Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 August 28

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 27 August	29 August >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 12:57, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of heads of Hong Kong by education[edit]

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

A companion case of WP:Articles for deletion/List of heads of Colonial Singapore by education. Largely unreferenced, and the lone source does not discuss the educations of these people as a group. The list fails WP:LISTN and serves no encyclopedic purpose. Huon (talk) 22:48, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Huon (talk) 22:48, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Huon (talk) 22:48, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Huon (talk) 22:48, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per normal process as it fails notability and no encyclopedic purpose. Flipchip73 (talk) 07:09, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "When discussing an article, remember to consider alternatives to deletion."
According to Wikipedia rules, deletion should not be sought if the article could be improved. If the lack of references is the issue, then that is clearly a way to improve it.
Alternatively, a merging action could be suggested. However, in order to observe the change - or the lack thereof - of educational influences from the handover, it cannot be simply merged with the governors' page, but to be a standalone page.
The 'arguments' on 'encyclopedic purpose' have not gone any further beyond the simple assertion that it doesn't serve it. Without an actual argument without any elaboration whatsoever, it's uncertain how one is supposed to debate on that.
Rather than looking at the ultimately subjective and unsubstantiated 'encyclopedic purpose', Wikipedia guidelines should be consulted. For example, almost every entry on the list satisfies the notability requirement, with standalone pages for those entries. Of course, both the subjects of education and leaders of Hong Kong have been deemed notable, not to mention the University of Oxford, which tops of the list for educational background among Hong Kong leaders, has its own extremely extensive lists of alumni, with numerous standalone pages dedicated just for that. These suggest the notability of this list itself.
There are likewise other lists of leaders by education in existence, meaning the nature of the list is notable. So the debate is on whether leaders of Hong Kong are notable enough. It would be rather ironic to suggest that they are not, when people such as Carrie Lam and Chris Patten are on the news all the time, with the latter even occupying the office of chancellor at his alma mater. In the early days of the extradition protests, it was also a focus to have petitions from educational institutions Lam used to study at, once again showing the notability of the topic of the educational background of Hong Kong leaders.
I have added numerous references to demonstrate how easily it could be improved. Many more can be added, of course.
Clh hilary (talk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clh hilary (talk • contribs) 14:02, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete indiscriminate list. -Zanhe (talk) 06:07, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for much the same reasons as the Singapore article. I have carefully read the arguments of the article creator but none of them are convincing. The issue is not that the article lacks sources; I don't doubt that each entry on the list can be sourced and that every person on the list is notable. The issue is that it lacks sources discussing the subject of the page – that is, the education of the heads of Hong Kong as a group. Wikipedia totting up the alma maters of the heads and making something of it is WP:SYNTH. Without sources on the subject, there are no viable alternatives to deletion. It cannot be improved or merged or redirected without such a source. This is not a subjective decision as claimed, it is based entirely on the objective existence or otherwise of such sources. SpinningSpark 08:47, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete following largely the analysis previously outlined in the Singapore article. Please note that criteria for inclusion should factor in encyclopaedic and topical relevance, not just verifiable existence, the fact that the references can be found is not sufficient for a list article to survive AFD, see WP:LSC. Additionally, this particular convergence appears too specific to warrant a list per WP:SALAT. Further, recall that it is not sufficient for notability that the separate subjects of the list be notable on their own for a cross-categorization lists to be viable. There is no evidence so far that this cross-categorization list has been independently covered as a group or set by reliable sources, see WP:LISTN and WP:NOTDIR, and the fact some similiar lists exist is not particularly relevent when they do have independent coverage (e.g. List of bridges in Toronto is a good list but List of bridges in Whitehorse is not). Criteria such as these must be met because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information WP:IINFO. There is no need for a merge because the educational and other data can be independently retained on the article for each listed individual. If you have further objections, or think this an insufficient justification please respond below so I can reconsider, thanks. Tinkering Gnome (talk) 15:50, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I know the East highly values education to a high degree so the article could potentially be interesting and of use to many people - especially people in Hong Kong or interested in Hong Kong politics. But to Westerners, I think the article will have low interest. People in the West care more about what you do with your education and not as much as how much you have. In other words, credentialism is less prevalent perhaps. Of course, if you fake your education via diploma mills or claim to have education you never achieved, then Westerners are definitely interested in that (see Wikipedia's articles on Denis Waitley and Kent Hovind concerning educational attainment battles/controversies). According to Wikipedia's page view statistics the article has had 1,927 pageviews in the last 60 days. Is that enough public interest in the article to merit its non-deletion? I don't know. I do know that Hong Kong gets a lot of world attention and that is not going away anytime soon.Knox490 (talk) 01:39, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We don't use "interesting" as a criterion for inclusion for the very reason you raise – it is subjective. It would be entirely wrong to exclude a topic just because no one in the West is interested in it. Our primary criterion is "notability", which in these discussions is established by reliable sources discussing the topic. It does not matter whether those sources come from the West or the East, so long as they are reliable and in-depth. We don't use our own pageview statistics for notability (too easily manipulated), but in any case, the pageview number you give is very low. That's mostly the noise caused by bots and wikignomes. SpinningSpark 08:27, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, WP:INTERESTING is directly on point as to why interest, or lack thereof is not a valid reason to keep or delete an article. Tinkering Gnome (talk) 12:47, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - this is a parallel article to List_of_presidents_of_the_Philippines_by_education, List_of_presidents_of_the_United_States_by_education, etc. If we have articles on similar heads of state/government for India, United States, United Kingdom, and the Philippines, why not Hong Kong? We need to find a consensus. Bearian (talk) 16:41, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - actually it is a pretty useless article IMHO! However, I am very taken by Bearian's argument. There is no point in knocking this page off and leaving others that are effectively identical. What we have here is a distinct class of articles on which we should find consensus. The optimum way forward would be to nominate all the pages in this class as a group to enable an overview discussion and decision. 2A02:C7F:4481:8300:90DC:E235:5074:54B0 (talk) 18:07, 5 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. RL0919 (talk) 01:28, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Providence College Debate Society[edit]

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

This article was created by Walrod16 (talk · contribs), who has only one edit other than to this article and that single edit was about this article. it cannot be a coincidence that for most of its history, the president in 2016 was identified as Edward Walrod.

This came to my attention via OTRS (ticket:2019082810009596). there's no particular need to see that ticket — it basically identifies a dispute about whether Edward Walrod or Noah Gemma was president in 2016. Notice that the last two or three edits relate to that disagreement.

While attempting to look into reliable sources to determine who was the president in that year, I noticed that the article was tagged for having no sources in February 2017. 17 months later, it still has no sources. I did a brief search for sources and came up empty. (An Internet search identifies a few hits but some are entries in a listing, one is a placeholder for a possible entry, and of course a Wikipedia link.) I didn't find anything of substance.

Needless to say, not a single sentence in the article is supported by a source. Without sources, I don't see any other option besides deletion. S Philbrick (Talk) 21:57, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable college society that fails WP:GNG. Nthep (talk) 22:01, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:27, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:27, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:27, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the only coverage I can find is like this which is an article in the college's newspaper. -- Whpq (talk) 14:26, 3 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. RL0919 (talk) 01:19, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rich Gold[edit]

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

This was PRODd by User:Jmertel23 with the following rationale: "Appears to fail WP:GNG - all references provided are either not reliable or only mention the subject in passing. I can't find any independent sources that discuss him in-depth." This was disputed by the page creator, but from looking at the sources I am able to access and from my own searches I concur with the PROD nomination. Unless the WashPo sources I am unable to read discuss his work at length, then WP:BIO is not met. SmartSE (talk) 21:53, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SmartSE (talk) 21:53, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. SmartSE (talk) 21:53, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:28, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:28, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The WaPo citations appear to be primarily blogs and one opinion article that was co-written by the subject. The other sources are either directories or contain passing references. There's no significant, independent coverage of the subject. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ^Talk 14:28, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a lack of indepth quality coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:15, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reasons that I had for my original PROD and as described above. All the coverage of him is in passing - I couldn'd find any in-depth coverage about the subject himself. Jmertel23 (talk) 11:58, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A non-notable guy with a well-paying job. Nothing to see here. TJRC (talk) 03:24, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG. Bookscale (talk) 10:33, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NOTE and WP:GNG. --SalmanZ (talk) 14:11, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if The Hill list of the top lobbyists had more biographical information, that might be enough, but right now it's not. Lobbying and lobbyists are sort of run of the mill today. Bearian (talk) 16:32, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
comment: WP:SNOW Wm335td (talk) 19:29, 4 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. RL0919 (talk) 21:38, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NickCentral (company)[edit]

