Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 August 25

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Consensus now clear to keep. Tone 19:42, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra Appiah[edit]

Sandra Appiah (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 outside of company, fails to establish notability as an individual. All of her news coverage are primarily for the company. Meeanaya (talk) 04:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 04:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The press coverage linked in the lemma is about her as an individual. The "30 under 30" is about her as an entrepreneur, it's a list of individuals, not of less-than-thirty-year-old companies. That is markedly different from cases where an individual is only mentioned in passing in press coverage of their company. That she is notable primarily for her work with one company is irrelevant, as long as the coverage is primarily about her as a person, as in this case. Markus Pössel (talk) 20:49, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Publications coming out annually with "30 under 30" and "40 under 40" and othersuch lists, getting on such a list is no where near a sign of notability. Meeanaya (talk) 04:52, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All of the sources are not reliable, interviews are primary sources, clearly fails WP:BASIC. Meeanaya (talk) 12:14, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The Ebony piece goes to notability, but the rest of the sources do not make any convincing case. Neither are the awards notable. Article was created by SPA, who also created the Face2Face Africa, the only article having a meaningful link to this one. It seems then, that this is a little walled-garden and this article is basically an orphan. All-in-all, it seems likely to be promo/fan/vanity page. Agricola44 (talk) 14:53, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted after a "delete" closure per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 August 13.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:49, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The "30 under 30" listing does not count as a significant award (there are too many of them), but it does count as in-depth coverage by a reliable source. So do the newsone (via Huffpo) and Le Figaro pieces. So I think she passes WP:GNG. I've removed some of the more egregiously promotional writing from the article but it could still use more help. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:34, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I stand corrected on the 30 under 30 part; see below. I still think the other coverage is in-depth and reliable enough for a weak pass. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:28, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The write-up in Le Figaro is not long but it is solid [4], and the pieces in The Grio [5] and Newsone (picked up by HuffPo) are adequately in-depth. The BET interview [6] is a primary source as far as Appiah's statements about herself are concerned, but it does represent the world taking notice and thus counts in her favor for wiki-notability. (This is generally true of interviews; after all, publications have their choice of people to interview.) That's enough to pass WP:GNG. XOR'easter (talk) 16:31, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Face2Face Africa, co-founding of which is the subect's sole claim to fame and the context in which she has received coverage. Firstly, I'll note that the article as it stands is clearly promotional and shows clear signs of COI/UPE, such as containing details and content (eg, birthdate, schooling details, photograph) not obtained from any of the cited sources. It also misrepresents its sourcing and what they say. Examples:
    • Appiah was not included in a Forbes 30 Under 30 list. The cited list is simply one compiled by an individual Forbes Contributor. See WP:RS/P's entry on "Forbes contributors" and linked RSN discussions for details on why such content is deemed "generally unreliable" and should not be used as a source, especially in a BLP. Note too that another of the cited sources in the current draft is simply a press-release about the column in Forbes, which nevertheless describes the list in a (technically) accurate manner, "Writing for Forbes.com, contributor Mfonobong Nsehe pulled together a list..."
    • The cited Huffington Post article is simply a blurb to an article published in NewsOne.
Overall, the write-ups/press-releases about Appiah are linked to the launch of Face2Face (thus the concentration of sourcing around Jan 2013), or launch of a a program on the website. The content is therefore best covered at Face2Face Africa itself.
PS: The Face2Face Africa article itself will need a clean up, since it too is written in a promotional and misleading manner. For example, Face2Face is not a "pan-African media company"; it is not even an African company. Rather it is a New York based website that covers Africa with a view to promote pan-African themes. Abecedare (talk) 16:46, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: there is no strong consensus yet
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dom from Paris (talk) 23:47, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have moved the sources listed under References to inline citations, and added some more sources and information. While a lot of coverage of her was generated by the launch of the Face2Face print magazine, the Figaro profile is from 2015. There is enough coverage about her to meet WP:BASIC. (I also found two paras from 2004 about a Sandra Appiah attending the English High School in Boston [7], which sounds like her - she had helped form an Africans Around the World club, for example - except that this article says she went to high school in the Bronx.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 05:47, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per non-trivial WP:RS meets WP:GNG Wm335td (talk) 21:14, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with User: RebeccaGreen who wrote: "...added some more sources and information... There is enough coverage about her to meet WP:BASIC." In some cases it is better to upgrade and source an article rather than be quick to try to delete it. Many of the AfD nominations could be completely avoided if people did this. So much drama and unproductive work could be avoided if more editors were like User: RebeccaGreen. Also, User:Senegambianamestudy made a strong argument. Namely, User:Senegambianamestudy wrote: " plenty of reliable sources that establishes notability [8], [9], a catched copy of a 2013 interview by BET, [10], and one of the Most Influential People of African Descent (MIPAD) as well as one of the top 50 CEOs in Ghana." After all is said and done there is sufficient depth and breadth of coverage to keep the article. Finally, doing business is very challenging in many parts of Africa due to excessive regulation and that it is a developing country.[11] So why make it harder on her? I think it is great that she has an article and I find her work admirable. She could have done business in the USA easily, but she chose the tougher path. But I am sure it is very rewarding for her (I know a couple of people who have done business in Africa and it rewarding to make a poor country more prosperous). Knox490 (talk) 03:49, 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 speedy Deleted /A7 by Bbb23. (non-admin closure) ——SerialNumber54129 06:08, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra Pinel[edit]

Sandra Pinel (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)

Recently deleted as A7. The only independent source in the article is a video clip/transcript of her being interviewed once on French TV. I can't find anything else independent about her under either of the names the article says she uses. (Note if you are searching that there are a couple of possibly-notable people called Sandra Pinel, an American academic and a Honduran politician; there is also a Korean drama with Kim Sam Soon in the title, so it's possible that I might have missed a viable source because of all the hits I was getting about things other than this person). No evidence of notability per WP:GNG or anything else. GirthSummit (blether) 23:19, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit (blether) 23:19, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit (blether) 23:19, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit (blether) 23:19, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit (blether) 23:19, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit (blether) 23:19, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit (blether) 23:19, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit (blether) 23:19, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - a CSD tag was filed before this nomination, so be aware that the article may end up being deleted early if the tag isn't removed. Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 23:27, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, according to the creator's talk page, something similarhas been added by said creator on the French version of Wikipedia. Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 23:30, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article has been speedy deleted as A7 by Bbb23 - I won't close it myself since I nominated, but believe this can be closed. GirthSummit (blether) 01:42, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — JJMC89(T·C) 23:49, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Sweetland[edit]

