) 00:56, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
— Note to closing admin: Epinoia (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.

Delete for now clearly failed to proved any significant coverage of this magazine in reliable sources. It does not even get close to fill up WP:CORPDEPTH and also failing that, the article isn't notable either (WP:WEBCRIT). — Masum Ibn Musa  Conversation 06:30, 25 August 2019 (UTC)striking !vote from blocked sock of nominator. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:25, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Epinoia, notability seems clear enough, and while the article would benefit from more inline citations (so that every claim is visibly supported), there is plenty of evidence in its favour. Since the nominator has been blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry, this AfD should be closed speedily. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:34, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 14:43, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SAUCER[edit]

SAUCER (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article currently sources to the company's website, a few social media posts, and some random websites/news sites that happen to have a picture showing someone wearing one of their products - nothing that approaches WP:CORPDEPTH. I can't find any independent sourcing online, so appears to fail WP:NCORP. GirthSummit (blether) 14:10, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit (blether) 14:10, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit (blether) 14:10, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit (blether) 14:10, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination, it's been a chore to keep the blatant product marketing out of this, and with that removed there's not much left for an article. I can find nothing substantial about the company online in WP:RS, just photos on social media of a few people wearing their logo. Tracy Von Doom (talk) 16:26, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tracy, I have included another source to establish credibility. SAUCER was mentioned in the OC Weekly paper this month so I added that in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SMG2019 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
— Note to closing admin: SMG2019 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.
Thanks. The OC Weekly is a reliable source but what's needed is something more than a passing mention of them in an article about Mutual UFO Network: substantial coverage of the company itself, in multiple reliable sources, as described in WP:NCORP..
May I ask: what's your connection with the company? Because your edits to the article have all had a promotional tone. Tracy Von Doom (talk) 20:29, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry if my edits sound promotional as this is my first article and I am just getting accustomed to the language. I do appreciate your constant revisions as I have learned a great deal from your edits. I feel as though the company is doing great things and is worthy of inclusion in the encyclopedia. I do not feel that the page should be deleted as I am sure that more reliable sources are soon to come. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SMG2019 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. But do you work for the company, or are you professionally connected with them? Because if you have a WP:Conflict of interest then please don't edit the article. Tracy Von Doom (talk) 18:42, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment SMG2019 if the sources do not yet exist, then the subject is not yet notable. If they become notable at a future date, you would be free to contact the deleting administrator and ask for the text of the article, so you can recreate it - but if you have any kind of connection with the company, you must declare it and comply with the requirements set out at WP:COI, as Tracy Von Doom has explained. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 23:35, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as a non-notable company that fails to meet WP:NCORP. The article currently cites a number of unreliable, user-generated sources (which do not confer notability) such as Google and Instagram. More reliable sources are cited, but this coverage seems to be trivial or in-passing in nature, and issue given NCORP is clear such limited coverage does not work towards establishing notability.--SamHolt6 (talk) 23:51, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Tone 16:02, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Long Chu[edit]

Andrea Long Chu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject doesn't meet notability standards set out at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Basic_criteria Has written some blog posts which have been commented on by other blog writers but no evidence of substantial independent coverage; plus, most of the material in this article is from an interview the subject gave to an oral history project therefore not an independent source. MurielMary (talk) 11:25, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:26, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:26, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:26, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The number of academic publications that Chu has authored evidences notability under the criteria for Academics. I have added a number of their academic publications to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smurf anemone (talk • contribs) 17:51, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which additions are you claiming show notability? To show notability, the sources need to be about a subject, not by them... –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:04, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose reading the section on 'Academics' I interpret the 'a widely recognized contribution' part of the notability criteria as being fulfilled by the peer reviewed academic contributions to the field. Also there is a forthcoming publication from Verso books, that has a review by Professor Lauren Berlant, a significant figure in the field. See https://www.versobooks.com/books/3061-females — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smurf anemone (talk • contribs) 18:23, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP: The Blanchard piece in Vice calling her “the cult writer who is changing gender theory”; the Thom piece in Slate; the Srinivasan piece in the London Review of Books all establish notability. And let’s be clear, this note posted by Muriel Mary when she proposed this AfD is blatantly false: “Has written some blog posts which have been commented on by other blog writers but no evidence of substantial independent coverage.” It’s not a good look to start off a deletion discussion with falsehoods, and it makes one question whether the nominator for deletion has an unspoken agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeRossitt (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. Sources below par, for example Vice is questionable RS (the claim of notability is based on this) and NYT is opinion piece. Agricola44 (talk) 13:33, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Rab V (talk) 08:14, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Dispute heavily pending on interpretations of reliability of certain sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 14:07, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Profiled at length in a source that is reliable for the purpose; selected for a substantial interview (indicating that the "world at large" found her worth interviewing, which counts toward wiki-notability even though her statements about herself are primary sources). The multiple rounds of responses to her essays have been far more substantial than your typical social-media dust-up. XOR'easter (talk) 21:12, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 14:42, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Queen's Wish: The Conqueror[edit]

Queen's Wish: The Conqueror (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't appear to be notable per WP:NGAME (the cited sources are either not independent or do not have significant commentary or analysis, also WP:TOSOON (since it hasn't even been released yet). Only contributor is an account which may be related to the game's publisher (based on their contribution history). creffett (talk) 13:01, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 13:01, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, covered in decent detail in RSes and appears to be notable. [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 14:44, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Per Bryn. While it might not quite be passing SUSTAINED, I think it would be rather pointless to delete it, only to recreate it shortly after when it releases and gets reviews.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 05:16, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I'm sorry if I created the impression I work for Spiderweb. I'm just a big fan. If you want to delete it because it doesn't have enough press, that's fine. I'm sure someone will recreate the page when the game is out in a few weeks and reviews start coming in. 21:18, 26 August 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herazade (talk • contribs)
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. Haukur (talk) 11:37, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by Human Development Index (1998)[edit]

