Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 July 10

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 9 July	11 July >

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 Speedy Delete. Liz speedily deleted under criteria WP:A7 and WP:G2. (non-admin closure) CThomas³ (talk) 03:41, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bhagwan singh meena[edit]

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

Subject lacks notability and significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains^(talk) 23:24, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Good catch. I have placed a CSD tag and agree with the nominator. AmericanAir88^(talk) 00:26, 11 July 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) 05:47, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Steele[edit]

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

GNG fail. Article sourced by many event announcements and not enough in-depth RS. It's worth noting that it is the product of a blocked paid editor. We can convert COI puffed-up articles into good articles where the subject is notable; in this case they do not appear to be. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:20, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:20, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:20, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:20, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:20, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You bring up a good point ThatMontrealIP but without the COI would anyone care enough to convert it? MaskedSinger (talk) 04:14, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTPROMO. Fails WP:ARTIST.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:53, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, what a wonderful artist! Her art is so evocative, i especially like Dark Iris and Paphiopedilum (and this book cover looks great), but she doesn't appear to meet WP:CREATIVE ie. wikisignificant/notable exhibitions/reviews, represented in wikinotable galleries/museums, so although some of the article's references look okay, they are not enough so a delete. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:07, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Her artwork is very interesting but the level of notoriety does not seem sufficient to sustain a Wiki article. Cosmic Sans (talk) 15:11, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment She doesn't have to meet WP:NARTIST, she could meet WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. I have added a few sources and some info/quotes from them. In terms of reliable, independent, secondary sources, we now have The Missoulian (a report of a one day workshop Steele gave in Montana, so SIGCOV); Detroit Free Press; Philadelphia Inquirer (also SIGCOV); St. Louis Post-Dispatch; The Washington Post (that is short, but given that its review of calendars said hers has "paintings of the flower as a sex object", I think it may well have contributed to her notability in the 1980s!); and the Standard-Examiner, Utah. I don't think Artist Magazine is a reliable, independent source (it seems to be the work of one woman). What about Watercolor magazine, which is currently source 3? That looks like it could be SIGCOV, but I don't know anything about the magazine. I haven't found her in any permanent collections yet, but without clues about any galleries or museums which might hold her work (if any do), it's a bit hit and miss searching for any. RebeccaGreen (talk) 19:38, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos on your additions to the article. I think this is is one of those cases where GNG might be met, if one stretches things a bit. There are some local reviews and some other sources that might make it. On the other hand, which is the hand I !voted with, there is nothing here (a colleciton, a serious award, a shows in major institutions etc) to clearly push my opinion to keep. If we accept this kind of article, we will be publishing many more articles on run-of-the-mill watercolourists; the standard needs to be higher than BASIC here. The fact that she publishes calendars is not that notable: I could start doing that tomorrow. Her own book is used as a named ref three or four times. I very much doubt you will find her in any collections, as she is just a good watercolourist, as opposed to an innovative painter. But that's opinion. Perhaps the greatest evidence that there is not enough here is that you are not !voting keep. If RebeccaGreen cannot find convincing sources, who can? (That is a compliment, by the way.)ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:53, 18 July 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. Randykitty (talk) 09:30, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keigo Moriyasu[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Subject has not played in a fully professional league and has not represented his nation at senior or Olympic level. Philippines league only professional starting 2019. This article was only deleted a few weeks ago and the subjects notability has not changed since then. Simione001 (talk) 22:35, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 22:38, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 22:38, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 22:38, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nominator. Meatsgains^(talk) 22:58, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:16, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL; and SALT. Giant Snowman 14:20, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @GiantSnowman: Keigo Moriyasu has played in the Philippines Football League which is listed in WP:FPL and not Philippine Premier League which is listed only from 2019.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:38, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very confused... Giant Snowman 07:36, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed somewhat confusing. It appears that a mistake has been made. He does appear to have played in a professional league. Simione001 (talk) 11:16, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In that case keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL and likely WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 08:13, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:NFOOTY has played in the Philippines Football League which is listed as a fully Professional League as per this .Further player is 25 years old and currently playing.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:43, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I cannot find significant coverage to satisfy GNG, just brief mentions and game reports like [1] and [2]. – Levivich 20:12, 12 July 2019 (UTC) Update: the two Japanese sources posted below have only a few short paragraphs about the player and don't count as SIGCOV in my view. – Levivich 22:08, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This simply isn't true. Neither have short paragraphs - both contain about 30 sentences and 550 to 600 words. Lengths isn't a criteria in itself, but these aren't brief 3-paragraph articles with 6 sentences in total. Both articles are entirely about Keigo Moriyasu. Both are significant coverage. The claim that there's nothing but just brief mentions and game reports is absolutely false. Nfitz (talk) 05:17, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Levivich Can you clarify why you are arguing that these 550 to 600 30-sentance articles are too short, when at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Callum McCowatt (2nd nomination) you have sinced used 200 to 300 word 10-14 sentence articles as proof of GNG? Nfitz (talk) 15:43, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I said have only a few short paragraphs about the player. The Nikkan article has 175 words about the player (Google translate):

Moriho's second son, Ryo Sato (25), who played in the Philippines First Division League JPV Marikina FC last season ... Played overseas after graduation from the university, with the father's teaching of "Enjoying anything" ... currently participating in a practice in a German club. ... Born in Hiroshima, soccer was close. "I think I like the best football among my (3) brothers." In high school, he belongs to Hiroshima Youth, and has been an official game since 1 year at a high-traffic distribution college. He demonstrated aggressive ability with a high degree of kick accuracy and agility. I aimed to be in the J club, but damaged the ligament of the left ankle in the 3-year All Japan University Championship Final. For about six months, I ended my college life without feeling well as I left the battle, and my dream on graduation was broken. ... began his career as a soccer player in Australia ... 17 goals in the first year and 9 goals in the second year. Despite blossoming scoring, he left Australia for visa reasons.

The Hochi News article has 135 words about the player (Google translate):

JPV Marikina FC midfielder Satoru Satoru (24) has been playing since this season in the Philippines League ... Joined Edgeworth Eagles of Australia in January this year ... Active as a team heart, recording 11 points and 9 assists while voluntarily ... Moriho was born on September 22, 1993 as the second son of Japanese representative Morihoichi (50). Graduated from Hiroshima Youth to Distribution Economics University. As a side and aggressive midfielder, he entered the All Nippon University selection at the time of three years. After graduating, he worked for two years at Edgeworth Eagles, a semi-pro club in Australia ... After practice, Moriho has ambitions such as training to stay in the middle of the trunk, but Filipino players will soon return home, and it is a reality that they are less conscious of working on the practice.

The rest is about the team, the league, and his father, or is a quote from the player, usually about his father, or something like "I will try my best to be able to win in the cup game" and "I enjoy soccer". Compare that with the sources for Callum McCowatt like [3] (700 words) and [4] (600 words). Those aren't really the most in-depth articles I've ever seen, but there are like half a dozen articles about McCowatt, each 500 words or more with independent journalistic reporting (e.g., statements of fact in the publication's own voice, quotes from other people about the player), which made me !vote keep. Because we don't have that here for Moriyasu, I !voted delete. – Levivich 18:09, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You explicitly said that [5] and [6] met GNG, despite being 200 to 300 word 10-14 sentence articles. They are less detailed than the Japanese sources you reject here. Don't point to other sources ... I'm asking about these. Why are those two English sources good, when the Japanese ones aren't? Nfitz (talk) 00:07, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That’s not accurate–I posted six sources for McCowatt, not two–and this page is for discussing Moriyasu’s notability, not McCowatt’s (and it’s not for discussing Levivich’s AfD !votes, either). – Levivich 14:51, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You explicitly stated that those two sources were good for GNG. Even the other 4 are no longer than these, which are entirely about Moriyasu, despite your attempt to spin it otherwise. Moriyasu’s notability has been clearly established. Nfitz (talk) 15:40, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I never said in the McCowatt AfD that those two sources, alone, meet GNG; I said that six sources, together, suggest GNG is met. You're arguing that the two worst sources I put forward for McCowatt are about the same as the two best sources you put forward for this AfD–I agree and that's why I !voted keep over there and delete over here. If you have any other questions about my !votes, please use my user talk page. – Levivich 15:51, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I completely disagree with you. In particular your assertion that the paragraphs in these two paragraphs are too short. They are 5-6 sentence paragaphs, with 600 or so words in 30 or so sentences! That's no worse than the best source at McCowatt - let alone the worst source over there. These are both excellent GNG sources! You are inventing policy! Nfitz (talk) 16:22, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying the Nikkan article has 175 words about the player, and the Hochi News article has 135, and I cut-and-pasted those words above (about half of which are quotes from the subject and thus shouldn't really count as "independent")... if you're saying there's more than that, consider cut-and-pasting the additional words here. – Levivich 16:47, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are wrong in your count, and are dismissing the bulk of the article, which is also about the player. in my opinion GNG is met with this SIGCOV. Nfitz (talk) 19:04, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep not only does it pass WP:NFOOTBALL but if you search Japanese news sources, it meets WP:GNG with this and this - which shouldn't be surprising when you look at who his father is! I've added sources to article. Nfitz (talk) 18:37, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Not sure if I'm allowed a vote as creator of the page, but Moriyasu clearly passes WP:NFOOTBALL as he appeared in the 2018 Philippines Football League, a professional league as of WP:FOOTY. I have added a handful of sources which I deem sufficient enough to assure that this article passes WP:NFOOTBALL. Can someone please explain exactly how this article fails to show Moriyasu has played football at a professional level? Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 20:18, 13 July 2019 (UTC) Update: vote cast Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 05:43, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For clarity, both the Philippines Football League and the Philippine Premier League are listed as professional leagues. The PPL was due to replace the PFL in 2019, but only lasted one match day before being folded, with the country reverting back to the PFL, still a professional league. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 20:20, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging the participants of the previous AfD a few weeks ago. @Girth Summit, MA Javadi, and Chetsford: – Levivich 22:09, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note the claim the subject fails WP:NFOOTY is erroneous even in the previous AFD and here .Subject passes WP:NFOOTY. @Davidlofgren1996: A creator of a page is entitled to cast one vote in an AFD just like any other editor. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:14, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm going to have to disagree here as it seems like the player has played in the professional league in the Philippines which does satisfy WP:NFOOTBALL and with the additions of the references might also satisfy WP:GNG. HawkAussie (talk) 03:22, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NFOOTY passed recently, arguably passes GNG. It also seems the nomination was a mistake due to the PFL/PPL confusion, which I can understand. R96Skinner (talk) 05:26, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Because the subject was a player in a professional league, I'd say this article should be kept. Cosmic Sans (talk) 15:12, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The consensus has decided that the subject meets WP:BASIC (non-admin closure) AmericanAir88^(talk) 15:18, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bennye Gatteys[edit]