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

Not a prayer of meeting WP:GNG. The only provided source appears to be a page on the personal website of one of the website's designers, which barely has any information about the subject other than a few screenshots and a brief descriptive paragraph. Per the article, the website is private, because it has to access the website you must work or having relations with Nickelodeon, Viacom or MTV which all but guarantees that this will never be covered by independent reliable sources. The disambiguator also appears to be wrong (it's a website, not a company), but that's neither here nor there. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:34, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:34, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:34, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Probably qualifies for WP:A7. Had AlbForLife4 simply moved this into mainspace, I would suggest treating it as a novice mis-step and just moving it back to draft. But, the history of this shows a combative tendency, and possibly a sock. This edit comment ("we have improved the page...") makes me believe they're working as part of a promotional team, or at best, WP:COI/WP:UPE so I'm not really inclined to cut them any slack. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:05, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per A7 CodeLyoko^buzz 00:24, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7 and RoySmith's comments, with which I completely agree. That the website is not accessible to anyone who isn't an employee of Viacom or one of its external partners makes the possibility of paid editing strong. Note that AlbForLife4 posted to this AfD's talk page but I'm not convinced by his reasons for not supplying references. Regarding the nom's comment that The disambiguator also appears to be wrong (it's a website, not a company), I agree it's a minor issue but I should point out that the article was originally at NickCentral (website) and was moved to Draft:NickCentral (website). --AussieLegend (✉) 06:57, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In the event that this article is deleted, Nick Central (disambiguation) should probably be deleted as well. It was created only as a result of this article being moved to mainspace and will only have one entry after deletion. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:54, 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:46, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019–21 CAF Nations League[edit]

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

There is no evidence beyond a single web news source to suggest that this international association football tournament (scheduled to begin in August 2019) exists at all. BLAIXX 20:25, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. BLAIXX 20:25, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:29, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Specifically, it does not appear to be almost certain to take place, and sufficiently well-documented if preparations are currently underway. August 2019 is nearly over, and there are no new sources pertaining to this aside from 1-2 others very similar to the one already cited. Given the lack of further discussion and sourcing, it is still highly speculative and many things remain uncertain. ComplexRational (talk) 14:22, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:19, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of existence, let alone notability. Giant Snowman 08:22, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I came across this source after doing some quick searching up: https://hannibalfootball.com/caf-nations-league/ This was written a couple months after the source referenced in the CAF Nations League article. The source I found talks about a hypothetical CAF Nations League and what such a hypothetical Nations League would be like if one was created. This would imply that a Nations League has not been introduced yet by the CAF at all. boldblazer 01:02, 04 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:47, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Footy Show (Canadian TV program)[edit]

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

This article about a show broadcast on cable that has no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. The article is unsourced and I cannot find any coverage myself. Whpq (talk) 19:56, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:12, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:12, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:29, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:18, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 08:22, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lacks reliable source. Barca (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:35, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Given that this show started 12 years ago, I ran a ProQuest search to look for older media coverage that wouldn't Google — but apart from one glancing mention of its existence in a news article about The Score, I otherwise got only the show's own primary source press releases about itself and irrelevant text matches on other unrelated things with the same name. (I'm not even kidding about this, the Australian one actually got more coverage in Canadian newspapers than the Canadian one ever did!) Television shows are not handed an automatic notability pass that exempts them from actually having to have any sources just because they existed — the quality of the sources that can be provided to support an article are what determines whether the show gets to keep an article or not, and there are no viable sources to get this one over the bar. Bearcat (talk) 14:57, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a seminal show in Canadian soccer broadcasting. I've expanded and added 6 references. Nfitz (talk) 18:38, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for taking the time to improve the article. Unfortunately, the added sources are mostly passing mentions, and some don't even name the program. the sole source that covers the show in any detail is a blog and not a reliable source. -- Whpq (talk) 00:17, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Whpq is correct; these aren't the sources that make a difference. We're looking for reliable source coverage about the show, whereas you've added an unreliable blog entry about the show and reliable source coverage of other things or people which happens to glancingly mention the show or one of its hosts as a bit player rather than the subject. Bearcat (talk) 22:31, 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 delete. Note that maps are explicitly excluded as sources for notability per WP:NGEO. RL0919 (talk) 19:13, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Muskrat Cove[edit]

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

Neither "Muskrat Cove" nor "Waterlily Bay" seems to be an officially recognized name for a feature of Otsego Lake (New York), as neither has an entry in the Geographic Names Information System database. A Muskrat Cove was mentioned in the novels of James Fenimore Cooper, but this page (search for the "Blackbird Bay" section), at least, identifies it with Blackbird Bay, about which there is an existing article. The are a few mentions on Web pages—many of them WP-derived—but, basically, both these place names seem to be unverifiable in reliable sources.

I am also nominating the following related page:

—Deor (talk) 18:21, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:40, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:30, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both Fails WP:V. The article don't contain coordinates or sufficient information to locate the bays, there being numerous bays north of Cooperstown which is at the southern end of the lake. According to this "Muskrat Cove" was a fictional name once given to Blackbird Bay in a novel.----Pontificalibus 10:33, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both Fails WP:V. Practical usability of article is very questionable.Knox490 (talk) 20:23, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason to delete Muskrat Cove which is also known as Rat Cove. It appears on usgs topo maps and biological field station maps and documents. As shown in the following:^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]

References

^ "Otsego Lake Map" (PDF). oneonta.edu. oneonta.edu. 2010. Retrieved 1 September 2019. data
^ "Otsego Lake Map". oneonta.edu. oneonta.edu. 2010. Retrieved 1 September 2019. data
^ "Otsego Town". historicmapworks.com. historicmapworks.com. 1903. Retrieved 1 September 2019. data
^ "USGS". unh.edu. unh.edu. July 1909. Retrieved 1 September 2019. data

420Traveler (talk) 03:20, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Small features of lakes are not notable by themselves. If there was something notable that happened there, say a boat sinking, then I'd change my mind. Bearian (talk) 16:35, 3 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 and WP:SALT. RL0919 (talk) 19:16, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Charles Rockefeller[edit]

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

Procedural nomination. This article has been repeatedly speedy-deleted for various reasons (earlier a7 and g11, and latest g5). It has been created/recreated by socks. This newest recreation is also by a sock, but a new sock (different farm), so the article is not eligible for g5. This version of the article is very similar to the one last created and deleted per g5. Bbb23 (talk) 18:16, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:19, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Promotional article no in-depth coverage of the subject in question. There is no inherent notability in being a Rockefeller. FitIndia ^{✉ बात} 18:30, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:16, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:17, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Creation protect I think it's clear that the sockpuppets will keep coming and recreating this article. - ZLEA _T\^C 00:28, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And salt the title Michael Charles Rockfeller, a misspelling that some of the sockpuppets have made. - ZLEA _T\^C 14:20, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and apply sodium chloride to the title. -Crossroads- (talk) 01:29, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per nom. A vanity article about a clearly non-notable individual, created by a paid-editing outfit. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:13, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He's done nothing but "was influenced by his grandfather" and "follows closely" a well-known teen activist. He's riding on the coat-tails of his ancestors and a 15-year-old girl. Bearian (talk) 16:51, 3 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. RL0919 (talk) 19:22, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

QMobile Noir Quatro Z4[edit]

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

Promotional, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 10:25, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 13:08, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 13:08, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - oddly, the article does not say what the thing is (I assume it's a phone) - no product reviews WP:PRODUCTREV, does not meet WP:GNG, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" - seems like a promotional article WP:NOTPROMOTION - therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 04:10, 28 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)} 17:22, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- not sure why this was relisted. fails GNG, completely not notable.Hydromania (talk) 10:14, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:23, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Tenants (2019 film)[edit]

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

Non-notable film, no independent coverage, per WP:NFF, deproded without addressing concerns BOVINEBOY2008 10:10, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:16, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:16, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I couldn't find any significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 23:53, 22 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)} 17:22, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no coverage of any sort that I could find. IMDB states the file's release date is 16 September 2019. If it becomes notable after relase, then an article would be justified. It could be sent to draft space, but this sub-stub is so lacking in information it could just as easily be recreated if the film becomes notable. -- Whpq (talk) 14:58, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HAMMER and WP:TOOSOON. It may never be released outside of Lagos. Bearian (talk) 16:57, 3 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. Does not satisfy WP:NPOL as a not-yet-elected candidate, and not enough other significant coverage for WP:GNG. RL0919 (talk) 01:34, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Abbie Hodgson[edit]