List of countries by Human Development Index (1998) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page is a half-baked attempt to create a new article by copy-pasting another page and then updating. I think the text copied was from List of countries by Human Development Index (2009). The article was then heavily edited by IPs over the next couple of weeks, adding data, much of which definitely has not come from the 1998 report and some of the country names are from the 1980s, no longer existing. This has previously been declined for speedy deletion, and I declined it for prod in 2016, but now wish I hadn't. I removed some of the more glaring disinformation but lost enthusiasm and the page has remained riddled with errors for years. It is also a magnet for IPs who try to update it to the current HDI for their country, or even just try to make their country look better. The current consensus seems to be have a table for each previous years' HDI in the Human Development Index article. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of countries by Human Development Index, 2005 came to a similar conclusion. Merging to the HDI article is not a good idea as the data on the page is completely untrustworthy. Anyone wishing to include the 1998 HDI would be much better off taking the information directly from the UN report itself. SpinningSpark 11:37, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:39, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We do not need to have separate data tables for every year, we are not an archive of historical data but it could be merged with the main list as a comparison if necessary. Reywas92Talk 17:24, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I know the accuracy of article content is not usually a case for deletion, but if this article is indeed a constantly-corrupted dataset that readers will assume is accurate, we do them a disservice by keeping it. Mccapra (talk) 08:29, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 04:05, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Naissance Capital[edit]

Naissance Capital (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NORG. Nothing found in a before search that suggests that is a notable company. Not even sure if it is still active when you look at their website. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:05, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:05, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:05, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:05, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:05, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - does not meet WP:ORGCRIT: has not been "the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" - of the three references in the article, two are to the Naissance Capital website and the third is a dead link - no significant coverage; therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 00:55, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 11:32, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is spammy, fails WP:SPIP but I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 11:42, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination. Article is indeed spammy.TH1980 (talk) 03:06, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete per WP:BLP1E. RL0919 (talk) 11:34, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aliya Deri[edit]

Aliya Deri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP1E. Sources are related to the competition, not the subject. Guy (Help!) 11:19, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:31, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:31, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the championship he won is not the sort of thing that makes one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:36, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing stands out in terms of achievements.Knox490 (talk) 20:12, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 14:41, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WestWards[edit]