Andrew Sweetland (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 fails WP:NHOCKEY. Played 113 AHL games and at least 200 for a skater is needed to pass #2. ECHL only counts for #3 for preeminent honours but the subject has none while All-Academic Team in Hockey East does not pass #4. Tay87 (talk) 23:04, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 23:04, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 23:04, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 23:04, 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. — JJMC89(T·C) 23:48, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Olga Pohankova[edit]

Olga Pohankova (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:FILMMAKER and WP:ANYBIO. The award that she won is a paid for monthly award ceremony and her documentary won the May 2017 edition. Dom from Paris (talk) 21:27, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 21:27, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 21:27, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 21:27, 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 merge to Lizardfolk. — JJMC89(T·C) 23:47, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lizard king (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

Lizard king (Dungeons & Dragons) (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 fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 21:18, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:18, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Autobots. — JJMC89(T·C) 23:47, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Windcharger[edit]

Windcharger (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 character article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 21:03, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:03, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. — JJMC89(T·C) 23:46, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anupam Recording Media[edit]

Anupam Recording 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)

Delete The references listed are based on company announcements and/or rely on PRIMARY sources with no Independent Content. As per BEFORE, I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 19:49, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:51, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:51, 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 delete. — JJMC89(T·C) 23:45, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Frequency (Khat Prodution album)[edit]

Frequency (Khat Prodution album) (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 indication of notability, thereby failing WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. WP:BEFORE check failed to bring up anything of note. Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 19:32, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 19:32, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 19:32, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Speedy Delete per WP:A1 (no context or indication of importance) and/or WP:A9 (artist does not have an article). The artist, Khat Production, is barely present on the Internet in any language beyond a few basic social media pages, and this album is only noted in a few typical user-generated listings. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:34, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since there does not appear to be enough coverage from reliable, third-party sources to meet WP:GNG requirements. I also agree with Doomsdayer520 that this seems to meet the criteria for a speedy delete per WP:A1. Aoba47 (talk) 00:26, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as per WP:A9 (but not as per WP:A1 because it is not "lacking sufficient context to identify the subject" and A1 is not concerned with "indication of importance") or delete as per WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. -Lopifalko (talk) 21:07, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying, I may have been thinking of an old definition of A1 that was changed sometime recently. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:20, 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. — JJMC89(T·C) 23:44, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

R. K. Malayath[edit]

R. K. Malayath (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 indication of notability, thereby failing WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. WP:BEFORE check failed to bring up anything of note. Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 19:01, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 19:01, 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. — JJMC89(T·C) 23:44, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tainted Reality[edit]

Tainted Reality (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 found no significant coverage. Fails WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 18:12, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:42, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:42, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:42, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:03, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Putrenko[edit]

Alex Putrenko (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 football player is not notable Шиманський Василь (talk) 17:53, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:13, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:13, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Шиманський Василь (talk) 17:55, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I can't find any sign of this person playing football for Arsenal Kyiv. A check on ffu.org.ua turns up nothing at all. A google search for путренко футбол generates nothing as well. Seems like a hoax, or possibly someone who had a trial or spell in the reserves at best. Jogurney (talk) 16:55, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:37, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:03, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Guus Vaags[edit]

Guus Vaags (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)

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator on the ground that he is signed to De Graafschap. However, since he is yet to make his competitive debut, this does not satisfy WP:NFOOTY. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:10, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:10, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:10, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following articles for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:12, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Vergara Berrio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Dylan Chiazor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:36, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:05, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Misdemeanor (Missy Elliott album)[edit]

Misdemeanor (Missy Elliott album) (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 hoax album. There is no compilation by this name by Missy Elliott; Google results turn up nothing besides a page on Genius, which is a WP:USERG website so the hoax looks to have spread to there as well. The purported cover art appears to be just a shot of Missy taken from somewhere on the Internet. The editor who created it also created at least one other hoax, Put On Your Pants & Jacket!, which is now a redirect and I have nominated for deletion, so they look to be an editor who occasionally invents fake albums for some reason. Ss112 15:43, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:03, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 16:46, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Per nomination. livelikemusic talk! 17:55, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It is quite obvious that this article was a hoax or mistake for an album that does not exist, unfortunately it has proliferated out into the interwebs. Delete the article, and DO NOT redirect to the artist's page as is common, because the title does not exist and also because that would cause confusion if anyone searches for her old nickname "Missy Misdemeanor Elliott." ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:27, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above discussion. Since it is likely a hoax, a redirect would be misleading, and deletion would be the best option. It is certainly odd how these hoax articles come to be and stick around here. Thank you for nominating this for deletion as hoaxes should be taken seriously. Aoba47 (talk) 00:28, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoaxes don't belong on Wikipedia. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:25, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong delete as the album does not appear on iTunes, Amazon, Spotify, Discogs etc. nor are there any sources for the album/reviews or a mention of it from Missy Elliott's own Twitter or even a release date. Jentinafan (talk) 09:24, 29 August 2019 (UTC) (Jentinafan has been blocked as a sockpuppet. - SummerPhDv2.0 15:01, 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. TheSandDoctor Talk 15:50, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Lavery[edit]

Gary Lavery (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)

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY. Coverage is routine; alleged 2 caps for Fleetwood are unsourced and likely wrong. BlameRuiner (talk) 15:37, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:40, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:40, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:40, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lavery played for Fleetwood's development squad not the first team. His MMA "career" isn't notable either. Also fails GNG.Dougal18 (talk) 18:05, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:36, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:05, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Strohschein[edit]

Kevin Strohschein (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:NBASEBALL and WP:GNG. Ostealthy (talk) 14:39, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Ostealthy (talk) 14:41, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:58, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:58, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:58, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, TOOSOON. He needs to establish more of a professional baseball career. Minor league doesn't cut the mustard for a Wikipedia article.Knox490 (talk) 04:33, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NBASEBALL....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:43, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this is so "to soon" that deleting it is sad, given that he is MLB drafted and presumably will play. Perhaps an alternative solution would be draftifying this? (I am not objecting to its deletion, just proposing an alternative. Baseball is not "my" sport and I fully accept that I may be mistaken.) @Knox490, CAPTAIN RAJU, and Ostealthy: --TheSandDoctor Talk 15:59, 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. WP:SNOW; nominator also blocked, which further puts the legitimacy of the nomination into question. (non-admin closure) Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 19:36, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ailsa Land[edit]