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

Notability concerns for this candidate for US Congress. The article is often promotional as well. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:01, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:01, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:01, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Until and unless she becomes the nominee, and even then there are some NPOV issues. Squeeps10 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 18:53, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep :Power~enwiki I'm the author of the article. I wrote an article about the incumbent Steve Watkins more than a year ago when he was running for the seat for which Hodgson has filed. He had padded his resume extensively, but I thought he deserved an article. He was spending six-figures, family money, at that point and had very narrowly won a heavily contested primary against better known, though far less well-funded opponents. An AfD was started and some deletionist editor from England who showed zero understanding of U.S. politics and had contributed little of any import to the encyclopedia erased it. A new article, not of my creation, was back on not long afterward. After that, he narrowly won the general election for the seat. Based on that experience, I protested the inclusion of an article about Daniel Cameron who is running for Attorney General in Kentucky. It was argued he should be included because he had been on the University of Louisville football team (probably briefly a benchwarmer, as I can't find any info on him thre), had worked for a couple of private law firms whose websites provide most of the material in the article, and he was African-American. Then, President Trump mentioned him in a joined pair of tweets, but probably hadn't the faintest notion of who he is. The tweets went viral and half a dozen or so citations referenced the pair of tweets, though they presented no other content and least some were from an AP story though with different URLs, that were otherwise identical. So I presumed the WP rules had changed, somehow, since my original Watkins article was deleted. Since Watkins is running for reelection and has been heavily covered in recent news, and his only opponent has a rather extensive resume, I expect the article about her would be supported. She provoked a firestorm of controversy and incurred substantial employer wrath when she initiated an investigation of bipartisan inappropriate behavior involving exploitation of student legislative interns, though she was not one of those so treated. She has considerable political experience in Kansas, including being the chief of staff for the House Minority Leader, was the spokesperson for two successive governors, and had lost a previous closely contested legislative primary to the eventual incumbent. (The sort of credentials that got Sarah Sanders and Kellyanne Conway articles) Had she been elected the mayor of a town of 25 people, I expect there would be less resistance to inclusion. Hodgson has considerable private and non-profit sector experience. I'm hoping we can achieve some consistency with this AfD. Meanwhile, the Watkins article has been regularly scrubbed, admittedly, by the article's subject and by his campaign manager and chief of staff (someone tagged it), and twice this week by an IP editor posting from England. Activist (talk) 01:33, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the POV issues can be cleaned up with editing, Being a "staffer" doesn't clear the notability bar, so I go back to WP:GNG and the subject seems to pass there. If the POV issues are not cleaned up, then deletion is the course.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:32, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Candidates for US Congress do not pass WP:NPOL. The sources provide about the subject's career do not pass WP:GNG]. Sources 1, 3, and 6 are local coverage (or project vote smart) of her political campaigns. Source 2 is an interview with her employer. Sources 4 and 5 do not mention the subject. Sources 6 and 7, which cover the sexual harassment complaints help with notability, but in the Hill article, the subject is mentioned in only one or two paragraphs. No prejudice against renomination is the subject wins the seat in the 2020 election. (note - also at this point we do not even know if the subject will be the Democratic party nominee) --Enos733 (talk) 16:06, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- - Source 2 is not "an interview with her employer." It is a recent report from the University of Kansas from which she graduated and where she worked many years ago. It is a feature about alumni who are noteworthy. She worked in Washington D.C., over 1,000 miles away at the time the story was written. Source 1 is not "local coverage." It is in the Ottawa Herald, a Harris chain newspaper published 25 miles south of Lawrence, where the candidate lives. Ottawa is a town in the KS Congressional District 2 which stretches from Nebraska to Missouri to Oklahoma and to within 30 miles or so of Arkansas. CD-2 borders on KS Congressional Districts 1, 3 and 4. Sources 3 and 4 are from the Kansas City Star, a major metropolitan, recent Pultizer and Scripps-Howard award-winning newspaper based in Missouri, 41 ENE of Lawrence. Source #5 is published by GrayDC, a local TV news service in Washington, D.C., 1,000 miles east of Lawrence. KCUR is the "flagship NPR station" located at the University of Missouri in Kansas City, Missouri. Source #7 is Politico, published in Arlington County, Virginia, almost 1,000 miles east of Lawrence. I had intended to come to the article to add a story from the Capitol Journal, the newspaper of record in the State Capital of Topeka, 27 miles west of Lawrence but I just whizzed away a couple of hours that I didn't have, wrestling with an Internet connection that is spotty and which keeps going down, to answer baseless contentions. Claims made here at AfD should be subject to the same criteria that apply to edits made in the article, made from RSS, and factual in nature. I only cited Project Vote Smart because I was looking for information about her 2014 primary campaign. In fact, when I checked Dennis Highberger, her opponent's Wikipedia article, I found it was a pathetic stub which has remained unimproved for years. I made a mental note to make it better after improving it slightly, but I've been here pointing out the obvious instead. Activist (talk) 01:13, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Keep~~. The local coverage shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. That seems to me to be a cosmopolitan failure to recognize the value, and often the quality, of local press, though small papers are fighting the same decline as the largest outlets. When the Malheur Wildlife Occupation situation evolved I noticed one very small rural paper was doing at least as good a job, despite limited staff and resources, as the major regional press and broadcast media. Months later, I saw that it was on the shortlist of five finalists, along with two small Appalachian and Midwestern non-profits outlets that I read often, for a major national press foundation award. I called the editor to communicate my congratulations. It turned out the editor had retired after a long and noteworthy career with one of those major state outlets and bought the very old rural paper. I mentioned that an even smaller paper (staff of three) had won a Pulitizer in 1979. I was surprised to find the editor was aware of that success. I thought the Ottawa Herald did an excellent job with their story about Hodgson. I looked at the WP list of KS papers and discovered that two excellent community papers were listed as defunct and I was disappointed. Then I discovered that they had combined into a single publication so was relieved. I cited the Ottawa Herald article six times here in the WP article. I knew that Highberger, her opponent in 2014, was still a state legislator, now in his third term. Hodgson was running against a very experienced candidate in that primary, and I was unaware of his history. She had run a respectable campaign against him - he was a multi-term City Councilman and ex-mayor from her city, Lawrence, Kansas, one of the three large cities in district which is also her home town, so voters would have been far more familiar with him than her. I thought Wikipedia readers should not be deprived of that pertinent information. I've got to get on with some other rather urgent business, but I'll come back to this; I thought the issues should be addressed. Activist (talk) 00:35, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - — Duplicate vote: Activist (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 06:28, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Just for future reference, while you're correct that people aren't allowed to vote more than once in an AFD discussion, they are allowed to comment more than once. So if and when you run across similar situations in the future, please just strike the word "keep/delete" itself, not all of the supporting text. Bearcat (talk) 15:42, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Enos733 (talk) 16:08, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As mentioned above, two sources do not mention the article subject, one is an interview on her employer's blog, and three sources only mention her in relation to her campaign. The remaining two sources do not seem adequate to establish the significant coverage in independent sources as required for general notability. The article should be recreated if she eventually wins the congressional seat. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 16:23, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we have politician notability guidelines because just name dropping coverage of any politician anywhere could in theory pass GNG. Unless Hodgson is elected to congress or another public office she will not be notable. As it stands this is largely a coat rack to engage in cleaar NPOV violating attacks on Gov. Brownback's policies.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:41, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:18, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they have not yet won; the notability test for politicians, per WP:NPOL, is holding a notable office, not merely running for one. And that holds even if the campaign has received local press coverage within the district where the person is running, because every candidate in every district in every election can always show some evidence of local press coverage within their own district. Our job is to have articles about people who pass the ten-year test for enduring nationalized or internationalized significance, not to indiscriminately maintain an article about every single person who's ever gotten their name into any newspaper for any reason whatsoever. And no, it's not a dismissal of local press either — a person who was running as a candidate in New York City, and was thus getting their routine local campaign coverage in The New York Times instead of a small regional pennysaver, still wouldn't get a Wikipedia article just because the citation tags had the words "New York Times" in them, because the context of what the NYT was covering them for still wouldn't clear our notability standards. Obviously no prejudice against recreation in November 2020 if she wins the seat, but nothing here adds up to a reason why she would already be eligible to keep a Wikipedia article today. Bearcat (talk) 15:41, 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. RL0919 (talk) 19:26, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jennie Pegouskie[edit]

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

No reliable sources about this person, and the only claim of notability is appearing in a single music video. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:56, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:56, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:56, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one music video is not enough to pass notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:09, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:08, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:ENT. 103.200.134.149 (talk) 21:39, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I looked for sourcing and didn't find any. gnu 57 22:16, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:21, 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. Consensus of the discussion is that this is not appropriate as a list. No prejudice against creation of a non-list article about the use of ray tracing in games, or including material about gaming uses in the Ray tracing (graphics) article. RL0919 (talk) 01:26, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Games with ray tracing[edit]