WestWards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable political party, has one elected member on one local board in Auckland - that person themselves doesn't pass WP:NPOL and the article seems very much promotional towards that person in regards to an upcoming election. Ajf773 (talk) 09:57, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:57, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:57, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Response: This is the one of two main political parties for Auckland Council in Waitakere and the information is important to voters. There are numerous articles that have been referenced from New Zealand's major newspapers. The other main party for Waitakere has put its information up now, and now is trolling to have this entry about their competitors taken down. The North Shore area parties for Council (Shore Action) also has a facebook page. The format for the Shore Action page is the one followed for consistency. If local political parties can not have an entry then all must be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FeijoaSalsa (talk • contribs) 00:32, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note This user (User:FeijoaSalsa) created the article and seems to have a conflict of interest with its subject. Squeeps10 Talk to meMy edits 03:35, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Creating a post doesn't mean you have a conflict of interest with a post. I have no conflict of interest. And the post shows no bias. If you have a specific point to make about the post itself or a concern you should raise it rather than ad hominem attacks. The entry is factual about a local party who is running for local office created in the same style as other local parties in Auckland's election . I note that the competing party has put up a wikipedia entry at the same time that the request for the deletion of this page occured. This seems to be a political act to deny the public the right to public information about the local candidates and their parties. It's unclear what the deleters conflicts are. Again their must be consistency on Wikipedia. If this entry is deleted then no local body political parties should have their entries allowed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FeijoaSalsa (talk • contribs) 04:10, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is not how things work. Political parties need to demonstrate they meet the notability requirements. Ajf773 (talk) 08:32, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@The Notability requirements for political parties talk page seems to have not reached a final conclusion. However, WestWards does meet the criteria being discussed. Have campaigned for 2 years. Has an elected member who has numerous articles in New Zealand's national papers which have been included. Is the leading opposition party. To not include smaller parties or independent parties would be anti democratic and deprives voters of a fair choice. So it is a significant party consistent with the other local parties have put entries up for Wikipedia. Targeting this party seems to be a political act.FeijoaSalsa (talk) 02:29, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable local political group. All the references given are about their chair, and some don't even mention the group.-gadfium 03:57, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, It's disturbing that the Policies section has not a single source, and the Elections section has an unsourced list of candidates and claim of no conflict of interest. I've looked in vain for sources, and suggest a compromise – remove these sections, leaving the remainder until after the election (less than two months away), then resubmit this AfD if the party achieved no further notability. Akld guy (talk) 11:50, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails Passes WP:NPOL. --SalmanZ (talk) 18:37, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, WP:NPOL is irrelevant. It's only for articles about people. This AfD is about a political party. Akld guy (talk) 19:42, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. Do those in favour of deletion think that Future West and Rodney First (both have tags questioning their notability) are notable and should be kept? The correct guideline for political parties is Notability (organizations and companies), not Notability (people)#Politicians and judges (WP:NPOL). Nurg (talk) 00:51, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • We're not voting on those other parties here, and I might not vote if they came up for AfD, but both have multiple people elected to local bodies at regular elections, whereas WestWards has a single person elected in a by-election, which had a much lower turn-out of electors. I don't think they are therefore comparable.-gadfium 02:19, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus to delete since most of the article is a plot summary which can be found in the articles about the two movies. If anyone is interested in future merges, let me know so that I can provide the content. Tone 15:59, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Kill Bill characters[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of Kill Bill characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Violates WP:PLOT and WP:WAF. Almost entirely composed of fancruft - original research and extensive plot description, with almost no out-of-universe coverage. No demonstration of why these characters, which have only appeared in two films, are notable enough to deserve their own page. I have looked myself but cannot find (online at least) significant coverage of these characters such that we need an article. I first proposed deleting this two years ago (the outcome was no consensus) and see no basically improvement since then. Popcornduff (talk) 09:20, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 10:49, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 10:49, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per all the reasoning from the 2017 deletion attempt (does it have to be repeated? To the Closer, please read the 2017 attempt, or if the nominator prefers I could cut and paste my comments here - [Edit to boldface as this hasn't been done as far as I know, 25 August:] by the way, Popcornduff, please notify all of the participants of that discussion). At over 800 views a day this page is one of the most popular pages concerning one of the classic 21st century films, and of course the characters are notable (Tarantino and Thurman are now talking seriously of filming the long-awaited third film). This is one of those "here we go again" nominations, and hopefully will be the failed second attempt to Kill it. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:40, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above, very notable film and this can be considered a split from the parent article that would make that page too long if it was merged back, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 12:57, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge There is no real secondary coverage of these characters. The previous AFD's keeps pointed out that this could be trimmed and beefed up with sources- that has not happened. The article extensively duplicates the films' plot, which is not appropriate. Outside of the standalone article for the bride, the few secondary details can be added to the Cast list on the film page or in the casting pages. ---Masem (t) 20:04, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although it can't be used as a source, this page on Wikipedia is one of, if not the, principal pages on the internet for the topic. There are so many prominent characters in the films that references would be mostly the same references for the reputably sourced film reviews. The page has 800-plus readers a day, even after being loaded down at the top with giant templates. It is a good overview of the topic. Merging is always possible, but that move most of the already existing text and images and would mean making the Kill Bill pages much longer. Keeping this page seems the logical way to go. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:01, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:ITSUSEFUL is not an arguement. You're free to "rescue" this information over to, say, Fandom.com/Wikia. For fictional works/etc. our goal is to summarize real-world importance, not their in-universe importance. And I'll re-iterate: most of the details on these characters are regurgitations of the plots of the two films, which is unnecessary duplication. Take out the plot-related elements and you have almost nothing at all left. --Masem (t) 22:36, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're citing an essay to remove an 800-viewer a day article, so yes, it is an argument. Any page on any fictional character will be either a rehash or an extension of the plot of a book, film, etc. Merging this page will just make those plots much longer and would necessitate a large amount of new text in 1 and 2. Keeping that text and easily-found character list on this long-term popular page isn't only common sense (which is all that should be needed to Keep this page), it is certainly useful, interesting, and WP:ILIKEIT. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:42, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am pointing out your argument is based on that essay. I am arguing there's no secondary sourcing thus this fails the GNG. Yes, articles on characters will repeat some of the plot of a film, but we absolutely do not need full a full extent of the character's role in the film. And no, if you consider the plot already on the movie pages, then you don't need ANY of the plot given by these entries, they all are duplicating info. Character articles are not a cheat to get around WP:NOT#PLOT. --Masem (t) 03:25, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correct, you're saying my points have no validity because there is an essay. I'm saying they do because, it's an essay. The plots in the film pages are very limited and both pages point to this characters page as the main page for characters. That's why the page should of course be kept. Do delete fans here think that this is a B movie that is forgotten in a couple of years? This is one of the major films of the 21st century, and the characters page reflects that in detail and interesting insights. I hope that the closer is not a head counter but someone who appreciates the work and interest this page generates (remember, kind closer, over 800 views a day, thanks). Randy Kryn (talk) 22:41, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't keep pages because of popularity, so 800, 8000, or 8 million page views a day means squat. We are looking for secondary sources on this character, per WP:N and WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:WAF. The Bride has it, so she has a separate article but this one does not. If this is such an important film, it should be easy to show secondary sourcing that talks only of the characters. Without sources, it fails several policies, and we're not going to keep just because its a popular page and/or a unique page on the Internet. --Masem (t) 00:46, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kill Bill's list. It appears to be just a plot regurgitation, with the occasional unsourced claim thrown in. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:33, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Silly rabbit. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:23, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTPLOT and WP:JUSTPLOT. The article is just a list of character summaries that does not support sourced commentary. There is nothing of any encyclopedic value here. Betty Logan (talk) 22:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Has anyone notified the two film pages? Or the 2017 discussion participants as I requested? Editors who have an interest in this list and that discussion would be reading those pages which, if read, have very slight summaries of characters in the plot or character lines and refer people to this character list as the main page for characters. So the mentions that the plots covers the page contents is incorrect. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:34, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • p.s. Popcornduff, there is a good faith suggestion on the deletion criteria to alert principal editors, the creator, and others of this nomination per "While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion." Is this generally followed by deletion noms? Any of them? If not, the entire structure of the deletion section of Wikipedia should maybe be taken down for reconstruction. The page's creator, Kicking222, and the main editors who worked on it, may enjoy knowing that their work is being debated here. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:02, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 95% of the article is just plot, and the tiny amount of content related to character development / reception references that could be merged into the film articles, if considered due. Scribolt (talk) 06:11, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:48, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I voted keep during the first AfD, but I agree with the above deletion votes. Also, upon further reflection, a majority of the sources provided in the first AfD deal more so with the film rather than the characters themselves so I am less certain about how the list meets WP:GNG. I could possibly see some characters (like O-Ren Ishii) spun off into independent articles, but that is a completely different conversation. Aoba47 (talk) 18:08, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello Aoba47. As a commentator in the last AfD did you get a notice about this discussion? I'd asked the nominator a couple of times to send one to those participants. Thanks. As for other articles, it would be nice to see those. But in the meantime this page is a valuable addition to the film page, harms nothing, and gives 800 people a day information they seek. I'll never understand the concept of deleting a popular page such as this. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:38, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did not get a notification, but I look through fictional elements-related AfDs somewhat regularly. Page views are not a good argument for keeping an article or a list. The focus should be on WP:GNG (i.e. whether or not there is significant coverage from reliable, third-party sources). Aoba47 (talk) 19:14, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