Ailsa Land (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 awards (Harold Larnder prize), no depth-of-coverage requirement doesn't seem to be sufficient for WP:BIO. No significant work what so ever. Riazul Islam BD (talk) 13:37, 25 August 2019 (UTC)Riazul Islam BD (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Riazul Islam BD (talk) 13:37, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:40, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:40, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:40, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The pioneering paper "An Automatic Method for Solving Discrete Programming Problems" by Land and Alison Doig is republished in the celebration "50 years of integer programming". Land is not just notable but famous for this work; the paper has been cited over 3000 times. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:18, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Few contributions, but highly significant ones, enough for WP:PROF#C1 and #C7. Nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet so this AfD could have a speedy close. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:33, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:PROF#C1. and WP:ANYBIO The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. --Wm335td (talk) 19:28, 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. — JJMC89(T·C) 23:44, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Taraneh Javanbakht[edit]

Taraneh Javanbakht (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 and WP:AUTHOR. Classic example of a promotional article: scientist, philosopher, artist, writer, poet, literary critic, translator, and human rights activist! According to this official source, all books by Javanbakht has been published by a single publisher (Arvin) and if you click on the list of books published by this the publisher (Blue tag, down of the page, here), you see that Arvin published 10 books in a span of two years (2003-2004), all by Javanbakht. So we can consider her a "self-published" poet. Farhikht (talk) 12:24, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:26, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:26, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:26, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:26, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Blatant promotion by herself or by someone in her circle (note correspondences with her website, e.g. In others' books). Superficially it is impressive, but the only real claim to notability appears to be her work as a scientist, and I think she fails WP:NACADEMIC here as well. Much of the 'polymath' umbrella term applies to nothing more than elevated hobbies. Curiocurio (talk) 17:56, 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 Bundled with another discussion. This discussion has been closed as it has been bundled here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Riley Parsons (non-admin closure) Dom from Paris (talk) 12:04, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Si Jiahui[edit]

Si Jiahui (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 case of WP:TOOSOON fails WP:NSPORTS and the project essay Wikipedia:WikiProject Cue sports/Notability. He has won no prize money yet. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:51, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:51, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:51, 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 delete. — JJMC89(T·C) 23:43, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Riley Parsons[edit]

Riley Parsons (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 case of WP:TOOSOON fails WP:NSPORTS and the project essay Wikipedia:WikiProject Cue sports/Notability. He has won no prize money yet. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:49, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Lei Peifan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Si Jiahui (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:49, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:49, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:01, 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. — JJMC89(T·C) 23:43, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ring of Pakistan[edit]

Ring of Pakistan (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 promotion - PW promotions need a lot to meet GNG, this one has been running for a year, with no major news. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:10, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:10, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:10, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:01, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is a wrestling event. The refs offer coverage of the event but they are really just promotional articles. The event is newly created as a kind of 'tester' to see if there is any appetite for wrestling in the country. If the event has longevity we can revisit this. Szzuk (talk) 15:01, 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 redirect to She-Hulk. This is a bit of a mess. Closing this as NC would be defensible, but I think would be the wrong result.

I'm not impressed with most of the keep arguments, which are mostly, "This will be notable in the future". Well, OK, then in the future we can have an article about it.

I was thinking draftify was a good middle ground, then I got to the part about how there's already a draft, and yes, as pointed out, one of them is a total copy-paste from the other, but it's not immediately obvious in which direction the copying went, so there's an ugly potential licensing/attribution violation. Blech.

So, what I'm going to do is delete this, and then create a new redirect. People can continue to work on the draft, and submit that for review when appropriate. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:21, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

She-Hulk (TV series)[edit]

She-Hulk (TV series) (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 is a draft article for this, like all the other Marvel-Disney+ shows. Mazewaxie (talkcontribs) 11:08, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:10, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is a notable upcoming television program, widely reported in the media. GarrettOrangeCow (talk) 12:18, 25 August 2019 (UTC) Note to closing admin: GarrettOrangeCow (talkcontribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
  • DeleteDraftify as per my comment below fails WP:GNG this is way too soon. The article was created by a possible WP:UPE. --Dom from Paris (talk) 13:05, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Normally I would say this is a keep It was announced as part of Disney+ who has a fairly good record of following through on productions like this. It is probably too soon but there will be significant public interest and media coverage for this show now that it has been announced as part of the MCU. The troubling part for me is most of the article outside of the intro focuses on the creator and his previous She Hulk production. Also, the grammar used in the Production paragraph part of the page is pretty bad and there are a lot of statements which aren't factual like "many fans have expressed interest" "would like to see" "many, many more". These statements aren't usually associated with Wikipedia. There is also the issue of the references, they are pretty attrocious. Might be a case of WP:TNT or find someone who likes the MCU and have they make the desparately needed updates.ScienceAdvisor (talk) 16:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just a heads up. I removed the promotional language for the page about the creator of the fan made She-Hulk movie. There is no references to him in the Disney+ articles and all I could find was a She Hulk fan made movie produced by this guy. Regardless of what happens with the page that language should be removed.ScienceAdvisor (talk) 16:27, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have cleaned up the article, removed the nonsense and promotional material on the producer of the fan made movie.. I've added some references to help bring it in alignment with a TV Show stub article. I think with this work, the amount of publicity, and the public interest this article should be or at least could be kept. I am sure it will be updated more thoroughly by fans of the MCU and She-Hulk! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScienceAdvisor (talkcontribs) 21:48, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep The nomination doesn't contain a reason to delete. If anything, the existence of a draft version too confirms the interest in this topic, for which there appears to be plenty of news coverage. Andrew D. (talk) 22:08, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Although I'd normally consider this to be "too soon", there seems to be substantial coverage. Cosmic Sans (talk) 16:56, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The 3 sources say almost nothing about the series itself. Is it in production? When will it be coming out? Who are the voice actors? How many episodes? The articles go into some depth about the characters but say next to nothing about the series itself. As it states in one of the articles "The announcements didn’t include any details about casting or planned release dates, but the series are in development. Feige also reiterated that all of these series will be integrated with the Marvel Cinematic Universe films." These are just repeating what an executive said to them during a panel. This is pure Churnalism. There is no in-depth coverage of the subject in any of the sources. --Dom from Paris (talk) 17:27, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify Coverage needs to move beyond the announcement, otherwise it's too soon. No depth of coverage or guarantee of production yet. Reywas92Talk 19:34, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I just want to be clear that I didn't create the page and I did "some" work to clean it up and make it a compliant article. I added a couple of references to bring it in line with a stub article assuming others will contribute. I didn't go through the press and try and aggregate all the information into the article. I am an MCU fan but She-Hulk is a fringe character I am not too familiar with. I do encourage people to contribute. Also, this is a live-action series so there would be no voice actors. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 23:05, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah you see whether it is animated or live action is not clear from the sources for those that aren't fans or know anything about the D23 thing. But this can be worked on as a draft until there is some in-depth coverage. If they haven't even cast the actors yet this is most definitely way WP:TOOSOON. But changing to draftify. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:06, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to draft The only reason we are having this discussion is because someone wanted first dibs on the article. Checking the history, it was created as a redirect. Other users undid the redirect to expand the article, but without much information on the show. The bullies on the WikiProject Comics want their creation credits, thus the nomination. Why delete an article just so they can get their creation credit? Redirect and move draft to article in time. 119.93.40.241 (talk) 03:18, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, restore redirect Absolutely way to soon for this article to exist. This fails WP:GNG, WP:TOOSOON, WP:NTV and the spirit of WP:NFF. We don't even have an intended release window, except that it will be after the Hawkeye series which is coming in 2021. So we are at least 2 years away before there will be any real news on this. Content for the article can be found at Draft:She-Hulk (TV series) (which this article is a blatant WP:COPYPASTE) until it is ready to be moved to the mainspace, which is once there has been confirmation filming has begun. This shouldn't even be up for discussion, much less have anyone suggesting the article stay. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:32, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The best solution would be to move this article to the draft space for now and move it back to the article space after the right time has come. It makes little sense rn to have an article on the subject. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:54, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, moving the page to draft space would be silly because it would lead to the creation of forks. If it's clear that there are plans for this series but information is limited then there's a better alternative to deletion – merging the content into She-Hulk#Television where a variety of TV appearances of this character are listed. That way, you keep all the activity together, rather than creating forks, and our readers get the information directly rather than having to root around in other name-spaces. Andrew D. (talk) 23:29, 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:19, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Old Curiosity Shop (1984 film)[edit]