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

WP:INDISCRIMINATE list. There is no explanation of how it is relevant to a general audience outside of a marketing bullet point. The games should also probably be removed from the category as well. I mean, we don't have a category for "3D games" or "games using a lighting engine". _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:41, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:41, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I find this would bloat out of control very quickly. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 17:10, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nobody outside of marketing gurus for graphics cards companies and deep industry news junkies cares one bit about this, and in five years it'll be like 'realistic graphics'; just another box check-off. Nate • (chatter) 17:50, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just rename it List of games with ray tracing. Click the Google news link at the top of this INH, and you can see people talking about games made with it, such as [1]. Just search for how many times in that length article "ray tracing" is mentioned. Since the games made with this are mentioned in lengthy articles mentioning why ray tracing makes them look amazing, it is clearly a notable topic. Dream Focus 18:06, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 18:08, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:34, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTCATALOGUE.Ajf773 (talk) 09:52, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with Nate. Ray tracing is a fairly well known technology and even 15 years ago it should have been no surprise to anyone that once average video cards got powerful enough to do it in real time it would become accepted in commercial video games. A topic of Ray tracing in video games maybe detailing the history of how the technology has advanced and spread would probably satisfy GNG and be a useful addition, but this is just a list which will quickly grow too big to be useful. Daß Wölf 11:33, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Using the video game wikiprojects custom search engine for reliable sources related to things of this nature, I easily find ample coverage of popular games and ray tracing. Example:
Engadget NVIDIA ray-tracing on 'Minecraft' looks surprisingly cool Detailed coverage on how ray tracing affects Minecraft.
Ars Technica Review: Control is Remedy’s best game yet—and a ray tracing masterpiece talks about a new game and how well ray tracing works with it.
VG247 Here’s our first look at ray tracing in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare’s campaign
Just look through those three results, are those articles not reliable sources giving significant coverage to this topic? Dream Focus 21:44, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they give notability, but since ray tracing is going mainstream as a game technology, the list is sooner or later going to include all games using major 3D engines. If this were a passing fad it would be another case, but since this is going to get deleted sooner or later, I'd much rather we write a proper prose article (not omitting the notable first games). Daß Wölf 04:51, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So you want to delete it because in the future it might become common. If that happens then it can be deleted then, but right now this is a notable thing. Dream Focus 16:19, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as indiscriminate list that can only grow. We have categories for this purpose. The list doesn't really provide any additional encyclopedic or even useful information. Half the game articles don't even mention ray tracing. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 22:47, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 21:26, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep And rename per Dream Focus. 172.56.28.46 (talk) 02:40, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Open to renaming, changing scope, or draftify. It doesn't seem any more WP:INDISCRIMINATE than what's on Lists of video games or Outline of video games. It does need much WP:IMPROVEment. Real-time Ray Tracing has been a long term goal in computer graphics. StrayBolt (talk) 03:31, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Sergecross73 msg me 11:33, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Incorporate into Ray tracing (graphics). The article's information could be added to a section on the article for Ray Tracing, as a list of notable games that use ray tracing. Jeb³ _{Talk at me here} 13:49, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Hellknowz' arguments. An indiscriminate list that is better suited as a category. Rorshacma (talk) 19:47, 4 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 as a WP:POVFORK. RL0919 (talk) 19:32, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Biden and segregation[edit]

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

Honestly this page just seems like an inflammatory essay about Joe Biden, most of this information could be included in the main page about Joe Biden and does not need its own article. CodeLyoko^buzz 16:40, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CodeLyoko^buzz 16:40, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CodeLyoko^buzz 16:56, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into new section on Joe Biden and redirect as nom.CodeLyoko^buzz 16:42, 28 August 2019 (UTC) Delete after reading over the article more, there is nothing that you can really save here, if there is, its quite possible you can put some into Joe Biden but a redirect is not needed.CodeLyoko^buzz 20:10, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Merge relevant content into Joe Biden, but need to remove the WP:OR and WP:POV. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:11, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (as page creator): Genuine question, what on the page do you think is original research? --Bangalamania (talk) 17:37, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As an example, the first two sentences under "Friendship with segregationists" is clear WP:SYNTH. Also, the statement under "1978 re-election" that "This compromise alienated both black and white voters" is contradicted by the source, which states "The episode threatened to alienate him from his two key constituencies, working class whites and African-Americans. But the end of the teacher’s strike in November ultimately eased tensions." (emphasis added). Various other statements are not supported by the sourced material, but I do not think it's appropriate to go through them all on an AfD page. The article as a whole seems meant to push a particular POV, and the content transferred over to the Biden article would need serious work. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:57, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! I've corrected the issue. FWIW the comment on alienating black and white voters was copied over from content on Biden's main article (I've corrected that too). I would appreciate any other help you could give on this article, as even if you don't want to keep the content your help would probably make it easier to merge content. --Bangalamania (talk) 18:37, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Merge what little of it is useful into Joe Biden and toss the rest. Squeeps10 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 18:50, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as obvious political piece per WP:POVFORK and WP:NOTSOAPBOX. -Crossroads- (talk) 19:55, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article is one large WP:SYNTH ridden with NPOV issues. Vermont (talk) 01:31, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Having grown up in the shadows of the bus battles of metro Detroit, I know equating forced long-distance busing with "desegregation" is a very controversial position that misunderstands the views of most who opposed busing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:47, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SOAP, WP:FORK, and WP:ESSAY. FWIW, I don't support Biden for President but plan to vote Blue. Bearian (talk) 16:59, 3 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. Salting is typically reserved for articles with multiple recreations, so holding back on that for now. RL0919 (talk) 19:54, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Griffith (entrepreneur)[edit]

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

Thoroughly reference bombed, but with no claim of importance or significance for an SEO marketer. Many references don't mention this person or support any content in the article; others are his self-published class material. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:08, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:10, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 16:45, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and salt. This article was already speedied back in 2017, and it still has no shred of notability. User:Servien 19 created a draft, then transferred it to mainspace (blatantly self-Servien no?). Also sanction this WP:SPA, who has only edited this article. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:42, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Also couldn't turn up any additional sources, seems someone close has been involved for sure ;)--Ruhri Jörg 21:25, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:22, 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:45, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mohit Nain[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR and the sources are too weak to pass WP:GNG. Passing mentions a self published video and an interview. In a before search just social media turned up. WP:TOOSOON Dom from Paris (talk) 16:03, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with WP:TOOSOON. Not notable as there has been only two minor roles per Imdb, fails WP:NACTOR. Also agree with being too weak to pass WP:GNG. Landonrules (talk) 17:08, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:03, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:03, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR a upcoming actor not notable as this point.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:42, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:01, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rony Singh[edit]

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

Has two film roles per IMDB, and the other references hardly mention him at all, they're just music videos that he is in or film release notices. ... discospinster _talk 16:02, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:08, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:08, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As we see according to reference links is contains information of the cast & crew also of the movies we see his name as actor/co-producer (Ranjan Singh and Rony Singh are same person) in movie Muskurahatein Ranjan Singh (Rony) is played the role of MBBS Student and in another movie 10 Nahi 40 he also in star cast and co-producer as you can see in the reference links. --Somtechcue (talk) 17:29, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. ,upcoming at best not notable at this point.Actually his first film was Muskurahatein in 2017 aand at this point he is not notable as a sctor ,Director and noen of his albums have ebn hits.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:52, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per the snowball clause (non-admin closure) ~~ OxonAlex - talk 18:21, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bristol Type 172[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. The sources added consist of the very shortest of mentions. In a before search I found nothing that could be described as in-depth coverage. This article is destined to be a WP:PERMASTUB Dom from Paris (talk) 15:34, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:34, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:34, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A significant project from one of the UK's leading aviation companies. I can see other possible sources, such as this, this and this. Mccapra (talk) 16:30, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously notable, it's just an issue of writing an article on it. Despite the rather peculiar state of the first version. Tony Buttler is going to be the only really substantial, reliable and detailed, source on this. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:40, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have done a big expansion to take it out of stub area, as other have said it was a significant project in its time. MilborneOne (talk) 16:57, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a significant project from a well-established aircraft manufacturer. The article now easily makes WP:GNG with the recent expansion, so the AfD nomination may now be withdrawn. - Ahunt (talk) 17:04, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Notification of the existence of this AfD has been made at WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft, within whose scope this article falls. - Ahunt (talk) 17:07, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because WP:SNOW. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:18, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (timidly) because seems relevant to the development of aircraft design at large. Could do with improvement, though, I already did my little best. Jan olieslagers (talk) 18:02, 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. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:59, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Petr[edit]

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

A bio with longterm BLP issues that fails WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. An online search reveals only occasional mentions but no significant coverage by independent reliable sources. It is noted that the article was created and is maintained by single purpose accounts. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 14:45, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 14:49, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 14:51, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Poorly sourced, no evidence of notability whatsoever. On top of that, it looks like the article creator is the person himself.--Darwinek (talk) 14:23, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:08, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Thornton (weather forecaster)[edit]

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

Non-notable weather broadcaster. Potential, but no RS. This doesn't pass WP:GNG. - Funky Snack (Talk) 13:06, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see anything notable about the entire category of weather forecasters. And weather forecasters generally don't have widespread/in-depth converage and this is certainly the case here. In addition, the BBC is starting to lose viewers as per this 2018 article from the Guardian: BBC faces existential crisis as young people turn to rivals – Ofcom.Knox490 (talk) 14:57, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 13:35, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 13:35, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 13:37, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Previous AFD was for different person sharing name ~~ OxonAlex - talk 13:38, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable weather broadcaster.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:20, 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. RL0919 (talk) 13:40, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FUSION 2020[edit]