‑Scottywong| [communicate] || 19:06, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These are essays about the films, and don't focus on the individual characters discussed in the article. If you stuck to those sources you'd have almost nothing to write about. Try it. Popcornduff (talk) 19:46, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion. I just opened the first link, turned to a random page, and found this passage:

"Though O-Ren consciously embodies and draws power from her multiple identities, she does not anticipate Beatrix's ability to do the same. When Beatrix challenges her, Thurman's Anglo features have been overlaid with Asian markers in inter- and intra-textual cues: she speaks Japanese, carries a Hanzo sword, and wears a yellow jumpsuit that cites Bruce Lee's film Game of Death (1978). O-Ren, though, only reads Beatrix as the American tourist she initially pretends to be with Hanzo, remarking, 'Silly Caucasian girl likes to play with samurai swords.' She sees only Beatrix's ethnicity, and discounts the history, training, and discipline that transformed Beatrix Kiddo into Black Mamba. O-Ren realizes her racialized naivete too late. After Beatrix wounds her in their duel, she apologizes in Japanese 'for ridiculing you earlier.' She is soon thereafter scalped, recalling the decapitated mob boss she punished for a similar underestimation."

"Though Vernita's death is staged first in the film, it is significant that Beatrix defeats her after battling O-Ren - as O-Ren is a version of Beatrix's present quest, Vernita is a glimpse of what Arlene Plympton's future would have looked like. Vernita, now living as 'Jeannie Bell,' a 'Pasadena homemaker,' has completely jettisoned her live as DiVA 'Copperhead.' She has married a doctor, lives in a well-appointed middleclass neighborhood, and even has a four-year-old daughter, as Arelene would have had the massacre not taken place."

I could continue much longer, but I don't want to get into copyvio territory. These sources are filled with these kinds of detailed analyses of individual characters in the film. ‑Scottywong| [prattle] || 20:32, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
An excerpt from the second link:

"This exchange is meant to be funny, but it also dramatizes two important character traits of Kiddo. She is not only a highly trained martial artist bent on revenge, but she also has deep maternal qualities that extend even to the child of her enemy. Likewise, the fact that Kiddo can quickly 'turn off' her immediate desire for revenge speaks to the professional nature of her martial ability. That is, although her quest for revenge is deeply personal, here we see it conducted in an almost detached manner. In this way, although the script uses her ability to do violence as a definitive character trait, so too it emphasizes her ability to choose not to do so. This subtle distinction later contrasts with the actions of other characters who have difficulty not being violent. In particular, Elle Driver / Darryl Hanna later expresses great dissatisfaction with not being allowed to kill the comatose Kiddo. And, most definitively defining a character, almost everything that we discover about Bill / Carradine in both films suggests that he is thoroughly given over to violent actions. In fact, he even describes himself as 'a murdering bastard.'"

‑Scottywong| [babble] || 20:36, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The first passage you quote from describes the characters in terms of the protagonist; in other words, they are not the focus of the essay. You'd be hard-pressed to stretch that sort of thing to an entire article about all of these characters.
The second quote is about the protagonist, Beatrix Kiddo, who has her own article and isn't the subject of this AfD. Popcornduff (talk) 20:44, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No one is suggesting that we write an entire article about Vernita. However, I would argue that there is more than enough material in these sources to justify a paragraph on the character in this article. However, to add this much detail on each individual character into the main article on the film would cause that article to become too long. Therefore, this article is the most appropriate place for this information. ‑Scottywong| [confabulate] || 20:48, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think, if you actually examine these sources, it's difficult to mine them for enough specific discussion of all the characters in the Kill Bill films sufficient to justify this page. They aren't the focus of the papers. Popcornduff (talk) 20:56, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think we'll have to agree to disagree. These are not just "essays about the films", which "don't focus on the individual characters discussed in the article". The characters only exist in the films, so naturally the articles will need to discuss what happens in the films and how that shapes the characters. As shown above, there are sources that focus heavily on the characters, their relationship to each other, as well as the meaning and symbolism behind the characters and their actions in the films. ‑Scottywong| [soliloquize] || 21:05, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looking these over, to put this information to try to justify keeping characters before using it to establish a Themes section of KB seems to be an extremely poor use of these sources. It's pulling the needles out of the haystack and missing that the haystack has more appropriate value to us. It would be better to devlope some type of themes for the KB to thus then establish where characters would fit in those themes. --Masem (t) 04:20, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The lack of appropriate commentary leaves it as a bloated in-universe article suited more to Wikia. TTN (talk) 00:12, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Nearly the entirety of the entries here are nothing more than unsourced plot summaries, and there have been no sources shown that would allow the vast majority of the entries on this list to ever be anything more than that. The few characters that do have some scant coverage that goes beyond plot summaries, and don't already have their own articles, can be easily covered in the either Kill Bill: Volume 1 or Kill Bill: Volume 2. Rorshacma (talk) 02:07, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you read Scotty Wongs keep defense above? Hard to refute. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:17, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did, hence why I said "The few characters that do have some scant coverage that goes beyond plot summaries, and don't already have their own articles, can be easily covered in the either Kill Bill: Volume 1 or Kill Bill: Volume 2". The vast majority of the characters in this bloated mess of a page are either not even mentioned in any of those sources, or are described only in terms of pure plot summary. And I wouldn't say that his defense is "hard to refute" at all, given that Popcornduff did an excellent job doing so. Rorshacma (talk) 02:29, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Difference of opinion. I think Scottywong's well thought out and researched statement should be enough to save this popular page from deletion. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:17, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not because I don't believe that there could be a list, but because there needs to be enough content from secondary sources for multiple characters to be split off from both film articles. List of Smallville characters is a Good Article that shows this possibility. While this is only two films, a lot can be (and has been) written about Tarantino's films. Back in 2011, I compiled references to use at Talk:Kill Bill/references, and it seems extremely likely that there could be at least a healthy paragraph or two for each character across both films. However, this needs to be established by an editor. If there can't be much more than in-universe detail here, then the scope should necessarily collapse back to the individual films' articles. (Though I would not be unopposed to an article whose scope covers both films, including listing characters that appear in one or the other or both, accompanied by brief descriptions.) Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 03:04, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is largely original research WP:NOR WP:FANCRUFT - WP:NFCHAR says that fictional character lists need significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability - also that "coverage from reliable sources should talk about the character in a way which gives its notability from a real world or out-of-universe perspective. This means they are covered as a character in general, and not in the frames of its own series of fiction" - WP:CSC says that "Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia" - only one of these characters, The Bride (Kill Bill), has it's own article - list does not meet notability guidelines, therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 02:09, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Scotty Wong - I think there should be just about enough out-of-universe coverage to establish a decent article here, even if this one is nearly entirely in-universe cruft. Daß Wölf 03:42, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Lacking independent, significant coverage to establish notability. RL0919 (talk) 10:55, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adebayo Temitope Adeleke[edit]