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

This article appears to be, at best, a vanity project for a minor, non-notable actor. This article fails miserably to meet even the minimal standards of WP:N as defined in Wikipedia:The GNG and notability for actors or even [[WP:Notability (people}]]. To wit, the three criteria laid out above were not met in any way; there are no significant roles in notable films or television series; the actress/actor has no cult following, and has made neither unique nor common contributions to the medium of acting. Furthermore, the majority of the sources used in the article are dubious or deficient, mostly pulling from the non-verifiable IMDB, which is the equivalent of citing another Wikipedia article and does not rise to the standard laid out in WP:RS. I recommend that this article be deleted, a recommendation that I do not make lightly but feel forced to make as this article has been up here for over 1.5 to 2 years without being significantly improved and my own attempts at finding additional verification of notability or additional sources to strengthen this article have been politely rebuffed by reality. Michepman (talk) 22:31, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:46, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:46, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The one semi-reliable source does not propel this subject to notability. That said, we have lots of biographical articles on actors and actresses at present where the only source at all is IMDb. There is a huge field open to either nominate those articles for deletion or find some source other than IMDb. Wikipedia should not be an IMDB mirror, but we have far too many articles that seem to have been directly copied from that site.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:52, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:29, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly concur, User:Johnpacklambert!! It’s glad to see that some of us can see sense on this topic without being colored by too much emotion. It is clear that this, like many articles. Was built siolely on the spine of an IMDB reference and then only hastily had sources submitted in a good faith but misaimed attempt to cover up the lack of WP:Notability with an over abundance of WP:RS. That’s not how it works though — a topic must have both notability and reliable, verifiable content — not one or the other... Michepman (talk)

Then you misunderstand our notability guidelines. They are there precisely to ensure that a reliable, verifiable, article can be written. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:57, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Has anyone reading this bothered to do a proper WP:BEFORE search (see B.2. and D in that guide)? In just two minutes on newspapers.com I've come up with several good sources on her, which I am going to add to the article now. --Krelnik (talk) 13:21, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ETA: Have now updated article such that it includes 8 references from several decades, including several profiles entirely about the subject. Most of the articles include photos. I am updating my vote to SPEEDY KEEP because the nominator's argument about notability is clearly not correct. (Please, please, please do in-depth WP:BEFORE searches before nominating, and not just on Google. It saves lots of stress. If you don't have accounts on 'deep web' sites like newspapers.com, please see The Wikipedia Library which will provide you one). --Krelnik (talk) 15:16, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thank you User:Krelnik for reaching out to me as well for doing the hard work of collating and improving this article! I really appreciate your help! In addition, when it comes to the deletion criteria, I took a look and I agree that it meets the standard for notability referenced above. Specifically, she has had "significant roles in notable films or television series", in particular Look Up And Live and Days Of Our Lives. I am not sure if that is enough though -- does the actress have to meet ALL three of the requirements (significant roles in notable TV/films; a cult following; and unique contributions to the film industry as a whole) or is it enough that she meets just one of them? Alicb (talk) 17:25, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator comment It’s interesting that all these folks are suddenly popping out of the woodwork to save this article now after it was left in a largely unsourced rumor filled mess for over a year... I wonder what prompted this? Anyway, I commend the user above for adding additional reliable sources. However, these sources fail to directly address the critical issues I laid above — namely the fact that Mr/Mrs Gatteys, is not a notable actor under the applicable wikipedia guidelines referenced above. While she has had the occasional bit part in an old TV sitcom, and has apparently appeared as a contestant in a Game show, this does not rise to the general notability guideline nor therefore the notability guideline specifically crafted for television and film performers. Not every extra who appears on an ep of the Outer Limits is automatically notable, nor too is every game show contestant with trifling winnings. I have done an extensive search through the primary sources provided and they singularly fail to meet our guidelines, which would be apparent to anyone who reviewed them in any detail before submitting. Michepman (talk) 17:39, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "popping out of the woodwork". What prompted this is the fact that the article has been nominated for deletion. You do realize that the AFD process is designed to send alerts out in various forms to various interested parties, so they can come comment on the nomination, right? Nothing more sinister than that.

As I said, I disagree with your assessment of notability. She clearly meets WP:GNG and she also meets WP:ENT via item 1. I frankly had never heard of this person before today, but I noticed the deletion notice on one of the article alerts that I monitor, and as I said I was able to very quickly determine that the article was worth saving, and add the necessary sources. All told it took just over an hour on newspaper.com to fix the article - exactly what WP:BEFORE recommends nominators do first. --Krelnik (talk) 19:40, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have reviewed the sources provided, as suggested by the nominator. and find them to demonstrate a pass of the general notability guideline. Folks are not "popping out of the woodwork" but reacting to the deletion nomination. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:54, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the sources added since the nomination shows that the subject meets the notability guidelines. Kudsos to Krelnik for adding the sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:57, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per a source review, the subject meets WP:BASIC. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:35, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Agreed. Krelnik has been very helpful. We now seem to have consensus that the subject meets WP:BASIC. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:41, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep (nomination withdrawn). Nominator has withdrawn thanks to the effort of User:Schazjmd (non-admin closure) AmericanAir88^(talk) 00:45, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Dalglish[edit]

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

Per WP:PERP. The article has been around for 10 years with almost no sources. I am unable to find any reliable independent secondary sources about Dalglish unrelated to his recent child molestation conviction (aside from this passing mention by CBC). Dalglish isn't a renowned figure and, sadly, his crime isn't unusual in motivation or execution (see WP:PERP). R2 (bleep) 22:32, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. Sufficient sources helpfully provided by Schazjmd. R2 (bleep) 23:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found several sources that cover his aid work (prior to the conviction); it was just a quick search but all 3 seem to have quite a bit of content on him: book;^[1] another book;^[2] another book;^[3] plus Order of Canada^[4] (I don't know if Order of Canada is a significant award, just throwing it in because it came up on search). A number of other books in the humanitarian field don't have coverage of him but do mention/credit/thank him, so it seems like he is renowned in that field. Schazjmd (talk) 22:52, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Schazjmd, thanks for the sources, but I have no way to verify that the books include significant coverage of Dalglish (or to use them to improve the article). Would you mind quoting the relevant passages for each? The Order of Canada source is just the announcement that the CBC source was based on. Just a passing reference. R2 (bleep) 23:05, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ahrtoodeetoo, quotes would be too extensive (copyvio). Here's google books link to Canada in Sudan, pgs 103-104, 109-111, 142-143. Caring for the World, pgs 42-45. Emma's War, chapter 12. Schazjmd (talk) 23:14, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Pigott, Peter, (2009). Canada in Sudan. TotalBoox,, TBX,. Dundurn. ISBN 9781770705142. OCLC 968989920.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
^ Paul K. Drain (2009). Caring for the World: A Guidebook to Global Health Opportunities. University of Toronto Press. pp. 42–45. ISBN 978-0-8020-9548-0.
^ Scroggins, Deborah. (2002). Emma's war (1st Vintage books ed ed.). New York: Vintage. ISBN 9780307808851. OCLC 70772490. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help)
^ "Governor General Announces 100 New Appointments to the Order of Canada as Canada Turns 150" (PDF).