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

This is an article about an upcoming concert in 2020 which is currently sourced to a couple of threads on a discussion board. That is not a reliable source. Searching for sources, I can find a few more unreliable sources, but no coverage in reliable sources. This is supposed to be some sort of mega concert filled with stars, but perhaps its just too soon for coverage to be there. At this point, the concert does not have the coverage needed to establish notability. Whpq (talk) 12:58, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:01, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:01, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find any independent reliable sources (doesn't help that there's about 40,000 concerts called fusion 2020), and possibly fails WP:CRYSTAL. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 13:45, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a poster for a concert sourced to a Filipino Craigslist equivalent. Both sources. Nope. Come back when we have something sourced to a reliable source. Nate • (chatter) 17:53, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:33, 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. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:57, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Julia George[edit]

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

Non-notable local radio and TV presenter. All supporting links and refs point to local BBC profile and programme pages. No RS other than that. - Funky Snack (Talk) 12:52, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 13:40, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 13:40, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 13:41, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable media presenter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:10, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:36, 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 redirect to 2019 Atlantic hurricane season#Tropical Storm Erin. Firm consensus that this is functionally covered in a more relevant fashion elsewhere. The target includes all of this information, so a redirect is all that's needed (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 13:09, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Depression Six (2019)[edit]

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

This has developed into Tropical Storm Erin (2019) since the arcticle was created. Should this be a redirect (which currently would point to a redirect) or is an unlikely search term? In any case, , there is no case for a standalone article TheLongTone (talk) 12:51, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 13:41, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect 2019 Atlantic hurricane season#Tropical Storm Erin. Likely search term and there are plenty of TD6 redirects by year. AmericanAir88^(talk) 22:59, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect As this is a system that will not have impact before being extratropical. Pierre cb (talk) 05:33, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:36, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per the above discussion. Aoba47 (talk) 02:57, 3 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. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:55, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

King's Quest I: Quest for the Crown (AGD Interactive)[edit]

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

A remake that is almost exactly the same as the original but with an improved engine. There is already a "fan remake" section in the original page, rendering this page unnecessary. Even the page itself calls it "a 1:1 remake". _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:46, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:46, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not that the deletion rationale would mean a deletion is inevidable, there isn't many RS talking about this game, which is a deathnote. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:32, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to King's Quest I#Fan remake. I was able to find a review in Jeuxvideo.com [2] but that isn't enough on it's own to meet WP:GNG, and I don't see any independent notability from the original game. The section about it can be properly expanded there, and the article as of right now needs a WP:TNT (even if the remake was somehow notable), consisting of WP:GAMECRUFT and WP:OR. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:55, 4 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. RL0919 (talk) 13:37, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional musical works[edit]

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

Overly long, poorly sourced list, filled with unnotable examples. Most of the works listed on the page make only a brief appearance in the work where they appear, and have very little importance to the plot. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Not a very active user (talk) 10:24, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 10:24, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 10:24, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 10:24, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:42, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminat4e collection of information. I can't see that any of these titles have any claim to notability.TheLongTone (talk) 13:35, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking on it. Seems a list cut down to what's sourced as belonging would be good to have. Ceases to be "fictional" once it's written, no? Hyperbolick (talk) 14:11, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator. It seems like a very indiscriminate list. Aoba47 (talk) 18:04, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Such a broad indiscriminate topic, and there's no independent coverage of any of these cherry-picked examples the authors (primarily User:69.253.64.213) happened to be familiar with. They are songs that simply don't exist, merely mentioned as a made-up name in a fictional context, usually a passing joke or sketch with no notability or outside reference. Were they actually played or performed they'd no longer be "fictional", right, just anything in any made-up medium not intended for independently published release? Reywas92^Talk 18:45, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There may be a notable non-existent piece out there somewhere, but enough of them for a list? I think not. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:37, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is essentially equivalent to the oft-mentioned List of fictional films, based on the contents of this list versus Category:Fictional musical works. Almost nothing here is notable or even significant in the plot, and as mentioned by Hyperbolick there is also an inclusion problem regarding original songs in audiovisual works and sheet music in written media. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 17:29, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely WP:INDISCRIMINATE not to mention purely original research. No idea how it passed through AfD before._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:15, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:14, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ukkulankulam Sivan Kovil[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG , lacks significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources. Facebook is not an acceptable source and the other reference cited relates to a religious ceremony but makes no mention of this Kovil. I have attempted to find suitable sources but can't find any - essentially the article is all original research. Dan arndt (talk) 09:07, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 09:07, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 09:07, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 09:07, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I saw no reliable source on Google. Article was created by User:Devon2k22, a sockpuppet of a blocked user Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thiyagasothy/Archive. May be a candidate for speedy deletion per WP:G5. JimRenge (talk) 10:30, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, couldn't find anything notable on Google Scholar or Google News.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:00, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:GNG. JimRenge (talk) 21:01, 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 no consensus. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:45, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Fran[edit]

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

The only possibly reliable source is the rather promotional article in the Sydney Morning Herald, and this is insufficient for notability DGG ( talk ) 05:51, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:04, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:05, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:05, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:05, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:05, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Subject is not notable per se and article is an orphan. Some quick searching turns up gobs of social media presence of hers, but nothing that seems to qualify as RS. Agricola44 (talk) 14:59, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, just noting that RebeccaGreen has added more info/sources to the article since the start of this afd (still may not enough for Fran to meet notability though, ie. WP:ANYBIO or WP:CREATIVE), also, is a "redirect" to The Feed (Australian TV series) out of the question (she co-presented for 6 years) as a wikireader term? Coolabahapple (talk) 11:23, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - based on sources added by RebeccaGreen seems to meet GNG now. Bookscale (talk) 10:08, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has been expanded --Spacepine (talk) 10:36, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have to say I'm really not sure. The Sydney Morning Herald has two articles, both about several people, so while they are about Fran (and also have some quotes from her), they are not only about her. I would not consider New Idea reliable, although maybe I'm mixing it up with other women's magazines which plaster their covers with stories about the Queen abdicating and Wills/Kate, Harry/Meghan and Fred/Mary divorcing. Perhaps it's reliable enough for coverage about more ordinary people. However, it's an interview with Fran and her husband, so is not a completely secondary source. The Mumbrella, Age and News.com sources are all very short, just one or two sentences about her and more about the topic highlighted by the article titles. I was interested to find the Daily Sabah source, as it's media from another country reporting about a media person from Australia. It includes her tweets, with commentary on them. I'm hesitating over Weak Keep or Weak Delete. If this article is deleted, then it shouldn't affect any future recreation if more is published about her. RebeccaGreen (talk) 00:26, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - just having a job as a journalist or presenter does not establish notability, she hasn't actually done anything notable other than appear on TV - interviews are not reliable sources WP:INTERVIEW - does not meet WP:ANYBIO, therefore, delete, or Redirect to The Feed (Australian TV series) - Epinoia (talk) 02:59, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 01:35, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:58, 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 draftify at the article creator's request. Moved to Draft:Bo Johnson and the redirect to Bo Jonsson will be restored (any discussion about what the target should be can happen in talk space) – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 14:17, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bo Johnson[edit]

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

Lots of citation spamming but mostly from non-WP:RS like Linkedin, Facebook and other social media. There is no indication the subject meets GNG or the notability criteria for musicians. The only claim of any song charting is that he "helped" another artist chart. Jbh ^Talk 16:26, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have no objection to moving the article to draft space per the author's request [3]. Jbh ^Talk 20:18, 21 August 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 16:27, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 16:35, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article definitely has a lot of problems, but in my opinion it is not enough to delete it. I feel this article barely passes WP:GNG, but there's probably only enough info for two sentences or so at best. Editor seems to have a connection with said producer, as it seems a similar page was made in Swedish for him, by the same guy.Jerry (talk) 16:49, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I find that an article for Bo Johnson is needed and highly sought after. I have no connections to this artist at all, nor am I a fan. I have however seen and heard a lot with him in different public media for several years and he has demonstrably fans worldwide (incl. my own children and my cousins in the UK even), hence an article feels missing and required. It is correct that I have written a first, smaller article in Swedish as well, since I have learnt both the English and the Swedish language since birth and because the artist origins from Sweden which should be relevant. The Swedish article will be updated as well. I appologize should any technical mistake have been made, the purpose was solely to write this subjective and encyclopedic article following WP:GNG which was clearly missing. The sources are not at all mostly from social media, although some from it yes, but from more reliable sources eg. Billboard, Medium, IMDb, A&R Factory, All Music Ear, Spotify, Apple Music, Allmusic, BODY Magazine, BODY Radio, WHOMAG TV, Spinnin' Records, DJ Times and more. I am of course open for any improvements. Thanks, MinerwaY (talk) 19:28, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not going to i-vote because I don't read Swedish and I suspect what sources there are to be found are probably in that language, but I will say that what is provided with this entry so far are junk regarding proving notability per WP:MUSIC: social media and retail, self-download sites, promotional websites, non-RS blogs, etc. That includes references that are in reliable sources, but the coverage within isn't, such as the citation of Billboard, which only name-checks Bo Johnson in an article about another artist. But maybe someone can find something decent in Swedish. There does seem to be a source in Swedish about his body building, so maybe that should be the focus of the article if it is deemed to be enough. ShelbyMarion (talk) 22:16, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Clearly one has not read anything if one assumes that the sources to be found are in Swedish. In fact, I count 32 out of the 35 sources provided being in English which I understand. Same goes for coverage in more reliable sources than social media, which is plenty here. Regarding Billboard, I could eg. find this post about the award given to the artist/producer: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10154409188847078. Note! Not as a reliable source since it is from Facebook, and that is not in the article either. Although yet another proof in relation to the said award. The additional notables from his bodybuilding career is interesting and seems to also be worldwide as well, however to separate that into another article would be wrong. Would you separate Arnold Schwarzenegger's bodybuilding and acting career? No, because it is the same person.