Adebayo Temitope Adeleke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not seeing anything more then trivial mentions. Cannot see how they pass either academic or solder. Slatersteven (talk) 08:22, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 10:53, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 10:53, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Good morning Slatersteven, thanks for keeping the Wikipedia space on the line of purpose - to enlist every form of notable and credible knowledge.

    Kindly review the reference again: the school's website, Congress.gov, Dallas News. That someone is not popular to us or sung of daily on radio does not mean he or she doesn't exist especially when they are not in our niche, field or country.

    He is a retired US Army major and an academic at Sam Houston State University.

    Thank you.

    Danidamiobi (talk) 09:10, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Too little here to indicate notability per either WP:GNG, WP:BIO or WP:PROF. The references are either brief mentions or directory listings, nothing providing specific and detailed coverage. One of the references [25] lists him as a recipient of an immigrant award, but the award appears to be local and not sufficiently significant to confer notability by itself. I am not seeing anything else here. Nsk92 (talk) 12:06, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Lacks independent, significant coverage as an individual, rather than connected sources or passing mentions. RL0919 (talk) 07:53, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Micky Barnea[edit]

Micky Barnea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Failing GNG and BIO. A lawyer doing his job. Sources are a mixture of lawyer directory profiles, some self-authored articles or blog pieces by the subject or (as far as I can tell) press releases which are primary sources. There is some editorial coverage, however this is primarily about the cases where the law firm and/or the subject are mentioned passing. This is insufficient to establish required notability of the subject. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 07:09, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 07:09, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 07:09, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 07:09, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is a classic example of someone who has intersected with notable entities but does not have independent notability in themselves. Cosmic Sans (talk) 12:48, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:05, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable enough to warrant an encyclopedia entry. Wm335td (talk) 19:19, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. He does run a large law firm and is regularly given blurbs in media. However, the current article is promotional and I'm unable to find in-depth coverage in my BEFORE.Icewhiz (talk) 15:08, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 06:10, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Karol Tomczyk[edit]

Karol Tomczyk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Karol Tomczyk only played one game in the 2013-14 season which wouldn't really be enough to be classified for WP:GNG which is what I am putting this article for. HawkAussie (talk) 06:57, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 06:57, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 06:57, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 06:57, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep the number of games played and WP:GNG are completely unrelated - plus he picked up three matches for Polonia in the second division, which is also a fully professional league for WP:NFOOTY purposes, and while I have trouble with Polish I do have a lot of mentions come up and he did have a fairly long minor league career: [26] SportingFlyer T·C 07:14, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:35, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per User:SportingFlyer. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 15:12, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:GNG, which is more important than technically scraping by WP:NFOOTBALL following 1 appearance 6 years ago. GiantSnowman 11:55, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Article about footballer who made one appearance (which was ill-received, per the widzewtomy.pl post included in the article) in the Polish fully-pro top division. He also made 3 substitute's appearances in the second division, which is included at WP:FPL. That said, the online coverage is almost entirely routine databases, match reports and signing announcements. The coverage that is not routine isn't from reliable sources independent of the subject (such as the widzewtomy.pl post). Doesn't meet the spirit of NFOOTBALL as I can't locate sufficient coverage to satisfy the GNG. Jogurney (talk) 16:46, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Soccer trivia, fails GNG. Coverage limited to a single event in his life and only in niche/local portals. We need to kill more fancruft stuff like this. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:58, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – fails GNG – Levivich 05:25, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 04:09, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NWA Anarchy Heavyweight Championship[edit]

NWA Anarchy Heavyweight Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason. This is a WP:BUNDLE nomination:

NWA Anarchy Tag Team Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
NWA Anarchy Young Lions Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
NWA Anarchy Television Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The following titles are for a promotion that does not have a Wikipedia article. They all fail WP:GNG and are also no longer active championships so won't gain any notability in the future. StaticVapor message me! 00:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. StaticVapor message me! 00:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:49, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 05:35, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Proceedural delete - If the promotion is non-notable, a championship would need to do a lot to prove notability, this one (and others) aren't close. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:23, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The consensus of the discussion is that none of these have adequate sources to establish their individual notability. Whether they might be appropriate entries in some list is a separate matter. RL0919 (talk) 11:02, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