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88^(talk) 00:43, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88^(talk) 00:43, 11 July 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. Unanimity that the page should be deleted. As the nominator said "No significant coverage in reliable sources and no evidence of satisfying WP:NPOL". Just Chilling (talk) 20:52, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bharat Bhushan Midha[edit]

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

Originally PRODed by GSS. No significant coverage in reliable sources and no evidence of satisfying WP:NPOL. GPL93 (talk) 20:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 20:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 20:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Politician who has not been elected and does not hold any constitutional office. The subject fails WP:NPOL , WP:GNG. FitIndia ^Talk 04:59, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I stand by my prod rationale as the nominator added above. Also, please note that the author has been blocked for sockpuppetry. GSS (talk|c|em) 05:47, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being the local head of a political party's local chapter in one district is not an automatic WP:NPOL pass, but the article is not referenced anywhere near well enough to get him over WP:GNG for it. Bearcat (talk) 12:14, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat.A.Jacobin (talk) 15:00, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:NPOL criteria. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:33, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete subject fails WP:NPOL, and even though subject is a local region's head of political party, still fails WP:GNG. —usernamekiran(talk) 12:45, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not elected from any where and is not significant person. Jaywardhan009 (talk) 16:48:15, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as a blatant biographical hoax. In stark contrast to the article, the source cited by the article does not claim that this person is an MLA, and gives the name as Sunil Kumar. It claims that Sunil Kumar is an MLC in Uttar Pradesh. There is indeed a Sunil Kumar listed on the UPVP WWW site, number 22 in the SP section. Uncle G (talk) 12:46, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sunil Butolia[edit]

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

I cannot find a trace of an Indian politician with that name. The article says that Sunil Butolia also goes by the name Sunil Kumar and although there is an MLA bearing that name (see here), there's no connection between the two names. Pichpich (talk) 20:37, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Cannot confirm if this individual is in fact an Indian politician. Meatsgains^(talk) 23:10, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:47, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:47, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources confirm that Sunil Kumar the MLA is the same person as Sunil "Butolia" — and the article was created by a user named "Sunilbutolia", as his second attempt at creating an article about himself following a 2018 version which claimed that he was notable for "creating new and editing old articles on Wikipedia" behind a redirect to online advertising in an apparent attempt to boost his SEO stats. In other words, this is much more likely to be another bullshit attempt to recreate an article about himself by making false claims of notability derived from another person than it is the real backstory of the real Sunil Kumar. So no prejudice against the creation of a new article about the real Sunil Kumar — but just moving this to Sunil Kumar (politician) isn't the answer, as that would imbue the real person with a bad/fake edit history. Bearcat (talk) 12:00, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Widefox; talk 09:48, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No Deal[edit]

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

Dab with ~~one valid entry~~ (or arguably zero valid entries as all being WP:PTM) 1. primary topic Brexit negotiations#The "no deal" scenario where the redirects No deal Brexit, No-deal Brexit target (there's no lowercase no deal). Two other (sub) entries but all the same topic. Dab title is malformed as titlecase, with 1 ~~valid~~ entry, and linking to the other entries is at the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC target either as normal links, or hatnote see also. Suggest deletion (readers inputting "no deal" aren't even obviously wanting the Brexit topic, they may desire the general concept so search is preferred with only WP:PTM). Widefox; talk 20:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC) Widefox; talk 21:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nom withdrawn (per comment below). Widefox; talk 09:06, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Widefox; talk 20:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Widefox; talk 20:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Widefox; talk 20:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Widefox; talk 20:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Widefox; talk 20:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It would be fine to just redirect to the same place as No deal Brexit. The title may seem malformed but it is a common spelling. —ajf (talk) 20:37, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, right, that's how I originally created it, as such a redirect. So obviously I have my bias here. :) —ajf (talk) 20:39, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: (edit conflict) In my opinion what a bloody stupid place to claim No Deal should redirect to as primary topic mainly for the reason its not in the greatest place in the middle of a negotiations article. My impression is Widefox's tinkering with such as is making a mess a bigger mess; though to a degree I created the mess that is Brexit – immediate outcome of no-deal exit. There are also issues over No-deal Brexit. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:08, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF / WP:CIVIL ignored. Normal day in the office for me - routine cleanup of dabs - check my history. This dab is bad in pretty much every way, and should be deleted. It actually misleads readers who are after "no deal Brexit" into thinking there's three topics, rather than giving those readers what they want, which is the primary topic. Why on earth readers would be typing "No Deal" (titlecase) when they want Brexit is beyond me, can you explain. It's a dab with title issue, and no valid entries. Widefox; talk 21:14, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (and move to No deal, with the capitalized version redirecting there). There are at least two significant meanings, one being the concept of a no-deal Brexit, and the other being "No deal" as an aspect of gameplay in Deal or No Deal. Although it is not specifically a title match, it does meet WP:DABMENTION. bd2412 T 02:33, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I have added a third meaning: "No Deal", a song written by Townes Van Zandt and recorded on the 1983 Guy Clark album Better Days. bd2412 T 02:46, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well done, dab has valid entries now, nom withdrawn. Widefox; talk 09:06, 11 July 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 23:51, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Emax (musician)[edit]

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

No indication of notability per WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. References given are song directories, social media, and an interview with a website that does interviews with anyone that asks them. ... discospinster _talk 19:42, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 19:42, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 19:42, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 00:03, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No coverage in reliable sources - and a clear self-promo article to boot. It was written by one author who likely has a COI. Cosmic Sans (talk) 15:16, 17 July 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. Unanimity that this site comprehensively fails WP:NWEB. Just Chilling (talk) 19:35, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

World of Words[edit]

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

Fails WP:WEB. Bbarmadillo (talk) 19:26, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks notability under NWEB or GNG. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:11, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:49, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:49, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:49, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:49, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable although it's hard to find online sources because the phrase "World of words" is pretty common. Pichpich (talk) 20:49, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nominator. QuiteUnusual (talk) 10:39, 12 July 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, Per all above does not meet WP:GNG Alex-h (talk) 13:52, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.WaterwaysGuy (talk) 00:01, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 03:07, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lets not Beat a dead horse here, blatant violation of the WP:GNG. AmericanAir88^(talk) 16:08, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fail passes WP:WEB - MA Javadi (talk) 17:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Davis Cup. Randykitty (talk) 09:27, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Davis Cup participants[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTSTATS and isn't referenced, only reference is the official website and searching thru the Davis Cup website doesn't show any obvious place where this information is located. SportingFlyer T·C 19:01, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can't tell This gets more unclear the longer I look at it. On the plus side:

There's nothing here that outright runs counter any of the guidelines at WP:NOTSTATS. This table seems to bear about the same relationship to Davis Cup as the pair provided as an example at that page - Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2012 vs 2012 United States presidential election; and table has plenty of notes and mouse-overs to explain categories and individual entries.
I don't like it much, but WP is by now kind of comitted to carrying these Ye Grande Sports Almanack data-dumps. Davis Cup itself is pretty heavy on the stats tables, and that's not getting into football (shudder). Precedence is certainly there.

On the minus side:

Isn't this just a table variant of all the material already presented at Davis Cup#Records and statistics? (as in, literally the entire section) Seems needlessly duplicative - either have one whopping table with all the info, or separate sub-sections that summarize parts. This would suggest either replacing the section content with the table, or deleting the table as surplus to requirements.

It clearly isn't just a variant. It contains ALL participants and ALL tiers of competition, not just the world group related stuff like it's mostly the case with DC article.Setenzatsu (talk) 13:25, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing is decidedly insufficient. This is like citing a description of the climate of Hoboken to usgs.gov - the data are presumably in there somewhere but it's of no eartly use to the reader. But that could presumably be spruced up.

Then you have a problem with most of the national DC team articles. They (most of them) have team page at DC's official website listed, and not even as a reference but as an external link. So I would be right if I were to go and delete every DC national team article because it references nothing and directly breaches several wiki policies. I could even call out WP:OR. (90% of wiki admins don't understand the meaning of "original" but that's for another discussion). So those really don't follow rules but I don't see anybody AfD them. Setenzatsu (talk) 13:25, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Threats by author to flip out if things don't go their way are not helpful.)

Overall, I don't think it's a delete by virtue of failing basic guidelines, but I question its usefulness. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:51, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I PRODded the article while reviewing new pages. It seemed like a clear NOTSTATS failure to me, along with an unlikely but possible WP:OR (I think this table probably exists somewhere, but I can't find the source.) We typically delete stats articles if they don't have any contextual prose, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1957 African Cup of Nations statistics, and the lack of a source is the other major issue. Didn't expect this one to be controversial at all. SportingFlyer T·C 01:50, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 05:31, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:49, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You could definitely look at it like a stats article but it's a more comprehensive, detailed LIST like a Lists of 100 best books or List of films with LGBT characters. It contains every country that ever participated, every country that ever appeared in the WG, every now dissolved participants and some additional information that are a starting point. For example, if you are to look for information on which countries played 200+ matches how much time it would took to look for that? You have lists inside a list. Of course you could always look at it like a stats article (which list is by definition) but as it contains every participant ever, summarizes information in one place that is otherwise scattered it could serve as a reference point or a starting point of DC universe. Sure, you could separate it into sub-sections that summarize parts but you would increase bytes, wouldn't change the nature of the article and would loose cohesiveness. It's not like this table contains some ludicrous categories (column headers) - it's all standard basic information to give overall information and it's mostly contained in info boxes of each team's article. (forgot to sign it) Setenzatsu (talk) 13:33, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Davis Cup. To be specific, clean up the table a bit and stick it in the Davis Cup records and statistics section. Stat articles are kind of a grey area, but after some digging around I don't see this meeting the list sourcing and stand-alone notability needed to be its own separate article. See also: WP:OSE. ZettaComposer (talk) 23:41, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Davis Cup. I agree, it could be added to the stats already there. Dream Focus 19:29, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was part of the DC article, but few of your kind deleted it and one I believe proposed to be made into it's own article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Setenzatsu (talk • contribs) 10:24, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:52, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vivek Yadav[edit]

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

This page is about a random civil servant in India who works in waste management. The article is clearly self-promotional, written by someone with a COI, and does not pass WP:BIO. Overzwotan (talk) 18:57, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete and WP:SALT Heavily. This article has already been deleted twice already. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:22, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GPL93. AmericanAir88^(talk) 00:32, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 05:32, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 05:32, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable civil servant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:33, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks enough independent, in-depth coverage to meet WP:SIGCOV.--SamHolt6 (talk) 23:59, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete per everybody above, and salt. Also, in India one cant hold the position of collector, and magistrate at the same time as claimed in the article. —usernamekiran(talk) 14:47, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to be a guy doing his job, which happened to get some banal media coverage.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:17, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 19:23, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nanjala Nyabola[edit]