The Old Curiosity Shop (1984 film) (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 found nothing that shows this film is notable. Fails WP:NF. SL93 (talk) 02:30, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 02:30, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. J947(c), at 02:35, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. J947(c), at 02:35, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. J947(c), at 02:35, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The film was a feature film. It had a notable cast it was sold around the world. Dutchy85 (talk) 02:42, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: Dutchy85 (talkcontribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.
  • Comment @Dutchy85: I moved your comment down to where it might be more appropriate, chronologically speaking. Moaz786 (talk to me or see what I've been doing) 02:48, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the additional refs that have been added. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:35, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Lugnuts: How so? The first online reference only states "By April 1984 the Sll-million series will be complete, with 'A Tale of Two Cities' and 'The Old Curiosity Shop' in the can." and the second online reference only states "They are 'Pickwick Papers', 'Oliver Twist', 'A Christmas Carol', 'Great Expectations', 'David Copperficld', 'Tale of Two Cities', 'Old Curiosity Shop' and 'Nicholas Nickelby'." SL93 (talk) 07:52, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable - appears to have been released direct to VHS/DVD - the two references to The Canberra Times mention the series, but this film is not the subject of the articles, so mention is trivial (WP:TRIVIALMENTION) - does not meet WP:NFO: "The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics" nor any of the other criteria of WP:NFILM - therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 19:52, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:01, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Someone else must have an opinion about a curious old film.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 09:38, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - This source gives multi-paragraph coverage to it, this sources gives a long-paragraph review to it. Keeping in mind WP:NEXIST and that what matters is whether references supporting notability likely exist, and not whether we have them to hand right now, I think there's just enough to keep this. FOARP (talk) 12:03, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as per the sources identified by FOARP above, if more are found please ping me, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 18:05, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as per FOARP. Bookscale (talk) 14:04, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Refs are OK. Szzuk (talk) 14:54, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. — JJMC89(T·C) 23:38, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Angel Henderson[edit]

Jordan Angel Henderson (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 evidence of any notability. Does not satisfy criteria for WP:SINGER. Sources are adverts, regurgitated press releases and little else. Searches find nothing better. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   09:14, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:17, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:56, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Note that the SPA who created this article refers to the subject as their "client" [12], suggesting a COI and promotional interest. Richard3120 (talk) 14:54, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:06, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David Daniels (journalist)[edit]

David Daniels (journalist) (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)

The only sources cited here are links to his work on various websites that are not serious news outlets. Guy (Help!) 08:53, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:08, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:08, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:08, 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. TheSandDoctor Talk 15:44, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rituparna Basu[edit]

Rituparna Basu (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 non-notable speaker/activist. No independent sources in the article, just her own works and appearances, and I didn't find anything in my WP:BEFORE search. Should not be confused with the same-named professor at the International Management Institute. RL0919 (talk) 08:36, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. RL0919 (talk) 08:36, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. RL0919 (talk) 08:36, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seem to rely on affiliated sources only, and there's nothing obvious to replace them. Guy (Help!) 08:43, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Michipedian (talk) 10:08, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 12:00, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 12:00, 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 no consensus. After two relists, participants are divided on whether the coverage is significant enough to qualify him for WP:GNG. RL0919 (talk) 08:41, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Beard[edit]

Evan Beard (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 independently notable outside of his company, lack WP:RS, fails WP:GNG. All news are mere mentions and nothing significant turns our from a Google search. Meeanaya (talk) 12:05, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:44, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:44, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:29, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep non-trivial coverage about the person in the LA Times, Forbes, Cosmopolitan, Good Morning America. Meets or WP:GNG. Wm335td (talk) 19:12, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 14:30, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:21, 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. RL0919 (talk) 08:22, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ledri Vula[edit]

Ledri Vula (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)

who fails WP:MUSICBIO. not enough to establish notability Singer, Does not meet criteria of WP:GNG. fails WP:GNG. I didn't find any notable album also Any WP:RS. this article previous deleted via WP:G11 --Nahal(T) 08:21, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. --Nahal(T) 08:21, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. --Nahal(T) 08:21, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. --Nahal(T) 08:21, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. --Nahal(T) 08:21, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as non-notable. To be considered notable, subjects must have accrued significant coverage in reliable, intellectually independent sources. In this case, the subject does not meet WP:NMUSICIAN or WP:GNG due to a general lack of coverage; most of the sources cited are one word-to-one sentence mentions of the subject attending musical events. The one source that could be considered quality (the interview with 20min) does not work towards establishing notability, as it is an interview and therefor not intellectually independent of the subject as noted in WP:PRIMARY.--SamHolt6 (talk) 13:19, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable; no Ghits that would prove otherwise. Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 19:39, 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. Given that this was substantially similar to what was deleted at a slightly different title, further recreations could lead to creation protection. RL0919 (talk) 08:19, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mojtaba Cheraghi[edit]

Mojtaba Cheraghi (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. removed 4 times in fawiki ([13]).   ARASH PT  talk  07:40, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:11, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:11, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:02, 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Daiyusha (talk) 18:37, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Fanning[edit]

John Fanning (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)

The only significant "reliable" mention is that this person helped his nephew set up napster. His other ventures arent that notable though, not enough to have a wiki page for each of them. I would recommend redirecting this to napster, Sean fanning or delete this page.