S. Barua[edit]

S. Barua (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another cricketer who fails to meet WP:GNG. This RfC has already confirmed that SSGs like WP:CRIN do not supersede the GNG. CricketArchive and Cricinfo statistical profiles, which can be regarded as trivial coverage per WP:SPORTBASIC, are not sufficient to establish notability. Dee03 05:33, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reason:

SN Kunzru (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
GN Kunjru (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
R. Puri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
N. Sengupta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A. Sarma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
DS Bhatt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
TN Deo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
HA Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
R. Vaidya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
S. N. Sanyal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
RD Mathur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
VG Jadhav (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Dee03 05:33, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Dee03 05:33, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Dee03 05:33, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dee03 05:33, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - How many more of these are there? Not bitter - just a question. Bobo. 07:25, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Under 100, I guess. Dee03 08:15, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a list of them somewhere - or are you taking them directly from my sandbox? Sorry - don't mean to sound like I'm badgering, just asking. Bobo. 08:16, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No problems. They are listed here. Dee03 08:20, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably that list of Ranji Trophy cricketers has been directly cribbed from my old sandbox and/or list of created articles..? I like how the only definition of "dubious" is "doesn't have a first name listed". On a serious point, hopefully one day future research will uncover these... Bobo. 08:22, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The list was compiled in 2017 by going through Category:Indian cricketers and Category:Sri Lankan cricketers. The English list was added recently by Harrias. Dee03 09:15, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha. My old userpage may have some left after you've gone through those lists. Bobo. 09:29, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - As I've pointed out before, this whole thing should be a lesson more in making sure established articles are cited, etc. If CA and CI are "inappropriate" references in and of themselves, shouldn't we be fixing the established articles? Let alone those lists I provided of Test cricketers without any sources... Bobo. 07:32, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are right. But I did not say that CA and CI sources are "inappropriate"; they come in handy while expanding pages on notable cricketers. But they are inadequate to show that the cricketer would pass GNG, especially when they do not reveal any information beyond stats taken from a scorecard. Additionally, WP:PAGEDECIDE can be applied for these single-appearance cricketers. Dee03 08:15, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And again, sadly, this comes back to the inconsistency in application of GNG. The only thing that still angers me is that you are expecting "more information" than is present - as any further information in the article would be superfluous. If the criterion you're working to is "must have a first name present", then this is a horrid application of the rule.... Bobo. 08:18, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have never stated that absence of first name is the reason for sending these articles to AfD. Having a full name does at least give us the chance of finding more sources. Unfortunately, the CA profiles of these "first name missing" cricketers seem to be filler links for scorecards, leading to verifiability concerns. Dee03 08:29, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete All. Per norm - Fails WP:GNG and WP:CRIN. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:06, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - an an ideal world I would prefer to redirect to suitable lists, but there aren't lists for Indian players in the same way there are for most British ones. In each case we have no details which provide me with any hope that it's realistic to find suitable, in depth sources about these chaps. In almost every case we only know of one cricket match each man played in - the exception is Kunzru where we have one other miscellaneous match that we know he played in. This reinforces my view that we're never going to be able to source anything very much on them. If details do show up, the articles can be re-created easily. This appears to be consistent with recent AfD results. It is unfortunate the lists don't exist. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:12, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please forgive me for the late response. I would create them myself, but... *shrug* At some point I did have them all on my sandbox, but I would have to go back to a very old version of it... For stats' sake, of the 11 players who played in the only first-class game of Gwalior Cricket Club, they made the following number of first-class appearances (in total): 1, 2, 1, 65 (Janardan Navle, a Test cricketer), 9, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1. Bobo. 05:38, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If, as I always wished could happen, we could make lists of people who played for first-class teams, then I would want a fully inclusive - team-by-team - approach. At least if every team with a "category" had a list of first-class players, this could serve as a header sentence for that category where players' names had been deleted.
Let me tick off the easiest example: these are cricketers who played for Gwalior Cricket Club.
  • RD Mathur
  • Balbhadra Singh
  • Roop Singh
  • Janardan Navle
  • DK Yarde
  • SN Kunzru
  • Daya Shankar
  • Ram Singh
  • CN Haksar
  • Khanwilkar
  • Afzal Ahmed
(Yes, I chose the easiest example, a team which only played a single first-class match. Jack and I both agreed - at the time - that any Indian team which had played first-class cricket should have a "List of"... article - of course these days opinions are probably different..! And given the palaver we've gone through lately with "List of X cricketers" list, at least with a team who have played just one first-class match, an eleven-player list would be fully complete..!) Bobo. 06:18, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all It is discouraging how many articles we have that are really just glorified directory listings.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:13, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all- as with previous AfDs in this series, all these articles are match scoresheets masquerading as the biographies of people whose names we don't even properly know. Reyk YO! 12:40, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Dee, Reyk, BST how would you feel about obscure Ranji Trophy team players' articles entitled List of X players - especially for the defunct Ranji Trophy teams? I would bash through some stats into it, but I'm working on other things right now... We would still delete the players' articles themselves, but at least we'd maintain the basic content. Bobo. 09:01, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okey. BST has convinced me it would be a bad idea. No biggie. Bobo. 09:14, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 07:57, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

British Bangladesh Chamber of Women Entrepreneurs[edit]

British Bangladesh Chamber of Women Entrepreneurs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A very niche organization that does not present any specific claim to notability. I have found nothing, in terms of sourcing, that shows the organization is notable or passes WP:GNG. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 04:36, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 10:57, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 10:57, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 10:57, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 10:57, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Keep as nomination was withdrawn and WP:SNOW applies. (non-admin closure) XOR'easter (talk) 17:32, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Mazzotta[edit]