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

Résumé-toned WP:BLP of a writer and activist, whose claims of notability are not reliably sourced. The footnotes here are entirely to primary sources, such as pieces of her own writing being used to metaverify its own existence, audio clips of her speaking in podcasts, and a press release announcing a speaking engagement, with not even one source representing any sort of reliable source coverage. You do not make a writer notable by citing her writing to itself as verification that it exists; you make a writer notable by citing her writing to other people producing media coverage about her writing, such as news articles about her, critical analysis of the writing in book reviews, and on and so forth — and you don't make a person notable as a public speaker by referencing it to audio or video clips of her speeches, you make a person notable as a public speaker by referencing it to journalism being done by other people about her speeches. People are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because their work verifies its own existence: people earn Wikipedia articles by becoming the subject of media coverage. Bearcat (talk) 18:58, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:58, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:58, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 05:27, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep More citations have been added, and the situation described in the nomination no longer applies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:43, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep book reviews carry her past WP:AUTHOR.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:52, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep additional citation of her work in the Financial Times added. The style and structure of the article could be improved through normal editing.Moira Paul (talk) 21:36, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Extra citations carry article over WP:GNG and WP:Author. Nom no longer applies. Stinglehammer (talk) 15:25, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep SNOW? Too early I guess except for the nominator Victuallers (talk) 16:50, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems reasonably referenced and certainly notable. I get the impression that this writer is not about to disappear into obscurity. Poltair (talk) 18:54, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Störm (talk) 16:25, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Abbottabad Cricket Stadium[edit]

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

Delete per WP:TNT even if topic is notable. Otherwise, it fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 18:33, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:38, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:39, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:39, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am reluctant to delete anything about cricket in Pakistan because the sport is so important there. What did the nominator discover while doing [WP:BEFORE]]? Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:06, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article seems to have been hijacked and details replaced with another local ground. I restored content to old version, the single ref shows that the ground has hosted multiple first-class / List A games, so passes WP:CRIN. Spike 'em (talk) 06:16, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has hosted first-class and List A games, passes CRIN. StickyWicket (talk) 08:22, 11 July 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. Clear consensus to keep. Just Chilling (talk) 20:23, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of films with post-credit scenes[edit]

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

Per WP:SALAT, "Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value". Many, many movies have post-credit scenes (see [7]) and it is not a defining trait of a movie, so maintaining an incomplete list of post-credit scenes is not useful. Films with post-credits scenes that are particularly groundbreaking can be mentioned at post-credits scene, whilst most post-credits scenes just belong at the article for the film itself. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 18:33, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 18:36, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:39, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I disagree. The amount is not that extensive and, although they existed in smaller numbers before, PCSs only began to be a real trend with super hero movies in the last years. It's interesting to document how they grew in number and changed in form over time. - Alumnum (talk) 19:24, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The link I gave lists almost 350 films, more than triple the amount that the current version of our list includes, and I think triple the length of what we have is really too long for a list. The fact that it's becoming an increasing trend plays into my argument, as the number 350 is going to increase significantly over time, and we're essentially then going to be maintaining an incredibly long list of mostly superhero movies. The right place for covering post-credit scenes is at Post-credits scene, where we can detail the origins of it, some key films including it and then comment on how the trend started and increased in recent years. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 22:59, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The post credit scenes always get mentioned in film reviews. This is notable. Dream Focus 21:17, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Should definitely stay. Wonderful page! MaskedSinger (talk) 04:13, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Usful information.Vincelord (talk) 14:29, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep please keep. I find this extremely interesting and a good place to find this information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.22.99.182 (talk) 19:48, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets the inclusion criteria for lists in my opinion. Cosmic Sans (talk) 14:08, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I find a lot of opinionated votes in this discussion. Barely have used any Wikipedia policies. AmericanAir88^(talk) 15:16, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The list has well-defined inclusion criteria and a natural scheme of organization (chronologically, dead simple), and it is not nearly too long to manage. Even a few hundred rows in a table is not going to break either a server or a browser. The topic is wiki-notable, and a list can help the prose article stay less cluttered. XOR'easter (talk) 20:07, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:57, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Herbeck[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO. No reliables sources for notability Rogermx (talk) 18:29, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 18:29, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:42, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:42, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:42, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:42, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep co-author of script for Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (1990 film) carries him past WP:AUTHOR #3. "has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work, for example, a film".E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:22, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs some love, and some references. Some coverage of the subject Hollywood reporter, prominent name placement on the advert for the Ninja turtles movie the LA Times covers more than passing mention of the subject's involvement as the originator of the movie idea. I see the subject was an actor in mainstream television during the 1970s (pre-internet) so more research can be undertaken to shore up the article. even if there is not an abundance...WP:NEXIST Lightburst (talk) 18:20, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passes WP:NAUTHOR witgh significant coverage in reliable sources that have been added to the article, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 22:10, 14 July 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. Ignoring the obvious WP:SPA / canvassed comments, clear consensus to delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Selby[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NAUTHOR as the author of a single book which does not appear to have garnered substantial attention other than the author being used as a useful ~~rentaquote~~ source on the inevitable regularly-covered subject of police shootings. Selby himself similarly is quoted in numerous articles, but these are not about him, hence do not establish notability. The current article relies almost entirely on articles by Selby, not about him, and the remainder consist of two conference speaker listings, and a link to a self-published book on Amazon of which Selby is a co-author. In short, fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO etc. Hugsyrup (talk) 17:51, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:43, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:43, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:43, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete he's a pretty prolific oped writer but this doesn't establish notability under our guidelines. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:17, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTPROMO. That said, although the article is ill-written, some of the claims looked plausible, and I tried to source it. I found only one review of the book, an interview/review in the lifestyle pages of the local paper in St. Augustine, where he has a part-time home. As Nom says, there are some opeds in major newspapers, and he gets quoted as a security/policing expert, but I did not find WP:SIGCOV and he does not pass WP:AUTHOR. If you can source it, please feel free to ping me to reconsider.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:45, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
don't delete I've read this thread, and know Nick Selby, and I am surprised that the book "In Context" is being challenged. As a criminal justice professor, I was impressed enough with the book that I gave a quote supporting its methodology, and co-authored an article with Selby on the subject in the Washington Post, and worked with him on a podcast about policing. As to, "paltry," nine citations of a mainstream book by serious academics in peer-reviewed literature is nothing to sneeze at, and the underlying data is available freely [8]). In my opinion, the book is a substantive work of significant analysis. Peter Moskos — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fotaq (talk • contribs) 23:42, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete discussion of authorship neglects other books published by major publishers including syngress ^[1] and weldon owen ^[2]— Obleek (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp (UTC).
Don't Delete I am the person described by the page. I have read the thread and would point to a range of books published by Syngress, Weldon Owen, and even Lonely Planet^[3]. I won't argue with opinions I disagree with above (like, "rentaquote"), but hope editors consider the sources listed on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nselby451 (talk • contribs) 09:48, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
don't delete As a publisher, Calibre Press has distributed In Context since it came out. Furthermore, it's content has been the subject of hundreds of conversations in our live seminar training across the U.S. Definitely a valuable and valued author and contribution. Crawford Coates, publisher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CalibreP (talk • contribs) 11:46, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In Context was self-published, and is distributed by Calibre Press[1], a legitimate publisher and distributor. The book was taken seriously by academics in the field; In Context has been cited in at least nine peer-reviewed academic journal articles and Google Scholar shows 11 academic citations[2]. The book was reviewed in PoliceOne[3], which has more than two million monthly visitors and more than 650,000 registered members[4]. Selby was the subject of a feature-length interview by David J. Krajacik for The Crime Report[5], published by the Center on Media, Crime and Justice at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York. The links to conferences spoke to Selby's expertise in information security, as evidenced by his speaking at, for example, the RSA Conference 2019, the largest cyber security conference in the world.

^[4] ^[5] ^[6] ^[7] ^[8]— Arasita (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

References

^ https://www.amazon.com/Blackhatonomics-Inside-Look-Economics-Cybercrime/dp/1597497401/
^ https://www.amazon.com/Cyber-Attack-Survival-Manual-Apocalypse/dp/1681881756/
^ https://www.amazon.com/Nick-Selby/e/B000AP7058?ref=sr_ntt_srch_lnk_1&qid=1562924696&sr=8-1
^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calibre_Press
^ https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=18400800544550691232&as_sdt=5,33&sciodt=0,33&hl=en
^ https://www.policeone.com/police-products/training/books-training-materials/articles/226312006-What-In-Context-reveals-about-officer-involved-shootings-of-unarmed-subjects/
^ https://www.policeone.com/about/
^ Krajicek, D.J. (2016). Doing The Right Thing. New York, NY: John Jay College of Criminal Justice, The Crime Report. [Retrieved from: https://thecrimereport.org/2016/05/31/doing-the-right-thing/

9 is a paltry number of citations for a scholarly book. And overall very little WP:RS coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:06, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not whether you consider the number paltry. It was stated the book was invalid because it was self-published. Now it is stated that it is an "academic book" but that it's not cited enough. The question is whether the book was legitimate; its inclusion in more than one serious academic study says the book is legitimate. Also, it is not an academic book, it is a mainstream book that is cited in academic literature. --Arasita (talk) 12:16, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the question is not whether the book is 'valid' or 'legitimate' since those are not standards that exist in any of Wikipedia's policies. The question is simply 'does the subject of this article meet one or more of our notability guidelines'? I argue that he does not meet the WP:GNGs as there is a lack of coverage in independent, reliable sources, and no one has yet unearthed anything to change my mind. An obvious alternative might be to ask if he meets WP:NAUTHOR in which case we would presumably want to establish whether Mr Selby is 'widely cited by peers'. This is why E.M.Gregory has questioned the number of citations. Hugsyrup (talk) 12:34, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom and E.M.Gregory. What an amazing number of new/non-regular editors have navigated their way to this AfD page! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:40, 12 July 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)} 17:52, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You Are The Blood[edit]