Suggestion: keep article and remove the few references to social media. Most people know about this profile and there should be a wiki article about him. Best/John — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.216.56.85 (talk) 00:07, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why you made an i-vote entry from this IP address identifying yourself as "John," then later made a 2nd i-vote entry identifying yourself as "Peter Bryant from Washington," and when a sinebot tag ID'd both from the same IP address you deleted the tag, and then removed the 2nd i-vote? ShelbyMarion (talk) 13:30, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ShelbyMarion, this is John who has previously commented on this. I stand for what I say (write), I cannot stand for what anyone else says.. I can however tell you that this is a public shared computer. It seems obvious you have personal interest in sabotaging this article, which your presentation in your profile underpin. Hope you can stick to the subject and contribute instead. Best wishes/John — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.216.56.85 (talk) 14:13, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have not sabotaged anything, and if one checks my edit history will see that I have not done a single edit to this article. In fact, I am giving this subject a fair shake by not i-voting based on the probability that sources may exist in this subject native language, which I can't read and therefor cannot research. My interest in this discussion is that editors have a clear understanding of notable/reliable sources that pass WP:MUSIC scrutiny. (I can't assess the body building sources; that is not my area of expertise.) I find it curious/coincidental that the only wikipedia edits made on what you identify as a public computer have been in trying to justify this subjects notability, attributed to two different names, and one of them removed only after a sinebot tag reveals they are the same IP address. If I'm misinterpreting this I apologize, but I assume then that you will not have a problem if I contact the admins to verify that this IP address is not being used by someone as a sock puppet? ShelbyMarion (talk) 15:58, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ShelbyMarion: GeoLocate pins down the IP to Malmo, coincidentally where the artist is based.Jerry (talk) 20:06, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was intending to start a sock investigation but when I saw the movement to draftify this article I figured why bother? If there are sources that prove this subject is notable, it has my support to be recreated properly. I'll cut the editor some slack if there was a sock attempt, as he (or she?) appears genuine in wanting to be a good contributor but, being new, may not know all the rules about conducting themselves in an AfD. ShelbyMarion (talk) 20:33, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~: nothing wrong with having an article titled Bo Johnson, but not this one as it stands. Quite likely it should be a redirect or disambiguation page at the end of the day. Possibly send the current article to draft for more work. The article is a stylistic mess, full of promotional inline external links and largely referenced with social media (which may be how musicians work these days, but unfortunately doesn't cut it for WP). Removing the cruft wouldn't leave much. It could probably be tidied up, but my suggestion would be to try that in draft and go through the articles for creation process which would give helpful feedback. I don't see that the article demonstrates notability, and I didn't find much myself, but Swedish musician biographies is hardly my area of expertise. It also falls foul of the biographies of living persons guidelines for tone, balance, and sources. Lithopsian (talk) 15:22, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lithopsian: what would you suggest as a redirect target which would be appropriate for this Bo Johnson? I'd be willing to see the article moved to draft and am willing to consider other options but I do not understand what you are proposing since this AfD is about this particular 'Bo Johnson' not about whether to have an article about some ephemeral, yet to be identified, 'Bo Johnson'. Jbh ^Talk 17:10, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Until a couple of weeks ago, this article was a redirect, so not ephemeral at all. Hence the article shouldn't be entirely deleted unless it is considered that the redirect is also not required. It was originally a redirect to Bo Jonsson, a dab page, presumably as a mis-spelling. I changed this after one of the reverts to be a redirect to Bolley Johnson, who is nicknamed Bo, but I'm not fussed about the exact target. Pick what's most helpful. Just trying to avoid deleting the article only for it to be immediately recreated without its full history. Lithopsian (talk) 17:28, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh... OK. I see what happened. The author did a 'copy-paste-move' from Draft:Bo Johnson. I think, in this case, it might be best to delete the main space page and then re-create the redirect. If the subject later becomes notable then the, by then hopefully vastly improved, draft can be moved over the redirect. I do not see any real value to keeping this article's history in the redirect page if the redirect does not have anything to do with the subject. It might even cause problems if someone later wants to create an article about another Bo Johnson over the redirect since there would be a non-trivial but unrelated page history. Jbh ^Talk 17:42, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, redirects with a "non-trivial" history consisting entirely of reverted edits can be annoying. Lithopsian (talk) 18:54, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify, then recreate the original redirect (changed my vote following the merge of the draft to make way for this article). Once the draft has been improved, it can be moved into mainspace, possibly over this redirect, possibly not. Lithopsian (talk) 14:21, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Thank you all for your comments and suggestions, I appreciate them. The purpose is still to contribute with a subjective and encyclopedic article - following all rules and regulations - about Bo Johnson which is obviously coveted. Since there is no other current existing article about Bo Johnson in English, a redirect is pointless. Taken into consideration most of his fans seem to be from English speaking countries as well, it makes even more sense for a main article in English to exist. According to the statistics under the About section on Spotify for instance, the five cities with most fans in the world are all five in the USA (https://open.spotify.com/artist/27gjoLgBSEXqq9tUqDm8tN). I'll do my best to clean up the article accordingly a.s.a.p., following your comments. Thanks, MinerwaY (talk) 16:50, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Jbhunley, please can you or any other administrator assist in moving this article Bo Johnson to Draft:Bo Johnson then? That way I can tidy accordingly and continue to improve it, so that it can be moved back to Bo Johnson should everybody approve it and agree on that it is worthy. Only trying to contribute! Thanks, MinerwaY (talk) 19:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@MinerwaY: I am not an administrator and since there is already a Draft:Bo Johnson I can not move this article over that one. The draft would need to be deleted first. You can request deletion of the draft by placing {{db-author}} at the top of the page. Since other editors have opined here I would want to make sure none of them object to draftifying the article per author's request before doing anything. Otherwise the AfD can just finish out its 7 day run and an uninvolved admin can do it all -- that would actually be the more proper way to do things. (@JerrySa1, ShelbyMarion, and Lithopsian:) Jbh ^Talk 20:16, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jbhunley: Yes the draft already exists, and is almost up to date in comparison to the article too. I see, thank you for clarifying. MinerwaY (talk) 22:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest just copying the existing article content into the draft as an edit. Not usually the way to move an article, but hardly a problem for a draft. We also don't want the mainspace article to become a redirect to draft-space, we want to revert it to its previous state for now. Lithopsian (talk) 15:12, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lithopsian I was going to follow your suggestion meanwhile and copy the content to the draft now, but then it turns out somebody has deleted the draft page. "18:40, 22 August 2019 Vanjagenije (talk | contribs) moved page Draft:Bo Johnson to Bo Johnson without leaving a redirect (merging two pages)" MinerwaY (talk) 11:21, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MinerwaY: An admin did a 'history merge' of the two articles [4] so the edit history would be all in one page. The way this was done -- by moving the draft over the main space page -- resulted in the removal of Draft:Bo Johnson but not the loss of its history. This makes way for draftifying the article, per your request, either at the end of this AfD or when all of the editors who have !voted indicate they are OK with doing so. Jbh ^Talk 13:56, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @MinerwaY: Thanks for cleaning up the references in the article. Looking through them though I do not see any which I think cause him to pass the general notability guidelines or for bands and musicians. What is needed are three or so independent reliable sources which have significant coverage about him. I usually consider significant to mean at least two or three paragraphs, others may look for more or less but two/three is a good rule-of-thumb.
Press releases (also articles which reasonably appear to be 'repackaged' marketing material), blogs, social media, sites with user generated content or pay-to-place articles, as well as articles with just a couple of lines -- known as 'passing mentions' -- do not contribute to notability for Wikipedia purposes. Some such material might be usable in an article once notability is established but they still need to be in line with Wikipedia's sourcing requirements as well as the policy on biographies of living people.
Please click through the blue links. Wikipedia uses some words like 'notability' and 'source' in ways which are specific to the site and the linked pages describe important policies and guidelines.
I have the article on my watchlist but feel free to ping me, either here or from the article's talk page, if you have any questions or would like my opinion on a particular source. Jbh ^Talk 14:32, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:57, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Filelakeshoe: Ummmm... did you not see that the article's author requested the article be moved to draft? Jbh ^Talk 12:51, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, you are right, I will close this. I relisted as I saw a major edit had been made before you posted your last comment. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 14:16, 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 speedy keep. User that nominated the article for deletion has been blocked indefinitely for being sock puppet. (non-admin closure) FitIndia ^{✉ बात} 04:05, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Abdali Medical Center[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Page doesn't have notability, full of promotional tone, based on one primary resource only Jaya182 (talk) 07:16, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note - You might want to have another look at the page, I believe you nominated the article based on a large promotional edit which has now been reverted. Greyjoy^talk 07:18, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:21, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Still more reliable on primary sources, may be other editors want to put their thoughts on it. Jaya182 (talk) 15:38, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Fixed headers. Nightfury 10:53, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 10:56, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 10:56, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jordan-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 10:56, 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. Seems like the consensus is that this cross-categorization is not suited for Wikipedia. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:35, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of heads of Colonial Singapore by education[edit]