Matthew Mazzotta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. This is WP:BLP and still no sources have been cited to support the claim. Harshil want to talk? 04:36, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Harshil want to talk? 04:36, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Harshil want to talk? 04:36, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep a simple google search indicates this is a well known contemporary artist and reveals more than enough sources to make a page. For instance this feature piece [27], I have added a few sources to the article. Changed to speedy keep based on discovered sources now in article. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 06:07, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, a very strange nomination. The 2019 Guggenheim Fellowship should already have been enough of a clue that the subject is notable. In addition several other significant awards, and plenty of news coverage, as noted by Horse Eye Jack above. More than enough to pass WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 06:35, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:18, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:19, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Guggenheim fellow. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 13:32, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Sources were already present, albeit as external links, in the version that was nominated for deletion. Definitely not suitable for deletion for failing the sourcing requirements of WP:BLP, (in which case WP:BLPPROD would have been an option). Vexations (talk) 13:48, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I’m withdrawing nomination here. It seems the sb is notable and I misunderstood it with another when I searched on Google. Also, no link as citation lead me further to assume it. — Harshil want to talk? 17:11, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Apparently WP:TOOSOON to have enough coverage for notability. RL0919 (talk) 08:52, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kanti Shrestha[edit]

Kanti Shrestha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. WP:BLP without any source. Try to find google results but only got result on google scholar which don't help to establish notability. Hence, this debate. Harshil want to talk? 04:26, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Harshil want to talk? 04:26, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Harshil want to talk? 04:26, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Harshil want to talk? 04:26, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:47, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Pottstown, Pennsylvania. MBisanz talk 14:40, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Wyndcroft School[edit]

The Wyndcroft School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable lower school. Was a redirect to the locality. Editor restored prior article on claim that Taylor Swift's attendance there somehow makes this non notable school notable. WP:INHERIT says otherwise. That being said, I think the prior redirect is the best solution and of course would not oppose that per WP:ATD John from Idegon (talk) 04:13, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:16, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:16, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Pottstown, Pennsylvania as the school is mentioned there in a list. Could also expand that mention with a sentence or two about the school. But clearly no justification for an article on this NN school. MB 14:30, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No attempt was made by nominator to find sources (which are abundant). The connection to Taylor Swift for this 100 year old school is a causality error on the part of the nom. If it is to be redirected, it should be to The Hill School, the nearby private high school from which it arose and where most of its students end up. I feel that private schools should not be redirected to public governmental entities.Abductive (reasoning) 18:03, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please, Abductive. Enlighten me. Please list any three sources which show notability for this institution. You've edit warred to reinstate this in violation of WP:BURDEN. So, please meet your BURDEN and show us how this is notable. It is on you to show that, not on me or anyone else to prove the contrary. Also, please note this prior to making any more false allegations. John from Idegon (talk) 19:09, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, you are saying that it takes at least three sources to save an article from deletion, but only two reverts to be edit warring? (Note also, there was no second revert--I added a source at that time). Abductive (reasoning) 22:48, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I added some references. While this is an elementary and middle school, not a high school, it has attracted enough coverage by reliable sources for it to be notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:30, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I was not able to find the "abundant" sources that user Abductive is claiming. There are a few minor sources in the article, but they seem to be local in nature, and do not show the school's notability. Natg 19 (talk) 22:39, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Pottstown, Pennsylvania or Association of Delaware Valley Independent Schools where it is listed - coverage seems run-of-the-mill - schools have to meet WP:ORG and/or WP:GNG per WP:NSCHOOL - lack of "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources" points to redirect as an alternative to deletion - Epinoia (talk) 01:31, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 08:54, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clinical Device Group[edit]

Clinical Device Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

highly promotional article lacks any independent sources DocumentError (talk) 03:43, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:17, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:17, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:17, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 07:51, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Colette Urban[edit]

Colette Urban (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · [29])
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:GNG. KKKNL1488 (talk) 02:34, 24 August 2019‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:06, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:06, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:06, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:06, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 07:59, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dreamland Skate Center[edit]

Dreamland Skate Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No claim of notability expressed. Appears to be a WP:MILL ice skate center. Searching turns up plenty of directory-type listing to establish that it exists, but no in-depth coverage. There are a couple of news articles about the gun incident, but not nearly enough for WP:GNG. MB 02:08, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. MB 02:08, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Tone 18:33, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Andrew Harper[edit]