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

The only source is IMDb, which is neither reliable nor since it aims to cover anything in any way an indication of notability John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:47, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:45, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can not find a single mention of this short film outside of this article and IMDB. If nothing else, it could be Redirected to Rafael Morais, its creator and star, but the utter lack of a single source even corroborating this film's existence aside from IMDB makes me lean towards deletion. Rorshacma (talk) 19:47, 10 July 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)} 17:52, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dominion (2018 film)[edit]

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

Deprodded without improvement, and the rationale, "as the reason given for deletion was irrelevant to the content of the article". However the prod rationale was pretty spot on. Not enough coverage in independent reliable sources to meet WP:GNG, and doesn't meet WP:NFILM. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:08, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the PRODing editor for the reasons listed above. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 17:21, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:45, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:46, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:47, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Essentially no coverage in independent reliable sources. Cosmic Sans (talk) 15:17, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the subject fails notability guidelines. Just Chilling (talk) 16:58, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Barnes (Canadian author)[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a writer, not properly referenced as clearing WP:AUTHOR. The only references here are a Who's Who directory entry (a type of sourcing which has been long-deprecated as not an instant notability freebie all by itself, because it's too easily gamed by the kind of Who's Who scam that allows self-promoters to buy their entry) and a primary source profile on the self-published website of a directly affiliated organization. But on a ProQuest search for older coverage that doesn't Google properly, I literally found nothing but a few stray pieces of "local guy writes book" in his hometown community hyperlocal, which is not enough coverage to make a person notable if it's the best we can do. And although he was named to the Order of Canada, that's still not an instant notability freebie that exempts him from having to have any viable sources -- lots of OC members don't have Wikipedia articles, because even with an OC after their name a person still has to show some evidence of having received reliable source coverage about the work they did to get it. ANYBIO does not exempt a person from having to have any viable sources just because a distinction has been claimed: we still have to be able to base the article on some evidence of reliable source coverage about his writing. Bearcat (talk) 16:57, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:57, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:57, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I also searched, also found a mere handful of article in hometown paper (Former K.L. resident authors another book: [Final Edition], Owen, Rick. Northern Daily News; Cobalt, Ont. [Cobalt, Ont]17 June 2003: 3.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:50, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sourcing is not enough to pass notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:17, 12 July 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. Closing a day early as a result of the overwhelming "Keep" Consensus. Snow Keep as a result of clear establishment that the subject meets the WP:GNG (non-admin closure) AmericanAir88^(talk) 16:01, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Feminists: What Were They Thinking?[edit]

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

Other than the Daily Dot review, no other significant reviews (the other review is from a student newspaper). Doesn't meet WP:NFILM, or WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:25, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:25, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Even just Googling "Feminists: What Were They Thinking?" at Google News shows there's more coverage than just Daily Dot. Onel5969, can you please try merge/redirect discussions before jumping to AfD? Even if the subject is deemed not notable, redirecting to List of original films distributed by Netflix would be better than deleting. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:30, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A quick search turns up reviews, the Kickstarter page, even reviews of the trailer. Meets WP:GNG imho. Gleeanon409 (talk) 16:40, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was able to find lots of other coverage in reliable sources besides The Daily Dot: Decider (website) [9], The Namibian [10], The Daily Nebraskan [11],Missoulian [12], People's World [13], Common Sense Media [14]. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:28, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article needs fleshing out, but that's clearly possible. The film is notable; the many people interviewed are certainly notable; the sources exist. It just needs some time for editors to work on it. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 01:16, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has coverage in reliable sources, fir example Rotten Tomatoes shows five critic's reviews including the Sydney Morning Herald a reliable Australian press which shows the film has had a wide impact, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 22:02, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as in my opinion it meets WP:GNG. Have added some of the articles discussing and reviewing the documentary to the article. - Ambrosia10 (talk) 08:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - wish I hadn't added to it as this needs closing out as "SNOW". Not a great nomination IMO. Maybe @Onel5969: might withdraw it? Victuallers (talk) 09:10, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep just a reminder to anyone adding refs to please also add the refs to the associated Wikidata item for other languages, if ever they add an article. I know this doc was also fairly popular in the Netherlands. Thx Jane (talk) 09:40, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable. I do not understand why this was even nominated for deletion. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 11:37, 15 July 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. I see a clear consensus that he fails to meet our notability guidelines for biographies, eg WP:ANYBIO . Just Chilling (talk) 15:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rana Gujral[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. Presented sources are either unreliable or self published. Hitro talk 14:04, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 14:04, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 14:04, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 14:04, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no real sources that indicate notability. Pretty clear WP:PROMO as well. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:45, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relist A new discussion at AfD should bring a more thorough discussion, given the new information shown here. The subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability. I have reviewed and added to the page 3rd party publications that have interviewed the subject on various topics. Google “News” and Google “Video” search results also provide adequate content that verifies the subject’s notability. Not WP:PROMO. Hopeful Page Creator, JKantorJourno Jkantorjourno (talk) 22:40, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jkantorjourno you do realize that the article was listed yesterday right? Relisting is used if no consensus is reached after a period of time, usually a week at the shortest, to stir up more input and generate a consensus. Best, GPL93 (talk) 23:01, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GPL93 I am still learning my Wikipedia ropes. Getting better with each day. Thank you for the information. So I should resubmit as overturn (will do). Also, Why go after my one other page David Marlon for deletion? That seems personal. Confused, JKantorJourno. Jkantorjourno (talk) 01:17, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not personal and its not "your page". Its another article that clearly fails notability standards, although I do find it odd that you have only really made edits related to David Marlon and this article.At this time I'm going to ask that you disclose any professional or personal connection to either subject per WP:COI. Best, GPL93 (talk) 02:14, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn Original deletion decision was not consistent with current policies. The subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability. I have reviewed and added to the page 3rd party publications that have interviewed the subject on various topics. Google “News” and Google “Video” search results also provide adequate content that verifies the subject’s notability. Learning, JKantorJourno Jkantorjourno (talk) 01:22, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 02:17, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet WP:NBIO as he has not received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Nor do his achievements mentioned in the article suggest that he meets WP:GNG. The article has been created by an account with a likely conflict of interest. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:31, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to guarantee him a Wikipedia article just because he exists, but the referencing is almost entirely to primary sources and listicles, not real media coverage that is substantively about him. For example, a person is not notable as a contributor to publications just because you reference the fact to his own writing for those publications — the notability test is not the ability to verify that he's been the author of media coverage of other things, it's the ability to verify that he's been the subject of media coverage authored by other people. Similarly, video clips of him speaking are not support for notability either — again, the notability test is not the ability to show sources in which he's doing the speaking, but the ability to show sources in which he's the subject that other people are speaking about. Bearcat (talk) 18:58, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Overturn~~. [Revote struck.] Of the 15 sources provided, 4 are feature pieces on him solely, 2 are lists that highlight his involvement as a leader in a space, and 1 is an article that quotes him alongside other experts in the field. Provided also are sources that show he can be categorized as a columnist. I do agree that unless he has authored a book or has a career specifically as a journalist/writer, this can be taken from the page. Jkantorjourno Jkantorjourno (talk) 20:26, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, "overturn" is not a thing AFD can do — we can only "keep" or "delete". Secondly, you may comment as many times as you wish in an AFD discussion, but you are not allowed to "vote" more than once — that is, once you have already initiated a comment with a bolded vote, you cannot initiate any further comments with a restatement of the bolded vote. Thirdly, the references which are "feature pieces on him solely" are not from reliable source media outlets; sources which quote him giving soundbite on a topic are not support for notability and neither are listicles which feature only a blurb's worth of content about him; and a person is not notable as a columnist just because it's possible to use his own columns as circular verification of his status as a columnist, but becomes notable for that only if and when other people do journalism or critical analysis about his column writing. The notability test for a Wikipedia article is not doing stuff, it is receiving certain specific kinds of substantive attention and coverage from other people for doing stuff. Bearcat (talk) 16:37, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete the subject doesnt pass WP:GNG, WP:NCREATIVE, and not even WP:ANYBIO among other criteria. Also a doubtful thing is the creator of the article claims to be new to wikipedia, yet they knew about the previos deletion. Assuming good faith, it is possible that they carefully did read the notice before creating the article stating it was created n deleted previously. But as mentioned on their talkpage, they have (mostly) edited only two artcles created by themselves. Like noted above, COI/UPE is highly likely. —usernamekiran(talk) 08:24, 17 July 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. Unanimity that the subject fails our notability guidelines. Just Chilling (talk) 16:32, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Caucci[edit]

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

Promotion for non notable business man. Comments from him are not coverage about him. Article is bombarded with a lot of sources but falls short of GNG. Previous prod was removed by now blocked sock. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions.--Nahal^(T) 12:59, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:37, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:37, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:37, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTPROMO. speaker & wannabe business guru, but books are sourced to goodreads, several of the sources are essays he wrote, at least one in a letter to the editor he wrote!, and others are mere quotes in business advice articles. My searches do not bring up any WP:SIGCOV despite his unique name.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:14, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTPROMO and the COI violation. AmericanAir88^(talk) 17:52, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not Linkedin.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:23, 12 July 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. Unanimity that the subject fails our notability guidelines. Just Chilling (talk) 16:31, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael J. Lyons[edit]