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

I see no indication that a "by education" list of these administrators is anything but original synthesis. As far as I can tell, none of the cited sources discusses the heads' educations as a group. Huon (talk) 02:00, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete This is not an original synthesis – it seems to make no claims or present any novel theories about the topic. But there is a problem in that it doesn't conform to its billing. The people are not listed or organised by education; they are presented chronologically. And most of the early entries don't have any details about education. So the page seems redundant to List of Governors of Singapore. If the author wants a record of their work then the page might be userfied. Andrew D. (talk) 08:03, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Will adding related references to this article from every BLP helps? If yes, please let me know. I will add those related references and add see also section to each BLP. Flipchip73 (talk) 08:44, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At the same time, please do review List of heads of Hong Kong by education. I got the ideas from that article and that is why this article was create. Flipchip73 (talk) 08:51, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am adding the references to the articles. Flipchip73 (talk) 12:34, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have added all the information I can get from the web. Please help to review and decide. Flipchip73 (talk) 15:19, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Flipchip73, the page was not nominated because of lack of sources. Rather, it was nominated because sources do not discuss the title of the page. That is, it is a notbility issue, not a verifiability issue. What is required to answer that is sources discussing the relevance of education to Singapore heads as a group. Further, there is a redundancy issue – even if it was shown that education of heads is significant, you need to explain why it is necessary to have a seperate list for that purpose. SpinningSpark 15:55, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Spinningspark: As the article creator, I do agree with your point of view on notability and thank you. Why? You are the first editor to point out what was lacking on this article as none of the editors tell me anything. I do see List of heads of Hong Kong by education is being listed for AfD too. I hope that if possible, to delete both articles at the same time and close the case. ~~Please do comment on that article too for deletion as it is quite inappropriate for me to do so as my new article cause it to be AfD.~~ Thank you. Flipchip73 (talk) 01:56, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete redundant. I think List of heads of Hong Kong by education should also be nominated if this is deleted. Both fail WP:SALAT as too specific and duplicate the lists in their parent articles. The category: Lists of people by educational affiliation is meant to be lists of alumni in specific institutions, not a cross-categorisation of governors and education. I might change my mind if sources describing the significance of colonial governors' education is forthcoming, but at the moment, this totting up of governor alma maters is entirely WP:SYNTH. SpinningSpark 15:04, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While this is not OR, it's too specific and unnecessary; university attended is not directly related to being a governor nor is this discussed as a group. You could theoretically make a sourced list of any sort of people (List of governors of California by education, List of Academy Award winners by education?) but this is too specialized and not an independently notable topic as a sort of cross-categorization. Reywas92^Talk 19:15, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable convergence not covered as a group or set by multiple independent reliable sources, and overly specific to begin with see WP:LISTN, WP:LSC, WP:IINFO, and WP:SALAT. Tinkering Gnome (talk) 14:23, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you all for the voting. Please to look at List of heads of Hong Kong by education as the idea of the colonial Singapore list is from the article mentioned. Thank you. Flipchip73 (talk) 02:54, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete indiscriminate list. -Zanhe (talk) 06:07, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as one of a series. If we do keep this, it should be re-titled List of heads of Singapore by education and expanded to current date. If deleted, we need a consensus on whether we should be more consistent on such lists, or create an arbitrary cut-off. Bearian (talk) 17:09, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian: Thank you for your support for keeping this article. As the creator, if this article is to be keep, I will take your advise to expand the list to present day and have it re-titled. It is quite easy for America or Philippines as the head of state and the head of the government is the President of the country while the head of state of Singapore is the President and head of the government is the Prime Minister. I can display the list of heads in different tables in the same article. Flipchip73 (talk) 03:41, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 07:41, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bardhyl Selimi[edit]

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

I found one source (which may not be the same person). Article relies on primary sources. Slatersteven (talk) 14:16, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Slatersteven,
In the span of 30 minutes, you forwarded me with 4 notes on how to improve this article, and then with the notice for deletion. Is it not a bit rush? Articles based on sources from multiple languages take a bit to mature, especially if the aforementioned languages are not too well known or represented in the west.
Sincerely
Hyrdlak (talk) 14:22, 20 August 2019 (UTC)Hyrdlak[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Hyrdlak (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.

- Given I gave you the only source I could find, and you did not use it led me to believe it is not the same person. All you have done is used primary sources (as far as I can tell), but to establish notability non primary sources are needed, if you cannot even find one (in 30 minutes of being told to look for them) that raises doubts in my mind they exist. Notability means that they have been noted by third party RS (and the article is two hours old).Slatersteven (talk) 14:29, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:26, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:26, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:26, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nominator. Subject lacks independent detailed coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains^(talk) 16:56, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Objection
Dear Slatersteven and Meatsgains,
1. Yes, it was only 30 min before Slatersteven called for an improvement, and then slated this article for deletion. It is not a good practice. There is no Wikipedia document providing improvement must be done within half an hour before the proposal for deletion is applied. Meanwhile I worked on the development of this piece all the day yesterday. Please, have a look at the article's history
2. I wonder whether you know Albanian and Esperanto languages and cultures. I see no articles of yours on these fields. Hence, I propose that any notability concerns in this regard be adjudicated by an editor with a command of both languages and with a good background knowledge of the fields.
3. On the same basis, you cannot be seen as competent to judge whether the sources are 'dubious.'
4. I do not know about what primary sources Slatersteven is talking about, apart from the statute of the Albanian Esperanto Association.
5. If people's dates and places of birth unsupported by citations bother Slatersteven, I'd propose s/he may start with William Shakespeare or Boris Johnson.
6. With his 6 books Bardhyl Selimi has strongly contributed to the development of postcommunist culture and literature in both, Albania and Kosovo. On top of that with almost 20 translations from Albanian to Esperanto and Esperanto to Albanian he made the writings of numerous Albanian novelists and poets available in Esperanto and vice versa. This achievement should be lauded and made known to reserachers and interested parties at large around the world.
7. In light of the aforesaid, you are inexplicably biased and combative. Hence, let us have a competent third editor to decide on this piece and its merits.
Hyrdlak (talk) 09:42, 21 August 2019 (UTC)Hyrdlak[reply]
- That is the purpose of AFD, to allow more eyes to look and decide. I did not nominate this for speedy deletion for that reason.Slatersteven (talk) 12:24, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Accusing people of incompetence, whataboutism (that isn't even well founded, as checking the sources on those articles will reveal), promotional agenda pushing to make known unknown stuff, and applying a subjective idea of importance in place of notability are not arguments based in Wikipedia:deletion policy that garner successful results at AFD. Where are the sources that document this person's life and works in depth? Where are the works about this person rather than by this person? Who wrote them? Where are the ones not originated by the subject? A random pointer to Google's cache, that does not even work, is not a source citation. Uncle G (talk) 12:30, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Dear Uncle G,

Have a second look at the references, as I added more. The award eo:Diplomo pri Elstara Agado, which the Universal Esperanto Association gave to B Selimi in 2013, is a clear recognition of his work for Esperanto language and culture. Yes, there is no Esperanto country, but books and works are produced in this language for consumption all around the world.

- - I disagree that proposing an editor -- knowledgeable of Albania, Kosovo and the Esperanto movement and with a working knowledge of Albanian and Esperanto -- amounts to 'accusing anyone of incompetence'. This is a good practice that prevents hasty decisions, which may be wrong.
  - On the other hand, just 30 minutes between the proposal that an article should be improved and how, on the one hand, and the move to delete it, on the other amounts to creating a hostile environment. Such an environment is not conducive to collaboration or any improvements on an article in question.

Sincerely Hyrdlak (talk) 15:22, 21 August 2019 (UTC)Hyrdlak[reply]

- - - Dear All,
    - If the decision on this matter is not reached until tomorrow (Thur, Aug 22, 2019), I propose to postpone it until after Sept 9, 2019. Basically during this period I will be absent from my desk on a vacation with my family.
    - Sincerely, Hyrdlak (talk) 15:35, 21 August 2019 (UTC)Hyrdlak[reply]

Dear All,

Regarding the references, yesterday (Aug 21, 2019) I provided many more. Obviously, some -- especially regarding his family history -- were authored by Bardhyl Selimi. It is only natural that a person's autobiographical writings may serve to establish the details regarding her/his family.

But, the notability of a personality does not depend on their family history, but their own achievements. (Although, so little is known outside Albania about everyday life in communist Albanian, that these bits of information may also be of a broader historical and sociological interest). B Selimi wrote and edited two books regarding modern Albanian-Kosovan history. His two highly popular textbooks of mathematics rekindled a widespread interest in this important field of knowledge both in Kosovo and Albania.