Murder of Andrew Harper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:1E Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:38, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:08, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Keep for now - This clearly DOES NOT fail WP:1E since it is about an event. Even if it did, WP:1E IS NOT a stand-alone WP:DELREASON, but instead a reason to rename/redirect/merge to an article about the event instead of the person.
That said I’ve got some WP:too soon concerns about this page, though on the other hand coverage may well run on for months in reliable sources. Police officers are rarely killed in the line of duty in the UK so MAYBE notable on that ground. I need to think about this and see what others say. FOARP (talk) 07:17, 24 August 2019 (UTC) EDIT: I'm swayed by User:Jake Brockman's point about WP:10YT: it is highly likely that this will still be talked about ten years from now and as such it should be kept for now. FOARP (talk) 17:11, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve - as FOARP notes, the murder of a police officer is quite rare in the United Kingdom, and it's been publicly commented on by senior government officials including the Prime Minister. It's had wide national coverage in RS, and meets WP:NCRIME. Tracy Von Doom (talk) 07:49, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree with FOARP. 1E strictly does not apply as the article is (probably) about the event, not the person. The title implies wider coverage of the aftermath, trial, impact, etc. WP:NEVENT should be looked at. As the "event" is fairly recent, it is as of yet unclear if there will be a lasting effect or WP:PERSISTENCE, so again I agree that this may be TOOSOON. I like to look at WP:10YT as "tie breaker" and would suspect there will still be residual reporting in years to come given how rare killings of police officers are and (as of yet) lack of clarity how he actually died (i.e. by the suspect's impact or by impact with the chasing police car.) which is likely to create further coverage. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 07:59, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong KeepThis event has attracted widespread media attention in the United Kingdom, these articles about the murder of police officers in the UK do not fail WP:1E (which is also not a sole standalone justification for deletion), especially where there has been significant attention from the media. If you go on to the UK BBC news RIGHT NOW there are several articles on the front page regarding this event. This is likely to attract media coverage for quite a while.Theprussian (talk) 10:41, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:1E does not apply: it relates only to biographies and not to events.
As already noted, deaths of police officers on duty in UK are rare, and are very likely to be notable. In List of British police officers killed in the line of duty, I count 27 since 2000, including at least 8 where they was no foul play. The Guardian, which is thoroughly WP:RS, has already published 11 articles about this incident. Both the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary have commented on the event.
Death of Ged Walker had several similarities to that of Andrew Walker. It happened in 2003; the BBC published follow-up articlee in 2004 and 2005.
I would prefer a more neutral title, namely Death of Andrew Harper. Until there is an inquest and trial, calling the incident murder is speculation. Narky Blert (talk) 13:37, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:1E is for biographies and not events. The article is about a murder that has just happened, and there is not much you can say yet. However, as more information does become available, the article will become larger. Therefore I vote keep.--Wyatt2049 | (talk) 14:12, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There's enough info out there to indicate what's to follow, keeping in mind it's still recent. The article really needs to be improved though. Karl Twist (talk) 14:51, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I renamed the article to Killing of Andrew Harper per WP:BLP as court proceeding are still in progress and it is sub judice in the UK - murder has not been proven. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:54, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ("onya coola, going against this afd's consensus":)) as WP:NOTNEWS and does not meet WP:EVENT, although tragic and newsworthy, due to low numbers of British police killed in line of duty (although i see that not all at List of British police officers killed in the line of duty have articles), and having been run over twice, this does not mean that an article is required. i note that a number of "keepers" above have suggested a "wait and see", interesting idea (i like mention of WP:10YT:)) but this appears to be contrary to WP:EVENTCRITERIA that emphasises event endurance now ie. "have enduring historical significance", "have a significant lasting effect", "if also re-analyzed afterwards", "4.Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, ... usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance.", so WP:TOOSOON is also probably relevant. i wouldn't oppose an addition to the hatnote at Andrew Harper directing wikireaders to List of British police officers killed in the line of duty. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:15, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As it says in WP:LASTING, "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable." (my emphasis). Basically, we don't need to delete an article simply because it relates to a recent event. FOARP (talk) 07:01, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST is in Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Narky Blert (talk) 19:15, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No prejudice against recreation as a redirect to an appropriate target. RL0919 (talk) 08:18, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Establishment war machine[edit]

Establishment war machine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NOT#DICTIONARY, and WP:NPOV. From my reading, this phrase is basically a more pejorative term for the Military Industrial Complex. The article itself states (accurately, as far as I can tell) that the phrase has appeared just twice in the press, and the first source actually doesn't even use that exact phrase. That's not really enough to sustain an article. Nblund talk 01:20, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Nblund talk 01:20, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Nblund talk 01:20, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • All: There is a related discussion at the end of this talk § in response to Nblund's edit to the Tulsi Gabbard article.

    Accepting Nblund's cmt above re Wicker's inexact usage, I adjusted Establishment war machine. However, as far as the exact expression is concerned, it is in popular culture (as indicated in the article), as well as in Gabbard's statement. AFAICS, no rule says it has be 'in the press'. Humanengr (talk) 02:28, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • There are, however, the Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary and Wikipedia:No original research policies. Wikipedia articles are about concepts, ideas, events, people, places, and things denoted by their titles, not grab-bags of quotations where a phrase (mis-)matches a title. Moreover, per Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Deletion policy, those concepts must have escaped their inventors and become part of the general corpus of human knowledge. This article does not even explain what the denoted concept is, let alone show that it has become independently documented by multiple people with good reputations for fact checking and accuracy. Instead, we have an article that has no concept to denote, and a title that is a phrase from one electronic mail message with some close search engine phrase matches thrown in, some of which cross a full stop. This mere bad quotefarm is not anywhere near in accordance with policy. Stop creating bad articles to make U.S. political points with other editors. The Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a soapbox policy covers that. Uncle G (talk) 09:39, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article claims this is a synonym for "national security state". Since that topic currently has a one paragraph section within a larger article it's unclear why a whole separate article on the topic is necessary. I suppose this could be viewed as an article about the phrase itself rather than about the "national security state", but the phrase does not appear to be notable - there is no in-depth discussion of the phrase itself in multiple reliable sources.----Pontificalibus 10:55, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The relevant guideline here is WP:NEO, which says: To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources say about the term or concept, not just sources that use the term Otherwise, WP:NOT#DICTIONARY applies. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:08, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article references politicians, such as Tulsi Gabbard [30], as well as academic thinkers, such as E. Michael Jones [31], who have used the term 'establishment war machine'. The citations that reference the subject are notable publications, in this case, The Washington Free Beacon and St. Augustine's Press. desmay (talk) 02:33, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The first source has already been discussed. Your second source does not actually describe a concept. Encyclopaedia writing by phrase matching in Google searches is not good writing. Uncle G (talk) 11:29, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hawkeye took the words out of my keyboard. Without sources discussing the term, as a term, we are in dictionary territory. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:28, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Hawkeye7. This might belong at Wiktionary, but it's not within our scope. Nick-D (talk) 06:18, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thx for the feedback. Humanengr (talk) 13:34, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --SalmanZ (talk) 18:41, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Hawkeye7. Vermont (talk) 16:12, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to National_security#National_security_state - the opening sentence says, "The phrase "Establishment war machine" refers to the national security state", so redirect there as "Establishment war machine" could be a valid search term - could also redirect to Military–industrial complex, which is a more in-depth article than National_security#National_security_state - Epinoia (talk) 00:56, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2019_August_24&oldid=1142614654"