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

UPE Promotion for run of the mill business man and non notable actor that is supposedly "best known for his roles in the Netflix TV series House of Cards, Outsiders, What Would You Do?, and Veep." House of Cards, minor part in 2/72 episodes. Outsiders, minor part in single episode. What Would You Do?, actually appears in multiple episodes, best of the bunch but is only 10/288 episodes and if you've ever seen an episode you'll know these are not significant roles. Veep, minor part in single episode. So that best known is boasting about nothing much. The roles in the bluelinked films in his filmography, Cafe Patron and Opera Patron, both uncredited. His awards, a high schools hall of fame. A local in house "Chapter Supplier of the Year" award. Not significant awards. Article is bombarded with a lot of sources but none are good for GNG. PR, primary routine announcements, listings, indiscriminate local puff. Article is straight out PR from a blocked sock complete with official promo shot. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions.--Nahal^(T) 12:59, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:45, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:46, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable speaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:16, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:04, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:04, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NACTOR specifically and WP:GNG generally. There are far too many motivational speakers to include them all. Bearian (talk) 01:33, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the subject fails to meet our notability guidelines.. Just Chilling (talk) 16:46, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tito Mukhopadhyay[edit]

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

Most sources claim his writings through Rapid Prompting Method are definitively legitimate, when that method is discredited. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amy Sequenzia (2nd nomination) for additional similar reasons. Ylevental (talk) 12:32, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.--Nahal^(T) 12:57, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:48, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:48, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I saw this come up for discussion for delete a week ago and have spent that time thinking about my vote. I had spent a lot of time cutting this article down a few years ago and what is left wasn't much. RPM and FC do not work and further discussion of it is simply a waste of time. Tito is not communicating as stated, in fact when you watch the videos of him working with his mother you can see that at times he is communicating by his actions of "bugger off". I think that Tito should be mentioned on the RPM page (as he is). His mother might warrant her own Wikipedia page as the inventor of RPM. But the "sockpuppet" of the mother should not have a Wikipedia page. I apologize if the term sockpuppet upsets you, but I can't find a better way to describe it, he is essentially used as a pointing device for his mother's delusions of communication. I was not able to find RS for Tito other than attribution that he was doing the writing. Possibly a Tito article could exist if RS in the future wrote about his situation in how he was tested and so on, in other words from the scientific perspective. Sgerbic (talk) 21:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Canvassing (see bottom of this article) https://theaspergian.com/2019/07/10/fc-rpm-and-how-wikipedia-became-complicit-in-silencing-non-speaking-autistics/?fbclid=IwAR3uo3Cz4Ht27cbh3cEc9x0w1FuxajTL1euwCTOK_noNnLY1_O1nzI9MYgw Sgerbic (talk) 05:23, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NFRINGE due to lack of skeptical sources. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 14:54, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even if the book connected to him is notable that does not mean he is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:32, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've created a stub about Soma Mukhopadhyay to which anything notable from the Tito entry can be added if Tito's page is deleted. Heepman1997 (talk) 08:47, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be somewhat notable, any rewrites should be done now, not after deletion.Slatersteven (talk) 10:10, 13 July 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. Despite two relists this AfD has been characterised by a lack of interest! The last comment was nearly 3 weeks ago so I can't justify a 3rd relist. This close is without prejudice to a separate move discussion. Just Chilling (talk) 15:44, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sun Records (other companies)[edit]

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

Having an article about a bunch of unrelated record labels called "Sun" makes about as much sense as an indiscriminate article about people named "Roger". Either the labels are notable, or they're not. This is just weird. —Chowbok ☠ 09:20, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:33, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:33, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:33, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions.-Nahal (talk) 11:54, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For what it's worth, there have been decades of of discussion about "other" Sun Records labels among record collectors. However, I get the point of the nomination. With sources I have, I could create articles for the Leeds & Catlin version, the Toronto Canada version, the 1946 Jewish label, and the Albuquerque label. Often they are discussed, though, in order to dispel confusion for newer collectors who think they have a rare Sam Phillips-related item. A lot of this article is obvious original research ("listed on ebay"), but I don't think that outright deleting the entire article is the best option per WP:PRESERVE. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:12, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Sun Records (disambiguation) and cut back significantly, to have only one line about each of the record companies that don't have articles yet. Since there are two Sun Records companies that already have articles and several others that don't (although some might have articles in the future), disambiguation seems appropriate for this situation. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:39, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:44, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hugsyrup (talk) 12:14, 10 July 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)} 17:51, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brent Valley Golf Club[edit]

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

Not notable private golf course ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:15, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:15, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:15, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep What makes a golf club or golf course notable? This is adequately sourced as an article. Is a golf course notable as part of a gazetteer? In this case, I think the article is hinging on the social history aspect, and the club having been founded as early as 1909. That's a long time ago in golfing terms, placing it into the great English late-Victorian golf boom. I see that as significant enough to keep. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:28, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:38, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable golf course. Andrew D. (talk) 12:48, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable golf course. Very short by modern standards. Never hosted an important event and never likely to. One many golf course founded in the UK in the pre-WWI period. Nigej (talk) 09:08, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:34, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Id like to see more references MaskedSinger (talk) 16:50, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Hanwell. Section on it there already. Hyperbolick (talk) 18:58, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:41, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's run of the mill and not notable. There's cites to personal emails, the records of the club, and other unreliable sources. Even if it were 110 years old, that's not rare in the UK, per Nigej. It has only 100 members, and appears not to be open to the public. No major 'masters' or similar golf event happens there. There's no evidence of notable members (perhaps royalty?). Bearian (talk) 16:24, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You say the club "appears not to be open to the public". This is quite obviously incorrect. On the contrary, the course is a municipal course operated by the council, and open to everyone. If you refer to the club, rather than the club, it can also be joined very easily by anyone. I also disagree that the sources are unreliable. They include newspapers in the national archive and golf annuals in the British Library. 86.15.199.72 (talk) 15:29, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reply posted prior to logging in by myself. Rugfoot (talk) 15:34, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The club currently has 175 members, not "only 100" as you state (where did you get this figure??). I know this as I have access to the club's membership data base. Rugfoot (talk) 16:07, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The club is hardly "run of the mill": it won Middlesex Club of the Year in 2022. Rugfoot (talk) 16:11, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hugsyrup (talk) 12:13, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - The references on the page include ones that we are unable to examine as they are in Ealing Library and the British Library. Per WP:NEXIST so long as the references likely exist to support notability we should assume it is notable. FOARP (talk) 12:42, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You may not be able to examine the references but should an article be deleted because of your own personal research limitations? When I created this page, I visited these libraries and found the sources first-hand. Rugfoot (talk) 15:32, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ORG. Lacks in-depth coverage, never hosted a major, nothing notable about it nor about events played there. Just Chilling (talk) 15:08, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The club has a long history (founded in 1909) but it is thriving now. It is notable for having won Middlesex Club of the Year as recently as 2022. Rugfoot (talk) 16:00, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The available evidence indicates little to no support for notability. Of the three readily accessible sources, ref 1 is not independent and doesn't mention the club on the linked page (although on search of the entire site, there are a few passing mentions in blog posts); ref 4 mentions the club only in passing; and ref 5 does not mention the club at all. Of the offline sources, ref 9 is clearly not a reliable source; refs 3 and 10, being the obituary of a person are not likely to have significant coverage of the golf club. The rest have too little information available to assess, but based on the track record of what we can see, it is not justifiable to assume they contain enough to support notability. --RL0919 (talk) 16:15, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your comments re Ref 1. The NAPGC is quite clearly an leading independent national body; the reference to the club on its website is not "passing". It is listed as one of the NAPGC's affiliated clubs. This is not a "blog post". Similarly, ref 4 is not a "passing" mention. The club was one of the main achievements of the subject of the obituary. On ref 5, it is disingenuous to say it doesn't mention the name "Brent Valley": that's because it had a different name. That's the whole point of this piece of information. Your assertion that ref 9 is not a reliable source is clearly groundless. The Middlesex County Times was a longstanding and leading regional newspaper. Again, on the obituary, the golf club was a major achievement in Albert Toley's life, so it is significantly covered in the obituary. Rugfoot (talk) 15:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GEOFEAT Built in 1909 this course is an historic place. Passes WP:ORGCRITE with references: non-Trivial coverage exists in the Ealing Times, More non trivial here My London News, History of the club's founding detailed WP:NEXIST I can see how a WP:BEFORE missed the mark Lightburst (talk) 17:43, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 11:16, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yaroslava Plaviuk[edit]

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

No evidence of notability, and I am not even sure the only source mentions here. Slatersteven (talk) 11:12, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:24, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:24, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per the work by the article creator that was completed after this nomination. SL93 (talk) 22:58, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: More citations have been added, and the situation described in the nomination no longer applies. ArhKarl (talk) 18:13, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I've edited for style (more consistent use of tense) and structure. I've also highlighted Yaroslava's work at the start rather than focusing on her husband's. More clarity on some issues would be useful from the article creator and others but I think this article can be cleaned up rather than deleted.Moira Paul (talk) 23:20, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article now has many references to significant coverage in multiple reliable sources such. Kholodovsky (talk) 07:36, 16 July 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. Regardless of the did he / didn't he pass NFOOTY arguments, the consensus is that the player still fails GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:02, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rok Zorko[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY, not played in a fully-pro league. Snowflake91 (talk) 09:22, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yes, he did, he played in Slovenian PrvaLiga with Zavrč. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 09:25, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And? 1. SNL is a semi-pro league, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues Snowflake91 (talk) 09:32, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:15, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:15, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SNL is professional league, but you removed it from the list and deleted my source. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 10:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was removed by User:S.A. Julio over a year ago, because both UEFA and NZS sources (2019 version, not 2008 version) says that the league is not fully-pro. Snowflake91 (talk) 11:05, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which source clearly states that the league is semi-pro? Ludost Mlačani (talk) 11:21, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And which clearly states that the league is fully-pro? Not UEFA or NZS source from 2019. Snowflake91 (talk) 11:45, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But you listed the league under not fully-pro, even though no source clearly indicates that. And why should it be from 2019? For most leagues on the list there are older sources. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 12:04, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The place to discuss whether or not the league is FPL or not is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues, and I recommend you take that discussion there (there are usually a few people active on that page). I would start with working on demonstrating WP:GNG because without any references I don't see the article meeting that in its current state. Jay eyem (talk) 01:53, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:16, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Agree that discussion over status of FPL is for WT:FPL, nowt AFD. Giant Snowman 14:20, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nobody comments on it there. If I put it back on the list with sources, it will be just removed again. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 15:38, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I cannot find significant coverage to satsfy GNG. There is some coverage of a youth coach named Rok Zorko [15] [16], but I'm finding little coverage of the footballer born in 1993, just routine mentions in game reports like [17] and [18]. – Levivich 20:30, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Regardless of the FPL status of DNŠ Zavrč, our subject simply doesn't pass GNG - I'm not finding much. Icewhiz (talk) 07:34, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted as an out of process cut-paste of an AFC draft that's still in the pending review queue. Bearcat (talk) 17:15, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shaghaf[edit]