PS: The article was edited recently by someone who is likely John Fanning Himself, as per his user page. Daiyusha (talk) 05:39, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Daiyusha (talk) 05:39, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Daiyusha (talk) 05:39, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:46, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article was created 24 August 2019 by over-writing a long-standing disambiguation page. I have revert to the dab page. If someone wants to re-create John Fanning (businessman) (PROD Nov 2017 for lack of demonstrable notability), they should do so, but without destroying the encyclopedia's navigational structures. PamD 09:31, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And I note that according to Napster it was founded by Shawn Fanning (born 1980). Interesting contradiction there. PamD 09:33, 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 speedy delete. Given the creator's lengthy list of deleted articles and the fact that this is a WP:BLP with minimal content or contributions by others, I'm going to accept this as a G5, with no prejudice to recreation by any non-sanctioned editor. RL0919 (talk) 08:30, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Swapan Debnath[edit]

Swapan Debnath (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)
  • Was speedied "{{speedy deletion-blocked user}}", but has been has been re-edited 11 times since by other people, Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:03, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:42, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:42, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Hmmm. I was the one who added the CSD G5 tag yesterday, after I found this article in the back of the NPP queue, where it sat since May 14. My impression, from looking at the page history, was that none of the edits subsequent to the page's creation qualify as "substantial edits". Several of them added various maintenance tags, a couple re-filled bare URLs using reFill, another added some categories, and another added a wikilink. I still feel that these are not substantial edits, either individually or cumulatively, and that the page still qualifies under WP:G5. However, if that is determined not to be the case, then the page should be kept since the subject is notable under WP:POLITICIAN as a minister of a province. Nsk92 (talk) 09:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as creation by blocked user, without prejudice against recreation by an editor in good standing. There are sometimes real reasons (copyright issues, extreme BLP violations, denial of attribution to banned editors, etc.) why even notable topics can have their articles deleted and then restarted from scratch under the WP:TNT principle, and this article is not so well-written that deleting it would be losing good work — deleting it doesn't mean he can never have an article, it just means the banned user isn't allowed to retain credit as its author. And no, none of the followup editors have added any substantive content that would change the issue — every edit after the article's creation was strictly maintenance or formatting cleanup, and the article's actual content is substantively unchanged from the original creation. Bearcat (talk) 16:24, 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 as WP:NOTNEWS. No prejudice against future recreation if new sources in subsequent months/years show WP:SUSTAINED coverage. RL0919 (talk) 08:38, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eno the Emu[edit]

Eno the Emu (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 pillar policy WP:NOT. This isn't a collection of random trivia. A domesticated animal escaped captivity. So what? Google trends is in no way an indication of notability. John from Idegon (talk) 20:45, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:09, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per nominator. In no way is this animal notable. Meatsgains(talk) 21:35, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- I wrote the article. It's been getting a good deal of news attention and has been used as a symbol by at least one marketing campaign, which points towards it having staying power. The emu has been mentioned repeatedly in local news, and occasionally in national and global news agencies. At the very least, one could merge this and some of the other just-barely notable animals into a List of escaped domesticated animals; I would be fine with that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcavoybickford (talkcontribs) 22:50, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:22, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, when i saw this i initially thought of course this shouldn't have an article as WP:NOTNEWS but on looking at the sources its been reported on since early/mid July, its still being covered at mid/late August by local, national, and international sources (even Aussies are picking it up - "Emu on the lam has US authorities in a fluster"), so the question now is whether this passess WP:SUSTAINED ie. "If reliable sources cover a person (or emu?) only in the context of a single event, and if that person (or emu?) otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual." Note: i am staying neutral on this as the thought of one of these "big balls of feathers" alluding authorities for months is so funny as to be article-worthy, definitely not a wikireason for keeping. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:40, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Notable, mentioned in the news and a great story. Thanks for the article - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:44, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Subject fails WP:1E, WP:LASTING, WP:NOTNEWS and the WP:10YT. See also WP:RECENTISM. There is no reason for this article as of right now. However, five years from now if it's still getting WP:SIGCOV I will support recreation. See also WP:NORUSH. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:10, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 03:45, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:04, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Order of The Bulls Blood[edit]

The Order of The Bulls Blood (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 seems to be a possible hoax article (one source cites Wikipedia.com ). If not that then it simply fails WP:GROUP.

If this article is kept, then it needs a massive source cleanup. Several include listicles on supposed secret societies and others are just local stories about some pranks made in the name of this group. –MJLTalk 03:08, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. –MJLTalk 03:08, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fraternities and sororities-related deletion discussions. –MJLTalk 03:08, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. –MJLTalk 03:08, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If it's such a secret, why does it have a Wikipedia article? In my opinion, listicles aren't a good determiner of notability unless they're things about one person/object (ie "the ten musicians that influenced James Hetfield" is fine, but "10 musicians influenced by James Hetfield" is not.) Same principle here. Squeeps10 Talk to meMy edits 03:27, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for failing WP:VERIFY. Although there is a lot of coverage over the years it existence has not been verified. Unlike Yale's Skull and Bones club this one has no line of authority or recognition on campus. It has no physical presence such as a clubhouse. Nor does anybody appear to admit to having been a member. (Not surprising since its main activity is vandalism of property.) A long-running hoax but still a hoax. Blue Riband► 16:21, 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 keep. There is a consensus towards keep and the article has been improved significantly since the start of the AfD, now containing several reliable sources. Improvement is certainly needed for the article, which can be discussed on the article talk page. (non-admin closure) Taewangkorea (talk) 08:14, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Miami Lyric Opera[edit]