Apart from that, B Selimi singlehandedly restarted the Esperanto movement in postcommunist Albania.Infamously, in the Third Reich and the communist countries of the Stalinist type, Esperantists were imprisoned and sentenced to death, the use of Esperanto was banned. In Albania, as well, and longer than anywhere else, because until 1992. B Selimi wrote two handbooks of Esperanto for Albanian-speakers. He also strongly contributed to the development of the global Esperantist culture by translating the works of leading Albanian writers and poets into Esperanto, yielding almost 20 volumes and counting. On top of that he authored over 600 articles for the world's leading Esperanto monthly, Monato. Esperanto culture is unusual in this that it does not have any speech community of native speakers attached to it. Hence, many more books are translated into Esperanto than originally authored in this language. However, the influence of such translations is felt all around the world, given that Esperantists are active in practically every country on the globe.

B Selimi's work for Esperanto culture was recognized with an Elstara Agadao. Comparatively speaking, it is like the Pulitzer Prize for the Esperanto movement.

On top of that B Selimi also translated some literature and historical works from the Esperanto into Albanian, importantly adding to the development of culture in Albania and Kosovo, until recently the two poorest states in Europe.

Some say that translating literary works is not a sign of notability. What then about Wikipedia's articles about such translators as Jay Rubin, Philip Gabriel, or Alfred Birnbaum? Are they considered to be sufficiently notable on account of being US citizens and translating Japanese literature? Is Albanian literature somehow worth less than its Japanese counterpart, or translations into Esperanto may be deemed worth less than translations into English?

I see here some myopia of judgement at best, or double standards at worst.

Sincerely, Hyrdlak (talk) 10:09, 22 August 2019 (UTC)Hyrdlak[reply]

PS. Somehow it escapes Wikipedia editors' attention that the article on Philip Gabriel is supported by a single reference only, and that actually it is a dead link. Furthermore, the bulk of this article (paragraph 2) is not supported by any reference. It hinges solely on internal links to other Wikipedia articles. I see similar problems with the article on Jay Rubin, supported just with 2 references. One of them is dead, and the other is autobiographical in its character, being an interview with the translator.

Hence, if the perceived failures of the article on B Selimi are so great that merit its deletion, I propose that before deleting it, first of all you should consider deleting the aforementioned articles on Philip Gabriel and Jay Rubin.Hyrdlak (talk) 10:29, 22 August 2019 (UTC)Hyrdlak[reply]

No notability rests on some having noted you, please read wp:n.Slatersteven (talk) 11:32, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, due weight is a guideline (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Due_and_undue_weight) in this respect. What about Philip Gabriel and Jay Rubin?

As I informed yesterday, today I am off to my vacation. Will be back to the desk on September 9, 2019. I request a delay in any final decisions until then.

Hyrdlak (talk) 11:49, 22 August 2019 (UTC)Hyrdlak[reply]

This AFD is not about them so any argument to ut ratio is irrelevant. We base each article only and solely on its own merits.Slatersteven (talk) 11:57, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 01:52, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot of IDHT going on here. To repeat what others have said, it is not what Selimi has done that establishes notability, but how much reliable sources have taken note of those achievements. Rather than writing walls of text on the Selimi's achievements, it would be really helpful if the author could point to just a couple of sources that they consider to be both reliable and have substantial coverage of Selimi. I will do my own analysis of the sources, but right now I am at delete based on what has been written in this discussion.

I also have to comment on the issue of competence. You cannot demand that only editors competent in the subject should decide. Wikipedia doesn't work that way. It is the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit, and by extension, anyone can take part in discussions and decisions. It is for those who would defend the article to make an argument for keeping that is convincing to editors who are not subject matter experts. And to do it now, not after you come back off holiday – it's unlikely this will be held open that long. SpinningSpark 17:59, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have not analysed all the sources, but the ones below represent about half the citations in the article and I'm not inclined to give it any more effort. It's reasonable to expect something significant early in the article, but that is not the case here. The only source that seems to be worth anything for GNG is the Issuu article, and even that is uncertain. Even accepting it on good faith, that alone is not enough. If someone wants to suggest specific sources that are worth looking at, I'll reconsider, but I'm not doing any more research.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
Libera folio	? The source is a site promoting Esperanto	?	Passing mention	✘ No
Adem Gllavica (Selimi) tregon	Authored by subject	? Publiisher has no online presence	Source is not accessible, but unlikely since this is not an autobiography	✘ No
Miqësia ime me Bacën Adem Demaҁi	Authored by subject	Academia freely allows upload of papers without review	Paper is not about subject	✘ No
Dituria Islami article		Published by Issuu, probably reliable	~ Can't get a translation, but subject is mentioned in several paragraphs	~ Partial
edukado.net	Subject's own bio page on the site	? Basic facts may be ok, but sources about themselves need to be treated with caution		✘ No
UNIVERSITETI I SHKENCAVE TË APLIKUARA NË FERIZAJ article		Probably reliable	All it says is that he gave a lecture at the university	✘ No
trojetshqiptare.net	Authored by subject	Probably reliable, appears to be a news agency		✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Thank you all for the discussion and analysis. I learned a lot about the procedures that guide editing in Wikipedia. However, I still disagree with the understanding of notability as basically meaning 'noted by the world,' that is, in the sense of anglophone or online sources. Esperantists do not have a country or a territorially delineated speech community. But the reach of Esperanto-based culture is worldwide. It is not immediately visible to people who do not know Esperanto and do not read Esperanto publications. For better or worse these publications are printed on paper or are behind the paywall, hence not readily available online. Elstara Agadao is not 'just a university distinction,' but the most important distinction granted within the Esperanto language community. Selimi's Esperanto translations of the best modern Albanian-language literature makes it available to readers around the world. Hence, the global notability of his work among Esperanto-speakers is permanent and going to last. Furthermore, it often leads to further translations from Esperanto to Korean, Japanese or Hebrew. This helps to popularize little literatures in relatively unknown languages such as Albanian. Should you wish, I can dig up Esperanto-language reviews of Selimi's translations to support this claim. Obviously, such references will lead to printed sources. However, if you think that in line of the policies it would not add to much, I will not bother. PS. I will be available for more discussion (if needed) after Sept 7, 2019.Hyrdlak (talk) 14:07, 2 September 2019 (UTC)Hyrdlak[reply]

If you want to change the Wikipedia policy on notability you are in the wrong place. That would be done at a policy discussion venue, but would be an exceedingly difficult thing to do. In the meantime, no one is going to care that you disagree with it. However, you have a very poor grasp of what the notability policy actually is. We do not reject non-English sources or offline sources. Nor do we reject sources behind paywalls or printed sources. But to support notability they must be independent, reliable and have significant coverage. SpinningSpark 17:00, 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. As noted, the article needs a cleanup, not deletion. Tone 07:38, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Signal-to-noise ratio (imaging)[edit]

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

I tried to make sense of this article, but having tracked down the image as a copyvio, and having checked that the formulas are incorrectly inferred relative to the cited source, I'd say there's nothing left worth keeping. See the talk page Talk:Signal-to-noise ratio (imaging). Dicklyon (talk) 00:14, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 01:20, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, deletion seems an odd choice given that the topic has been written about extensively out there in the real world. If you thought it should be merged to something like Signal to noise ratio, where imaging is discussed and cited to what look to me like 6 reliable sources, that might be ok, but the topic looks easily big enough for an independent article. If it's badly written or contains WP:OR, that's a matter for editing. Better sources are available. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:36, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Dicklyon, why don't you just WP:STUBIFY it? You don't seem to be in dispute with anyone so you probably have a free hand. That way you don't need to do substantial work on it right now, and the page remains open for anyone who wants to improve it. I agree with Chiswick Chap, this is definitely a notable subject. It's a terrible article, full of maths nobody cares about (even if it was correct) and missing basic concepts that might actually help the reader, like the fact that SNR is proportional to root imaging time [5]. But I don't think we need to TNT it in this case. SpinningSpark 14:29, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Keep as notable. Edit as much as needed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:37, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NOTCLEANUP relevant and notable topic WP:NEXIST. Wm335td (talk) 19:54, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, agree with above, just needs appropriate tags/rewrite if deemed too technical, it is, says coola who also doesn't know anything about NIBS or TIBS. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:10, 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.

OK, I stubbified it. Dicklyon (talk) 01:05, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[hist-1] "Otsego Lake Map" (PDF). oneonta.edu. oneonta.edu. 2010. Retrieved 1 September 2019. data

[hist2-2] "Otsego Lake Map". oneonta.edu. oneonta.edu. 2010. Retrieved 1 September 2019. data

[hist3-3] "Otsego Town". historicmapworks.com. historicmapworks.com. 1903. Retrieved 1 September 2019. data

[1909topo-4] "USGS". unh.edu. unh.edu. July 1909. Retrieved 1 September 2019. data

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]