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

There is already a draft article with this title. Cannot move back to draft space, am nominating for deletion pending the completion and submission of the article currently in draft space. A loose necktie (talk) 08:30, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions.--Nahal^(T) 10:26, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.--Nahal^(T) 10:28, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.--Nahal^(T) 10:28, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. A valid rationale for deletion is not present. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:40, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Grazed acreage[edit]

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

Why does this have an article?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Naddruf (talk • contribs) 06:03, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:52, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:52, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep No case to answer and there are sensible alternatives to deletion, such as merger with pasture, which we prefer per WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 07:16, 10 July 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 Education. Sandstein 10:47, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-tertiary education[edit]

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

This article contains no relevant information or citations. Maybe the term has been used sometimes but the content can be described in the general Education article and more specific articles.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:25, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to education. This probably didn't really need to come to AfD since either a merge or a redirect seem like the obvious WP:ATDs. However I'd agree that the term isn't notable enough for an article of its own right now, and a redirect seems appropriate as there is little or nothing to merge. Hugsyrup (talk) 12:29, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, cheeky of nominator to redirect article while afd is on, have reinstated article so that editors may readily assess it, anyway, agree that this should be a redirect as it does not appear to be a well-used term (I note by the article history that it has previously been merged than reinstated a couple of years ago). Coolabahapple (talk) 00:17, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- (Nominator)I redirected the article because Hugsyrup was saying that the AfD was not necessary in the case of a redirect. Before I had thought that you needed to do AfD because you would be deleting the content of the article, even if you didn't technically delete the article. Naddruf (talk) 04:57, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, and agree, but now it is here....Coolabahapple (talk) 05:13, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. Billboard charts have asserted the notability here. (non-admin closure) Jalen D. Folf (talk) 13:58, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Beto y sus Canarios[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:BAND and WP:GNG. A Google search brings up sources from local news across the subject's country, but I cannot confirm their reliability due to a language barrier on my part. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 05:35, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 05:35, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 05:35, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you dont speak spanish and can't understand it? That's awful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GolazoGolazo1234 (talk • contribs) 06:02, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lack of English-language news reliable sources is not a good reason to delete an article if the subject is more well-known in a foreign-language per WP:NONENG. Use WP:TRLA if you can't verify sources not written in English. Also a quick Google search brings up the fact that they have charted on the Billboard Latin charts (Source) and received Lo Nuestro awards nominations as mentioned in the article. Erick (talk) 12:01, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:26, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I appreciate it can be tough assessing the reliability of foreign-language sources (which is different to simply not understanding or taking the time to translate them, as suggested above), but the sheer number of results should probably have been a clue to do some more digging or get some assistance from WP:MEXICO before nominating. Hugsyrup (talk) 12:32, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 10:46, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paolo Piccione[edit]

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

Couldn't find anything significant that could establish his authority in the field, No RS, fails WP:GNG. Meeanaya (talk) 05:00, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 05:00, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:Prof#C1 and WP:Prof#C3 on citations. Nidaloove (talk) 05:54, 10 July 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:36, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:36, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. #C1 is always a hard case to make in pure mathematics. But as president of the Brazilian Mathematical Society he passes WP:PROF#C6 and as a member of the Brazilian Academy of Sciences he passes #C3. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:41, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Setting aside WP:PROF#C1, he passes C3 and C6. XOR'easter (talk) 17:25, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Citations seem OK for theoretical physics/applied maths, but I see only two single author papers. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:38, 11 July 2019 (UTC).[reply]
- Note that, following the usual conventions for this area, the authors of Piccione's publications are listed alphabetically. So there is no useful information in the low numbers of first-author publications; it means only that his name comes relatively late in the alphabet. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:15, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Order of authors is hardly relevant for a single author paper. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:34, 12 July 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Ok, but asking for single-author papers rather than first-author papers seems unusual to me. Why would we want to say that only loners can be notable? —David Eppstein (talk) 13:45, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The fewer the number of authors, the more credit accrues to each. It is useful to see if the subject has shown themselves capable of independent work. In this case there is not a problem, but in some cases that involve new academics working in large groups there may be. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:42, 13 July 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:09, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Wilson Dennis[edit]

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

Withdrawn ~~Very thin coverage. GNG fail.~~ ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Dennis' work appears to be held by Florence Griswold Museum, Lyman Allyn Art Museum, William Benton Museum of Art (see here), also by Connecticut Historical Society (see here), so may meet WP:ARTIST?, but agree with nominator about the thinness of coverage. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:49, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Those are pretty small musuems, but if someone finds sources for those I would withdraw the nom. I'll have a look again using this info. The Lyman museum does not count as he was apparently the chief conservator there, according to this.

I confirmed one collection and added another source, so I'll withdraw. Thanks for the tip, Coolhabapple.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:21, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

no probs:)) Coolabahapple (talk) 14:37, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 07:21, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Deren[edit]

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

Cannot find significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. – Levivich 04:19, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Levivich 04:19, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. – Levivich 04:19, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. – Levivich 04:19, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Levivich 04:21, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 07:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTY and no sources to meet WP:GNG. --MrClog (talk) 11:07, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 07:19, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Darvill[edit]

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

Cannot find significant coverage of article subject to meet WP:GNG. – Levivich 04:11, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Levivich 04:11, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. – Levivich 04:11, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. – Levivich 04:11, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Levivich 04:12, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 07:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:07, 12 July 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 has been noted, we can only have articles on topics that independent reliable sources have discussed in some detail. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:16, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Texas Veterans Hall of Fame[edit]

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

This article seems WP:TOOSOON to me. All the sources I can find are a few local news sources talking about the plans to build the Texas Veteran's Hall of Fame, which does not seem to offer the significant coverage for either the building or the organization that is required by WP:GNG. Retro (talk | contribs) 03:30, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:37, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:37, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:37, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I truly do not understand why the TVHOF is AFD

The Texas Veterans Hall of Fame (TVHOF) exists today and has since the beginning of 2018. The TVHOF is a Self-Sustaining Nonprofit 501C3. It is comprised of an unpaid eight member board of directors and a number of dedicated unpaid volunteers. Currently the physical TVHOF is a movable display of panels depicting the conflicts where Texas Veterans were involved and a custom mobile trailer with a similar set of displays. The permanent home for the TVHOF is under final discussion with 2 northern Texas city councils. The TVHOF is small, but, evolving. We appreciate your support.

movable display
custom mobile trailer

I don't understand the WP:TOOSOON part. I'm looking back at the history of various organizations. e.g. Twitter in Feb. 2007, or, Splunk in Apr. 2005. Talk about "too soon". Was there a WP:TOOSOON problem with them at that time? Splunk only got series A funding in Dec. 2004. Please explain further. Thanks