Miami Lyric Opera (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)

Previously deleted. Not notable band. Doesn't provide any citations. Harshil want to talk? 02:20, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Harshil want to talk? 02:20, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Harshil want to talk? 02:20, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Tracy Von Doom (talk) 03:54, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 03:03, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not convinced a WP:BEFORE was done for this nomination. I've found significant coverage of the subject in Opera Today, the Sun-Sentinel, and the South Florida Classical Review. The article appears to have been created by a COI editor and needs a lot of work, but keep in mind that deletion is not cleanup. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 20:06, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article certainly needs improvement but the identification of multiple reliable sources with significant coverage of the opera (not a band) by Lord Bollingbroke shows that the opera passes WP:GNG and there is no valid reason for deletion rather than improvement, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 20:51, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve. Substantial reliable sources are easily found. bd2412 T 03:57, 2 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. Specific sources were surfaced to establish notability for this particular camp. RL0919 (talk) 09:05, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Tel Noar[edit]

Camp Tel Noar (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 WP:BEFORE search has only led to inadequate sources that are mentions or biographies of attendants. Fails WP:BASIC. The previous rationales for the other deletions were over 13 years ago and was no consensus. AmericanAir88(talk) 22:18, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is part of a campaign covering at least 5 summer camps currently. Please see:
--Doncram (talk) 21:21, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:27, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:20, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:20, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:20, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm inclined to say keep on this because I don't see why a good article is impossible. At the moment it ranges from so-so to embarrassing ("The area around the Flagpole is used for lineup and raising the flags." no kidding!). Zerotalk 10:13, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you have any rationale for keeping besides your opinion? AmericanAir88(talk) 18:10, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A search of books and newspaper archives reveals only passing mentions and event listings. The best I could find was [14] and [15], which isn't enough to satisfy WP:ORG.----Pontificalibus 08:48, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per decisions in previous 2 AFDs. First AFD links to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jewish summer camps and local organizations, a discussion about how some were on a tear to delete all articles about Jewish summer camps. I don't think there were any accusations of ant-semitism, but I don't get the interest, either. IMHO, these Jewish summer camps like other summer camps are like public schools and parks and other places/facilities which touch the lives of many persons, often in significant ways, and are written about somewhat at least in guidebook-type literature (which can be very reliable and high in quality), and it serves the public to have these covered in at least a reference way, and IMHO Wikipedia could probably be a comprehensive gazetteer (sp?) about them, like we are for populated places. --Doncram (talk) 21:02, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I respect your opinion, and I think you present an interesting argument; however, I hope you realize that your !vote isn't a reflection of current policy. I have responses to a few of your points. 1) This article's previous AfDs from 2006 should not be given much weight in this discussion because the application of notability guidelines has changed so much since then. 2) Populated places have a subject-specific notability guideline (WP:GEOLAND) while summer camps do not. In the absence of an SNG, you need to evaluate whether a subject has received sufficient coverage in sources, which your !vote does not do. An argument by analogy just doesn't make sense in this case. 3) Your argument that articles on some subjects should be kept because of their personal significance seems to be in opposition of WP:ORGSIG, which says that organizations (yes, schools and summer camps included) do not have any inherent notability. It does not matter (for Wikipedia purposes) whether Camp Tel Noar has touched the lives of many people; it still needs to have received significant coverage in reliable sources to be considered notable. Again, I respect your argument, but just want to point out that it does not at all reflect established consensus. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 00:11, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. STONG KEEP: Per Doncram. Jewish summer camps are notable - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:33, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I am not impressed by the WP:PAG basis for the pro-retention comments. (Is there one?) If this is an IAR based argument that should be stated clearly.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:03, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteNeutral (see below). Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. My Google news search and regular Google search only turned up extremely tangential mentions like this and this. Also, to whomever is closing this discussion: please give due weight to the keep !votes above, as they do not present any policy-based reasons for keeping the article. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 23:08, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Is it really necessary for you to tell admins how to do their jobs?? They will be able to evaluate Doncram's position on their own and "give due weight to the KEEP". I found him persuasive. I also found the reasons presented in the previous 2 AFDs helpful. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:14, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Can't see how this is notable enough for an article and the sources do not appear to be forthcoming. Number 57 12:25, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are more sources, and more information that could be added to the article. For example, a 1971 article that says that for 25 years, there had been a Laymen's Institute held at Camp Tel Noar, sponsored by the Brotherhoods of Conservative Synagogues in New England, open to Orthodox, Reform and Conservative men, with the camp made available by the Eli and Bessie Cohen Foundation (it was reported in other years too) [16] (Pontificalibus also found that); there was a Golden Age Club at the camp (1972) [17]; there was a Brotherhood Youth Institute in 1962, sponsored by the National Conference of Christians and Jews [18] - also in 1969 [19]; a 1949 article says it was affiliated with the New England Zionist Youth Movement, was non-religious with a Jewish background, for 18-30 year olds, and the two mandated activities were attendance at discussions and group singing (this article has some nice b&w photos of scenes from the camp, including one showing Eli and Bessie Cohen, which could be added to the article) [20]; in 1947, people from the Lodge were involved in protests against the British seizure of the refugee ship Exodus, with a sign naming Tel Noar Lodge [21]; there are bits of information about staff who worked at the camp for many years; the Jewish Journal in 2011 has an article about a new swimming pool dedicated to a long-time former director of the camp - that's in the article, so here's a source for it [22]; information about a Camp Tel Yehudah held at Tel Noar Lodge in the late 40s, early 50s [23]. So coverage from 1947-2011, from Boston, Missouri, New Hampshire, Vermont (not just local), and which provides more information. I think it meets WP:GNG.
    If it is not considered to have enough coverage to warrant a separate article, I wonder, as WP:ATD, if there would be enough coverage to have a combined article about the Eli and Bessie Cohen Foundation, or the three camps run by the Eli and Bessie Cohen Foundation? There seems to be more coverage than would warrant not having any article at all about the camp(s)/foundation. RebeccaGreen (talk) 19:53, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for providing these sources RebeccaGreen. Several of them, such as this and this, seem to be passing mentions that don't provide significant coverage of Camp Tel Noar. With that being said, I'm changing my !vote to neutral until I can evaluate your research more thoroughly. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 23:28, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the sources. I am changing my Keep to STONG KEEP. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:47, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I previously found but disregarded most of the sources that RebeccaGreen details above as being either passing mentions, or concerning organisations unrelated to the camp who happened to hold an event at the camp's location out-of-season. Can we perhaps highlight WP:THREE that represent the most detailed coverage? Perhaps [24] might be one? ----Pontificalibus 13:58, 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. — JJMC89(T·C) 23:35, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Miniter[edit]