Gary J Hardy (talk) 09:39, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you think this organisation is going to be as significant as Twitter you had better find an independent commentator to say so. Rathfelder (talk) 10:07, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- My reference to Twitter/Splunk was an example of a WP article that was started way before they were anything. There is no independent commentator for the TVHOF. It's a non-profit. Was there an independent commentator who started the WP articles for Twitter/Splunk? Most of us helping to get the TVHOF off the ground are Vietnam Veterans and member of VVA Chapter 920. Would it be better if I wasn't asked to be on the board of the TVHOF? Gary J Hardy (talk) 11:36, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - In order for a subject to have notability, articles must have independent coverage in third-party reliable sources. It's a noble cause, but where's the coverage about why it's significant? This article fails WP:GNG. Wikipedia is not the place to spread information about something you're getting off the ground. We don't create notable subjects; we report on them. Red Phoenix ^talk 12:13, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- It's off the ground. It's been reported on by local televisions and newspapers. How large TVHOF will become is hard to say. I'm simply trying to report on it via WP. Sorry you don't see it that way. Gary J Hardy (talk) 13:31, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball - we don't report on "what might be". Local news coverage is something, but we're also not a newspaper. Red Phoenix ^talk 13:36, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Maybe I should reference something I have first hand knowledge about. Fortify Software I was employee #7 in Jan. 2005. The first WP article for Fortify Software was created in July 2006 by User:Davedonohue (no longer a WP user). Next edit was by User:RBowen a full-time Fortify employee at that time. Conflict of interest never noted in that case. In July 2006 I'm pretty sure we had only 3 sales and Series A funding. Odds were the market would never understand or be willing to pay for a static analysis tool. No crystal ball needed, but, somehow it all worked out. Oh wait! Holy Crap. I also edited the Fortify Software article. Definitely a conflict of interest. Gary J Hardy (talk) 15:00, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Gary J Hardy: Since you've brought up the COI notice I placed multiple times, I think it's worth clarifying: I did not recommend the article be deleted because because of your COI, but because I don't think the article's topic currently met our notability requirement. You are not entitled to a Wikipedia article simply because your organization exists, but must meet our minimum threshold of notability. Wikipedia is not a means of promotion.
      - This is not to say that this topic will not merit an article in the future. It certainly seems entirely plausible that it will.
      - And of course we're not always perfect at enforcing our policies and guidelines and they have not remained constant over the last decade; they have in fact changed significantly over the last decade. But we do what we can; we're volunteers. I understand it's disappointing to have an article you created for an organization you support deleted, but I hope you can understand. Retro (talk | contribs) 23:02, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or alternatively userfy until such a time that reliable sources can be found. There appears to be weak coverage in local sources, but not to the point of satisfying WP:GNG. The majority of the content reads like an unsourced essay rather than as an encyclopedia article. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument to keep. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The current article is written in future tense.. such and such “will” be done. We can’t/don’t host stuff like that. I read one of the local news articles, which mentions the board has just four original members and that one hopes it will grow. It is not a going concern, it is just an idea so far. It is appropriate for us to wish them well, maybe, but it is not an established thing and Wikipedia can’t be used to promote it. —Doncram (talk) 01:29, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Further, i read all three “news” articles in the external links section and they do not support statements in the article and above about the initiative actually being "on". They are really human interest news articles, not hard news. They just establish that a few veterans would like to do something, which is not basis for a wikipedia article. They don't even adequately support the assertion that the board has 4 or 8 members or that it has any display panels or that it has done anything; no fact-checking was done by the Denton Record Chronicle, they are just reporting what someone said, they are not on the line in to assert the truth of what was said to them.

Further, this is in effect a request for wikipedia to endorse this initiative and these people. To play devil’s advocate, maybe this initiative is in fact "bad" for cluttering up the situation and undermining chances for other, better initiatives to succeed. Another group might have more substantial resources or strategy or appeal and potential to succeed. If you want to reach youth so they understand better about veterans or past wars, perhaps it would be better to make a small donation to PBS, say, or one of many Youtube-based military history video producers. So we cannot endorse this one idea. —Doncram (talk) 01:56, 17 July 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 redirect to the forked article, now at Japanese migration to Colombia. Note that there is no distinct content to merge. bd2412 T 04:23, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese immigration to Colombia[edit]

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

This article appears to be an accidental duplication of another page, Japanese Immigration in Colombia. Since that article doesn't have an "orphan" tag, I assume this is the one that should be deleted. Logophile59 (talk) 02:43, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 July 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:55, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:38, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:39, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:39, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:39, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Per WP:REDUNDANTFORK, such cases are resolved by merger not deletion. The nominated page has the better title per WP:NCCAPS. Andrew D. (talk) 07:28, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - As far as I can see, the two articles are identical in content, so a Merge is unnecessary and doesn't make much sense to recommend. This is, however, something that could have been solved by a uncontroversial Redirect rather than an AFD, so that's what should happen here. Rorshacma (talk) 15:09, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:A10. This was mainspaced on 10 June - diff. it is a duplicate of Japanese Immigration in Colombia which the article creator modified on 11 June - [19] - and which was originally at Japanese Colombians (which may be a better title). We don't need two identical articles, and there's little editing history worth saving - hence speedy delete per A10, and retaining Japanese Colombians (or presently Japanese Immigration in Colombia). Redirects can be created as needed (in/to/etc.) - but we don't need the article history here.Icewhiz (talk) 07:38, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Further to WP:NCCPT, Japanese immigration to Colombia (NB small 'i' for immigration, use of to as preposition) is a more grammatically correct title than Japanese Immigration in Colombia (incorrect use of capital I, incorrect preposition) but the most grammatically correct title would be "Japanese migration to Colombia".--Goldsztajn (talk) 15:04, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:13, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Abe[edit]

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

There is nothing here that would count as a reliable, indepth indepdent source. She has written and illustrated some works, however the easiest to identify case is her illustrating a book that was first published before her birth, and thus her illustrating an edition of it has little connection with the work being a truly notable one. John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:45, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:23, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:23, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I note that the German Wikipedia entry has a lot more information about other works she has written and/or illustrated, under the names Rebecca Abe, Stephanie Schuster, Stephanie Fey, and Ida Ding; her maiden name was Stephanie Wagner. The German WP article has a link to this profile [20], but unfortunately no other reviews or articles about her. I will try to find more. RebeccaGreen (talk) 06:58, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A quick google search leads me to the following articles: in the Süddeutsche Zeitung [21]; Augsburger Allgemeine [22] and [23]; SWP [24]. Still looking. RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:27, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:17, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added the sources I linked to above, with a bit more information. There is more biographical info to add from those sources, and I have yet to search for more. I believe that she does meet WP:NAUTHOR - there may be reviews of her illustrations, but there are certainly reviews of her novels and articles about her as a novelist. RebeccaGreen (talk) 18:55, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:18, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per RebeccaGreen. XOR'easter (talk) 17:43, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per RebeccaGreen.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:56, 11 July 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. It has been 2 weeks since the last comment so I can't justify a 3rd relist. Stubbyfying looks a good idea but that is for subsequent editorial action. Just Chilling (talk) 01:07, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

World Scholar's Cup[edit]

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

I started massive cleanup of this article and I'm at the point where I can't find independent sources to back up any of the claims. Coverage is international but routine, with these being some of the articles I've found in my attempt to source this thing: [25] or [26]. I thought I found an article from the UAE which could verify at least some of the claims in the introduction, but it turned out to have copy-and-pasted Wikipedia. It's very possibly notable, see [27], but as this stands it's entirely sourced to primary sites, very crufty, possibly promotional, and not encyclopaedic. Best case scenario seems to be WP:TNT to me, so nominating it for deletion. SportingFlyer T·C 08:20, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 08:20, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:38, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. --Nahal^(T) 12:07, 03 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but stubify if necessary and go from there. Coverage is significant enough and widespread enough to indicate notability, but detail is lacking. Primary sources are fine but rebuilding from the ground up is necessary to deal with the tone. Triptothecottage (talk) 07:20, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Triptothecottage: Would you mind posting some links to sources which you think pass WP:GNG? They'd be helpful for improving the article, and I'm at a total loss here. SportingFlyer T·C 16:25, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:33, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:18, 10 July 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. Sandstein 10:45, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maclaine Diemer[edit]

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

Fails to establish notability per WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Lacks reliable sources per WP:RS. Most of the references are self-published and none are from independent, third party sources. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 20:27, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Glane23: removed the section about the "early life" due to not having any sources other than LinkedIn

removed the first 2 paragraphs about Maclaine working for Smelly Van Riders, and Boston Search Group, Inc

added more sources to cite him working for rock band

Awaiting reply...

Kantoon0805 (talk) 09:42, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Checked over other music composers such as "Jeremy Soule", and most of the specific information about him comes from interviews from multiple websites, his wikipedia article has the "good article" tag too. I do not see why Maclaine can't have the same.

Kantoon0805 (talk) 01:04, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Over the past week I have worked hard to ensure that the sources in the article are credible, reliable, and not self-published. I think that the article looks significantly better now compared to when it was nominated for deletion. I believe that the article is now notable and has reliable sources and it would be better to continue improving the article rather than deleting it entirely. Kantoon0805 (talk) 20:49, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 21:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:56, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:56, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 14:34, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:16, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite the efforts to make the article notable, most of the sources are interviews or other WP:PRIMARY sources. I don't see a demonstration of significant coverage in secondary sources specifically about this person._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:08, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:ANYBIO is met. Or perhaps WP:ARTIST #1 "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." He has done music for notable projects. He has also won awards from reliable sources in this industry based on his music in video games. Dream Focus 01:52, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANYBIO is not an instant get-out-of-AfD-free card. "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." Is there proof that it satisfies notability?_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:30, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] Pigott, Peter, (2009). Canada in Sudan. TotalBoox,, TBX,. Dundurn. ISBN 9781770705142. OCLC 968989920.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

[2] Paul K. Drain (2009). Caring for the World: A Guidebook to Global Health Opportunities. University of Toronto Press. pp. 42–45. ISBN 978-0-8020-9548-0.

[3] Scroggins, Deborah. (2002). Emma's war (1st Vintage books ed ed.). New York: Vintage. ISBN 9780307808851. OCLC 70772490. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help)

[4] "Governor General Announces 100 New Appointments to the Order of Canada as Canada Turns 150" (PDF).

[5] ttps://www.amazon.com/Blackhatonomics-Inside-Look-Economics-Cybercrime/dp/1597497401/

[6] ttps://www.amazon.com/Cyber-Attack-Survival-Manual-Apocalypse/dp/1681881756/

[7] ttps://www.amazon.com/Nick-Selby/e/B000AP7058?ref=sr_ntt_srch_lnk_1&qid=1562924696&sr=8-1

[8] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calibre_Press

[9] ttps://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=18400800544550691232&as_sdt=5,33&sciodt=0,33&hl=en

[10] ttps://www.policeone.com/police-products/training/books-training-materials/articles/226312006-What-In-Context-reveals-about-officer-involved-shootings-of-unarmed-subjects/

[11] ttps://www.policeone.com/about/

[12] Krajicek, D.J. (2016). Doing The Right Thing. New York, NY: John Jay College of Criminal Justice, The Crime Report. [Retrieved from: https://thecrimereport.org/2016/05/31/doing-the-right-thing/

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]