Frank Miniter (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:AUTHOR, though he seems to have written quite a bit. However, the article is a stub only sourced to his personal bio. Deletion recommended. –MJLTalk 01:50, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. –MJLTalk 01:50, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. –MJLTalk 01:50, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. –MJLTalk 01:50, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. –MJLTalk 01:50, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. –MJLTalk 01:50, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Having written a purportedly but not sourcedly best-selling book might get him over AUTHOR if the article were properly referenced, but it is not an "inherent" notability freebie that exempts a person from actually having to have any sources — bestsellerdom is a thing that writers often falsely claim to have achieved in their publicity materials when they actually achieved no such thing at all, so the notability test is not what the article does or doesn't say, but how well it does or doesn't reference the things it says to reliable sources that properly verify those things as true. And being a guest on talk radio is not a notability claim either — he has to be the subject being spoken about, not the person doing the speaking on some other subject, for a reference to support his notability, so the improperly cited Q&A interview in which he's talking about hunting does not help. Bearcat (talk) 04:34, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:BIO. He has written widely including on Fox News but I can't find any substantive coverage of Miniter as a person which is what is required for notability. 2A02:C7F:4481:8300:90DC:E235:5074:54B0 (talk) 23:03, 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. Looking at the arguments and sources brought forward, some of the "keep" arguments are about the general significance of the type of camp, which unfortunately does not establish notability for this particular one. One keep supporter did offer a more specific assessment, but surfaced only non-independent sources and speculation about the potential for more. So on balance although the "delete" side has only one more supporter, the relevant arguments are more strongly weighted towards deletion. RL0919 (talk) 09:00, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Interlaken[edit]

Camp Interlaken (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 camp does not have any adequate sourcing for its former operation. The only mentions are of directories and biographies of people who attended. Fails WP:BASIC. AmericanAir88(talk) 22:16, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:28, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:21, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:21, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is part of a campaign covering at least 5 summer camps currently. Please see:
--Doncram (talk) 21:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I haven't found any sources that would meet WP:GNG. Jmertel23 (talk) 17:18, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is part of a new campaign to delete a bunch of summer camp articles. I have seen previous campaigns, mostly ending in Keep decisions, including one about a bunch of Jewish summer camps (this is not one, but see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jewish summer camps and local organizations); i have seen other campaigns too. I don't get the interest in deleting these. This one is a camp that operated 40 years under the Camp Interlaken name, and operated later as YMCA/YWCA Camp Coniston (currently a redlink). It would be appropriate to expand the article and cover the later usage too, perhaps moving it to the Camp Coniston name. It is okay to tag for more sources and development, but I believe that there will exist coverage about this project, which surely was covered in newspapers when it was operational because of its obvious public benefit/public interest nature, and also the newer usages will have been covered. And once notable, always notable, too. IMHO, summer camps are like public schools and parks and other places/facilities which touch the lives of many persons, often in significant ways, and are written about somewhat at least in guidebook-type literature (which can be very reliable and high in quality), and it serves the public to have these covered in at least a reference way, and IMHO Wikipedia could probably be a comprehensive gazetteer (sp?) about them, like we are for populated places. --Doncram (talk) 21:13, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG. Even if judged by WP:GEOFEAT it fails due to no significant coverage or indication of historic, social, economic, or architectural importance----Pontificalibus 06:36, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per Doncram. Jewish summer camps are notable - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:39, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. When many people look back at their lives, I think it is fair to say that summer camp experiences (including religious retreats at summer camps), are among the best times of their lives. It is similar in significance to memories to what schools they attended, but to a lesser degree. What they lack in duration, they make up in enjoyment. I think schools, parks, camps, major beaches, amusement parks, major houses of worship belong in Wikipedia. Granted some of these items may not get a significant amount of press given the sensationalism and ambulance chasing of much of the press, but they are still significant places. And Christianity/Judaism/Islam are the big 3 when it comes to world events so a YMCA/Christian camp is notable.Knox490 (talk) 03:00, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Once more with feeling, let's see the sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 01:30, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Can't see how this is notable enough for an article and the sources do not appear to be forthcoming. Number 57 15:18, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP. --Doncram (talk) 10:12, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Correct, AFD is not for cleanup. It is for determining whether or not there are sources available that show a subject meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. This particular subject does not appear to have sources that do that. I would, of course, not be against recreation if such sources can be identified in the future, but for now they simply do not appear to exist. Jmertel23 (talk) 12:16, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree about available of sources existing. The original camp closed in 1963 so sources specifically about it will be more likely offline, available from local/regional newspapers and libraries, etc. But this article is reasonably about the original plus follow-ons/purchasers/mergers, such as Camp Coniston, the New Hampshire YMCA Camping Reservation, and/or Camp Soangetaha about which I believe you have not searched. For example, this history page about Camp Coniston, referring to its history running back to 1911. There was a Centennial celebration in 2011, which likely was covered in some newspapers. There is considerable detail for developing the article available in Camp Coniston publications (right, they are not independent of the subject, but definitely can be used). The Spring 2011 edition of the Coniston Chronicle covers a lot of detail in timelines about camp creations and sales and openings of dining halls, purchases of additional land, building of a new chapel, renovation of Old Dining Hall into a center for the arts, etc., and additional more generally newsworthy details:
  • The camp received an award in 1981 by which it was "recognized as an International YMCA for its program quality and inclusion"; separate coverage about that may be available somewhere.
  • At the 2010 or 2011(?) National Convention of the American Camping Association in San Diego, "YMCA Camp Coniston was named a Pioneer of Camping.... The Pioneer of Camping award recognizes organizations who have served with distinction in the camping movement for 30 or more years."
  • In 1996, Coniston opened a program or sub-camp or affiliated camp or something like that, named "Camp Winning Spirit" in "collaboration with Childhood Cancer Lifeline of NH and Ronald McDonald House, ...or families and kids dealing with childhood cancer." I expect that was covered elsewhere.
  • In 1999, Coniston hosted "Kearsarge Area Children of Hope, bringing together Protestant and Catholic Youth from Belfast Northern Ireland for a week of “peace and reconciliation” programs."
  • There are 1930s postcards of the camp, there was boxing, a circus with elephants came to the camp, and that is from tidbits in the publication.
  • A detailed history begins page 16 and runs through page 21. There's a semi-complicated story about author Winston Churchill, a cousin to the prime minister, writing the 1906 novel Coniston which was important in the Progressive movement, and relates to the town and camp and renamings following the novel's usage of names, etc. I am not sure about relating those stories relating to Churchill in the article, but there's other stuff, and I won't summarize more from the history here.
It is reasonable to believe that independent sources exist to verify more facts (I think the "Chronicle" is reliable as far as it goes, is not asserting any facts that look controversial anyhow), and there are already sources available to develop a more substantial article, covering the combo of camps here, and therefore the right thing to do is KEEP. We don't/shouldn't delete only to recreate later; that violates spirit if not letter of our promise to editors that their contributions will be acknowledged (and for other reasons too see truly excellent essay wp:TNTTNT). --Doncram (talk) 02:56, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have just searched online newspaper archives for Camp Coniston and found only passing mentions. For example this is typical of the type of coverage there is - Nashua Telegraph 29 Jan 1972, in an article State YMCA Resident Camps, Camp Coniston merits a single sentence: "At Camp Coniston, a new tractor was purchased; a new flag pole and new stable fence and some new showers and toilets were part of the capital improvements". This type of run-of-the-mill coverage where the subject is mentioned in passing is not the level of in-detail coverage required by WP:GNG. If such local newspapers don't have detailed coverage, there is no reason to believe detailed coverage exists in other newspapers only found in hardcopy in library archives.----Pontificalibus 08:33, 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. Nominator withdrawal. (non-admin closure) Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 19:18, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ice hockey at the 2022 Winter Olympics[edit]

Ice hockey at the 2022 Winter Olympics (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)

Simply a case of WP:TOOSOON; we have about 3 more years before this is to even take place. It also relies on a lone primary source (that of the official site for the upcoming event). Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 01:18, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 01:18, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 01:18, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously KEEP There is only one source on the page right now, but there were a multitude in May during the worlds, just need to be added. Just trying to get the page started. The page is only a few hours old and nominated for deletion when the same page for 2014 and 2018 tournaments were created earlier than this, I really do not get it. The qualification tournaments begin in a few months and interest will be high if it is more appropriate to just direct to the qualification page until the women's qualification process is finalized I do not see that as a problem.18abruce (talk) 01:34, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The nominator has failed to realize this is clearly a notable subject. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:21, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:44, 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 merge to Lumina Media. — JJMC89(T·C) 01:07, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kennel Club Books[edit]

Kennel Club Books (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 obvious sources to add. Google provides a few directories and sales pages, but nothing about the company. Guy (Help!) 00:07, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:44, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:44, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Related AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lumina Media (the parent company). Pinging particpants not already on here: Cullen328, Carrite. Normal Op (talk) 15:32, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to Lumina Media. I did not find significant coverage of the subject.

    Milliott, Jim (2004-05-14). "BowTie Inc. Adds To Pet Book Offerings". Publisher's Weekly. Archived from the original on 2019-08-25. Retrieved 2019-08-25.

    The article notes:

    Los Angeles—based BowTie Inc. is moving aggressively to up its presence in book publishing. The company is already a major publisher of pet and animal magazines through its Fancy Publications division and publishes pet and other books under its BowTie Press imprint. Last week, BowTie completed the acquisition of Kennel Club Books, a publisher that specializes in dog breed books, and BowTie chairman Norman Ridker told PW another acquisition of a pet book publisher is expected this week.

    BowTie Inc. is the predecessor to Lumina Media. I added this information to the article.

    Cunard (talk) 09:26, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Merge/redirect Atsme Talk 📧 17:47, 26 August 2019 (UTC) - fails WP:GNG, no independent RS to establish N. Press releases released by the company do not pass GNG, and neither does passing mention in unreliable sources. The simple fact that the company existed does not guarantee inclusion in WP. Atsme Talk 📧 12:49, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Adding my thoughts for merging/redirecting - the merge should include a section about Kennel Club Books, taking into consideration the discussion at WP:RS/N with regards to context for each of their published books since not all of the information in the books they published can be corroborated/verified by (a) long-established, notable breed registries, (b) well-maintained historic documentation and pedigrees by long-established notable breed clubs, and/or (c) scientifically documented evidence, such as DNA mapping. Further consideration should include the qualifications of the authors, some of whom do not qualify beyond "pet enthusiast". Citations are missing in the books I've reviewed; therefore, it is important to make note when that occurs so our readers are not misled. People tend to believe that if a book or publisher is included in WP, it is a sign of legitimacy across the board. Atsme Talk 📧 17:47, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note: (1) It would be inappropriate to add some sort of "disclaimer" to an article about a publisher in order to denigrate one or more of their books or authors based on your own research. You would have to have another RS citation about the author/book/publisher in order to add such a disclaimer. (2) Evaluation of the entirety of each and every book that is otherwise deemed a reliable source is not required. Wikipedia editors have guidelines to determine whether or not something is a RS or not, and generally if it is "published" and has been through a process of "editorial review" then we can deem it sufficient for WP RS purposes. (3) Canine DNA testing was not around during the time of the writing of the book about which you are concerned (Bully Breeds by David Harris). (4) A breed registry (such as AKC/UKC/KC) is only ONE source of information about a breed; it is not the primary/senior/expert source from which all other writings are to be judged, and without whose coroboration all other sources are to be excluded from Wikipedia as unreliable/false/questionable. Normal Op (talk) 19:02, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to Lumina Media. Prolific enough for a mention on parent company's article. According to Open Library, Kennel Club Books has 312 works published between 1984 and 2012. [25] According to the 2004 archived version of the Kennel Club Books website, "Kennel Club Books was formed for the purpose of specializing in the publication of pet books", planned to publish an entire series of 377 titles on breeds, [26] and was releasing six new books a month. [27] Books by this publisher are mentioned in 39 Wikipedia articles. [28] Normal Op (talk) 15:32, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: A discussion about the publisher Kennel Club Books just took place on the Reliable Source noticeboard. Current link: [29] Archived link (in case it has moved off the board): [30]. Pinging participants not already here: Someguy1221. Normal Op (talk) 15:32, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Lumina Media — assuming that isn't deleted, which it shouldn't be. Carrite (talk) 15:56, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notice was made to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dogs Atsme Talk 📧 14:25, 27 August 2019 (UTC) [reply]
  • Merge with Lumina Media due to lack of significant coverage/significance.Knox490 (talk) 03:26, 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.